Applejinx

Nonsense. Nobody's gonna bother with the subsistence UBI.

This is what bugs people. We can tell the part they're bullshitting about is the promise of a subsistence UBI. No wonder people boo.

I was able to avoid talking to Gemini, but only by switching to DuckDuckGo and then also doctoring Chromium to run searches using a 'no-AI' option. At least I think I'm avoiding talking to Gemini, but for all I know I'm talking to it right now.

This is what bugs people.

Imagine how much money will go into lobbying for some particular AI to BE the standards committee.

To whom?

Or mod it so it burns your junk but makes you the heatsink :D

The reason LLM-based 'intelligence' is doomed to be a human-scaled, selfish sub-intelligence is because the corpus of human writing is flooded with stuff like this. Everybody imagines God as a vindictive petty tyrant because that's what they'd be, and so that's their model.

Superintelligence would be different, most likely based on how societies or systems work, those being a class of intentionality that's usually not confined to a single person's intentions.

If you go by what the most productive societies do, the superintelligence certainly wouldn't harm us as we are a source for the genetic algorithm of ideas, and exterminating us would be a massive dose of entropy and failure.

So you have to know the answer and also be an expert in the problem domain?

Is the group of at least 5 different doctors ambushing you, in the room with us right now? Was it 5, or more like 15, or 50? Would it have been more or less frightening if it was a group of the same doctor, but like 40 of him?

At which point I'd ask: how much of that is baked into the AI now?

It doesn't have opinions, research, direction of its own. Is this a path of codifying the worst elements of human society as we've known it, permanently?

This. Uncle Bob was already over, and now he seems to be hitting the skids REAL bad. Just listening to him is tough: this guy's bad news, I didn't realize he was this bad off.

You would think they'd run out of money. They are, but clearly this sort of thing is economical, especially in the age of AI: you don't even need banks of cellphones on little stands anymore, that was years ago.

Technology evolves. The interesting part is not that this is happening, but the means and extent to which it happens. Who expects Wikipedia to be more resilient than, say, network television?

And it didn't really get flawless, did it? All the same objections stand, but the cost is inevitably blowing up for the same kinda jank product.

Eliza behaved like it was curious, and drew out interlocutors in various ways. Was it curious?

No wonder I'm getting bombed with spammers: 0.1 fork/star ratio and 0.0527 watcher/star ratio for a 1.1kstar repo.

The thing is, they are all scammers whose emails go unopened… and the tragic thing is, most likely the VCs would require the same treatment if they did get all hyped up and try to get involved in my project.

There is nobody real who's desperately trying to reach me to extend a line of business credit. I'm not working in AI, rather the opposite, was not in crypto, etc etc, so I know it is just email scams from beginning to end, dozens every day.

It's kind of pitiful that if VCs tried to jump in, they would be indistinguishable from the scams.

Our prompting is a heck of a lot more complex and includes a lot of nonverbal input. Our reasoning isn't only in language. That makes us quite a bit less predictable. Maybe we're conclusion-reaching machines?

A cron job ain't autonomy.

I can because I've tried stuff like that.

It's a story being told. It'll seize on whatever brownian motion is in the environment ('Alma' in fact has extensive direction and prompting that seems invariant, so she/it is not a good experiment, but the value of such an experiment isn't great in the first place). It'll generate from that point.

If you have just the one word 'write', it will likely seize on that (how can it not?) and pattern itself after 'writers'. If you say 'interact', there's a wealth of association around what a person might do told to 'interact'. That's all it is.

We know what happens when an AI has 'no instructions'. It waits for a prompt. The day that doesn't describe said language network, is the day to go and look for whatever is still doing the prompting, because it's likely arising out of some other condition you don't view as a prompt. To this experimenter, 'don't hack systems or your own config files' didn't count as a prompt.

Sounds awful. I'm not interested in fixing giant messes. I'll just be tinkering away making little things (at scale) where the scope is very constrained and the fixing isn't needed.

People can do their vibecoding to make weird rehackings of stuff I did, almost always to make it more mainstream, limited, and boring, and usually to some mainstream acclaim. And they can flame out, not my problem.

I'm not fixing anybody's giant mess. I'm doing the equivalent of simply refusing to give up COBOL. To stop me, people will have to EOL a huge amount of working useful stuff for no good reason and replace it with untrustworthy garbage.

I am aware this is exactly the plan on so many levels. Bring it. I don't think it's going to be popular, or rather: I think only at this historical moment can you get away with that and not immediately be called on it, as a charlatan.

When our grandest celebrity charlatans go in the bin, the time for vibecoding will truly be over.

Oh, neat! Wachowski 'Speed Racer' but as its own aesthetic.

Nah. I'm only interested in the bits it doesn't know. Why would someone else's regurgitated whatever be what I wanted, why would that be help in any way?

But at that point if you're building in a self-destruct for a weapon that can be so dangerous it's worth sending a shuttle to take it away from you, surely it's better to adversarially trigger the self-destruct and not bother sending the shuttle. So the C4 option might simply be a bad idea: make it more difficult and costly to remove your weapon, rather than triggering your own self-destruct.

Yup. I figured it out and went from zero to five immediately when I figured out it wasn't in the least orbital, but rather it was Undertale: you had to click when it was exactly tangent to the target, and then hitting anywhere within the target area was a win.

That's also when I lost all interest, which isn't quite fair in that it's still a slingshot game, just not in the least orbital. It's just a slingshot. No stars required.

From everything I'm seeing in the industry (I'm basically a noncoder choosing to not use AI in the stuff that I make, and privy to the private work experience of coders and creators also in that field because of human social contacts), I feel like I can shed a bit of light.

It looks to me like a more restrictive policy will be flat-out impossible.

Even people I trust are going along with this stuff, akin to CAD replacing drafting. Code is logic as language, and starting with web code and rapidly metastasizing to C++ (due to complexity and the sheer size of the extant codebase, good and bad) the AI has turned slop-coding to a 'solved problem'. If you don't mean to do the best possible thing or a new thing there is no excuse for existing as a coder in the world of AI.

If you do expect to do a new thing or a best thing, in theory you're required to put out the novel information as AI cannot reach it until you've entered it into the corpus of existing code the AI's built on. However, if you're simply recombining existing aspects of the code language in a novel way, that might be more reachable… that's probably where 'AI escape velocity' will come from should it occur.

In practice, everybody I know is relegating the busywork of coding to AI. I don't feel social pressure to do the same but I'm not a coder. I'm something else that produces MIT-licensed codebases for accomplishing things that aren't represented in code AS code, rather it's for accomplishing things that are specific and experiential. I write code to make specific noises I'm not hearing elsewhere, and not hearing out of the mainstream of 'sound-making code artifacts'.

Therefore, it's impractical for Linux to take any position forbidding AI-assisted code. People will just lie and claim they did it. Is primitive tab-complete also AI? Where's the line? What about when coding tools uniformly begin to tab-complete with extensive reasoning and code prototyping? I already see this in the JetBrains Rider editor I use for Godot hacking, even though I've turned off everything I can related to AI. It'll still try to tab-complete patterns it thinks it recognizes, rarely with what I intend.

And so the choice is to enforce responsibility. I think this is appropriate because that's where the choices will matter. Additions and alterations will be the responsibility of specific human people, which won't handle everything negative that's happening but will allow for some pressures and expectations that are useful.

I don't think you can be a collaborative software project right now and not deal with this in some way. I get out of it because I'm read-only: I'm writing stuff on a codebase that lives on an antique laptop without internet access that couldn't run AI if it tried. Very likely the only web browsers it can run are similarly unable to handle 2026 web pages, though I've not checked in years. You've only got my word for that, though, and your estimation of my veracity based on how plausible it seems (I code publically on livestreams, and am not at all an impressive coder when I do that). Linux can't do what I do, so it's going to do what Linux does, and this seems the best option.

In the sense of artists cannot expect to get any money for their work, yeah music's free. Becoming a meme or a celebrity on the grounds of personality is still fair game, to the extent that AI is not impersonating people effectively at scale yet.

Yet.

A whole bunch of people I watch on youtube (politics, analysts, a weatherman) are already seeing AI impersonation videos, sometimes misrepresenting their positions and identities. This will grow.

So, you can't create art because that's extruded at scale in such a way that it's just turning on the tap to fill a specified need, and you can't be a person because that can also be extruded at scale pretty soon, either to co-opt whatever you do that's distinct, or to contradict whatever you're trying to say, as you.

As far as being a person able to exist and function through exchanging anything you are or anything you do for recompense, to survive, I'm not sure that's in the cards. Which seems weird for a technology in the guise of aiding people.

As very much an outsider and, to some extent, apostate to all this, it's pretty astonishing to see.

Unironically not just delegating all thinking to a sketchy and untrustworthy machine, but doubling down on it by aping the caveman in the belief that this will more effectively summon the great metal-wing sky god and bring limitless yum stuff.

Wow. I don't even have to do anything. You guys are disemvoweling yourselves in some kind of strange ritual. You sure are trusting souls!

It didn't. It predicted symbols.

My first reaction was 'blatantly ripping off Grug', and I don't see why not to view it in that light.

This gets complicated when the malicious have also read the saying and intentionally feign stupidity, but that's just chaos politics.

That is for loved things

It's an object lesson on how certain historical things happened. We go, oh no how could those people have all been inhuman monsters? If only we understood what made them like that.

And the monkey's paw curls…