bogwog

> AIs make short work of proprietary code as well. Reverse engineering has become trivial. Not releasing any code whatsoever is the only possible defense now. I've made my peace with that.

This is a false equivalence. Reverse engineering my binary is not the same thing as training on my code. When you RE a binary, what comes out the other side is not the code that I wrote, its some machine-generated code that can reproduce the behavior of the binary. The result can't even be described as 'similar' to the original, because the compilation process is pretty much 100% lossy.

Reverse engineering my binary doesn't concern me too much, as I'm sure there are legal avenues I could take to protect my business were it to become a real problem. And if it comes down it, there's zero competitive advantage someone would have in that scenario, as all they'd have is undifferentiated AI slop.

Taking my work, putting it into your commercial product, and selling it without my permission is what I have a problem with. That's exactly what AI companies are doing with very little push back, and why I won't release my hand-written human code anymore.

> I also don't feel any sense of accomplishment anymore. Software is so trivial now. Even if I make some unique thing, others can just have an AI copy it. Nothing is special anymore. Feels like there's no point.

Software is certainly not 'trivial' now. The only people who believe this are those that have gotten caught up in the AI marketing blitz, or have completely detached/warped perspective on software. I.e. non-engineers wowed by novelty, finance execs wowed by the idea of being able to fire a bunch of people, or oligarchs wowed by the idea of being able to monopolize an entire industry.

> why bother to create new, free materials on the internet when it will just get scooped up by an LLM with no attribution to me

Can confirm. I've personally stopped releasing new open source code, and stopped contributing to projects.

Until copyright laws are updated to protect my work from being stolen and my labor exploited by AI companies, there's zero incentive for me to participate in open source.

Even OSI's cuck licenses are being cucked beyond reason. I didn't think that was possible.

> What sort of human element is desired here?

The human wallet

I was with you until this.

> I use LLMs to fill code after I make all hard architectural decisions because they type faster than me, and I'd rather spend my time doing useful experiments than typing trivial functions, even though I could.

Are you being facetious? Because I've seen some bad takes from people trying to justify their AI coding practices, but this is the first one that actually made me laugh. It's clear that this public attack has you in a defensive mental state (which is perfectly understandable), so giving you the benefit of the doubt, I won't pile on and take everything you're posting too seriously.

However, I gotta point out how ridiculous this statement is, because it's the kind of thing that'd make me wonder if someone has any programming experience at all. Typing speed is not, never has been, and never will be a limiting factor in software development. "I didn't do <X> because of <reason> even though I totally could" is a pathetic cope.

It kinda reminds me of a recent post from John Carmack where he said (paraphrasing) that he originally wanted to release Idtech to the public domain as a "gift to the world", but couldn't do it because of his pesky business partners, but he totally would've done it. Let's just ignore the part of the story where he became filthy rich from licensing his software, and focus on how good it will feel to call it a "gift to the world" when an AI company integrates your code into their commercial products without licensing it from you.

> There is some chatter about using the expansion port to add a 3rd party colour camera to get over this, but I wouldn't hold my breath for it.

The official product page above has a link to one you can already preorder: https://arcturus.vision/

Whataboutism is what's known as a "fallacy" in debate. Wikipedia has a nice list here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_fallacies

Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it's "nonsensical and incoherent"

It should be illegal to publish AI horrors like this: https://vester.si/bodily-oddities/oddities/gleeking/

Life in prison (at least)

But more on topic, this site is a cool idea but with the lamest execution ever. Whatever effort you might have put into collecting these phenomenon is overshadowed by the lazy AI slop. It doesn't seem like you're earning anything from this, so you just donated money to Anthropic/OpenAI/whatever in order to underwhelm/revolt/possibly-mislead some people. You could've done that with a simple goatse link for free.

> doesn't make business sense to put a lot of resources into cleaning up ads that pay google nothing

If we lived in a sane world, Google would be held accountable for every scam they advertise. It doesn't matter if you think someone deserved to get scammed for using an ad blocker, because they never would have been scammed if Google didn't choose to put them in danger for the sake of profit.

"But they can't possibly review every ad before publishing" they say. If that's the case, then they should scale down the amount of ads they allow until it reaches a manageable scale (eg every single ad can be reviewed by a human employee). They might make less money, but it's an expectation we have of nearly all industries (eg commercial truck drivers have to follow extra restrictions in addition to regular speed limits)

Have you heard of Amazon Sidewalk (https://sidewalk.amazon/)? All those Rings and Alexas in your neighborhood are able to serve as network proxies for random IoT devices.

LG very likely has your neighbor's WiFi password, so even if you don't connect it to your own network, they could theoretically just try and connect to any known network nearby. No 5g modem needed.

Idk if they do that, but it doesn't seem complicated to implement, and it doesn't seem to fall outside of the company's ethical boundaries.

> redirect this tendency that is weaponized against us towards something constructive

Who is "weaponizing" it against you, and how?

> I failed to understand something, but it's everyone else's fault

There's no simple universal roadmap for becoming competent. You just need to grind out whatever skill you're trying to master as much as possible. 10000 hours is the common number thrown around, but plenty of programmers have been doing it for more than that and can't even tell you how an emulator is supposed to work.

So to answer your question: work longer and harder than the people who don't know how to write a PS3 emulator (especially those who think they can take a shortcut with AI)

The situation here isn't that the game doesn't work. It does work, it's just the Ubisoft isn't happy with the quality of Easy Anti Cheat's (their third party anti cheat provider) Linux offering.

Copyright has nothing to do with cost of production. What does it cost for me to doodle something on a napkin? Nothing, yet I still enjoy the full protections copyright law offers for that doodle (with the exception today being AI companies. Apparently, they can do whatever the fuck they want with it)

Guess it's time to stop donating to the EFF. They're completely off the mark this time.

The random loser generating slop in his bedroom isn't necessarily the one infringing, it's the AI company that took all of our work and is reselling it that is infringing. This is an obvious blind spot in copyright law and no reasonable person would consider that to be fair use. The challenge I think is communicating to a layman how AI training works.

For the people currently in the grips of AI psychosis: new regulation here is good for AI too. AI models will not get more creative without new human training data, but the current exploitative situation means people are not incentivized to keep creating. Human artists who create new things should be rewarded by the market, as copyright law intended. Even if their work only ever ends up feeding some gen AI model, they should still be entitled to compensation in some way (eg royalties). They worked hard so that you don't have to.™

Instead, AI companies are the ones being rewarded for it. That's not sustainable for anyone.

Sorry, I forgot this was HN and wasn't obnoxious enough in my reply.

The original question was:

> Would Chrome, Android, and YouTube be viable companies without the money-printing engine that is Google’s ad business?

Please take note of the absence of the word "standalone" in that quote.

My response to the response to my response (henceforth responses['bogwog'][1]) was thus:

> Why does 'Chrome' need to survive as a standalone company? ...

Please note the truthiness of `'standlone' in responses['bogwog'][1]`

From this evidence we can surmise that my point was 'Chrome' the non-business can't survive as an independent business, because Chrome is not a business. Likewise, the 'Complimentary Cheez-Its' you get on an airplane can't survive as an independent business were we to break up the airline, as 'Complimentary Cheez-Its' isn't a business.

But can Chrome the project survive without Google? I say yes, just like Cheez-Its can survive without being complimentary additions to overpriced flights. For why I think that, please refer to my other comment in this thread.

Thank you.

Why does 'Chrome' need to survive as a standalone company? It never had a business model besides "support Google's monopolies", so it shouldn't survive (IMO). Lots of browser vendors already use Chrome's open source codebase, so those orgs can fork it, or they can collectively come together to fund development, or apply for government grants or something.

I think that Chrome development team members will have plenty of new job and business opportunities available to them if this ever happens. New markets will open up for browser tech that didn't exist before, and I think everyone will come out winning in the end, even users who would never even consider paying money for a web browser.

> Would Chrome, Android, and YouTube be viable companies without the money-printing engine that is Google’s ad business?

Short answer? Yes. Long answer? Definitely.

> I wonder whether a good balance could be struck between great services like these versus how they actually make money.

I see you have an unconventional definition of the word "great". I'll take that to mean you're an outside-the-box thinker, so you're in a good position to understand that a break up of Google would radically change all the markets they're dominant in.

If Android 'dies' post-breakup, that would leave a gaping hole in the economy. iOS might fill it, but regulators would need to break them up too. Say iOS 'dies' too, would we all collectively just stop using smartphones? Obviously not. Entrepreneurs who can see opportunity will raise money and hire the right people to build a new OS, foundations will apply for grants to maintain Android or iOS forks, industry standards will form to improve interop and reduce development costs, etc. The sky's the limit!

Why would you be "torn" on this? Competition breeds innovation, and monopolies are literally the opposite of competition. A break up of big tech doesn't destroy anything or reduce economic activity, it can only accelerate it.

America is totally fucked if we keep betting it all on these monopolies. China figured out that competition is the key to winning, and is why their AI companies have been able to catch up so quickly despite all the sanctions.

> I'm unsure what the polymarket on this post is will be flagged. It's kind of surprising for HN to be so educated but not know (academic) international relations Realism.

I have no idea what you're trying to say here. Are you placing degenerate bets on HN threads? Also the second sentence is unrelated, so now I'm wondering if you're a bot.

Watching a 2 hour movie is perceived as difficult?

> I'm fine not having the same attention span as people who had to less stuff to do hundreds of years ago.

Maybe, if we're really generous, there's a reasonable version of this argument that you've failed to adequately communicate here... But it really seems like you're trying to say that a short attention span is a good sign of progress, or something?

I know HN and SV in general has a culty addiction to contrarianism, and it rarely elicits more than an eye roll from me. Framing a short attention span as anything other than a bad thing is wild to me, and I honestly don't know how to respond to something like that (or if my sarcasm detector is off). Do we need scientific studies to show that goldfish brain == bad?

Codeberg for open source and Forgejo for private (and slop, if you're into that kind of thing) is what winners do

Extremely yes

It's always fun to see the people throwing fits over this kind of thing. No matter what approach/wording they use, and no matter how hard I try to give them the benefit of the doubt, the mental images my mind forms of these people is always entertaining.

Ofc, it's less fun to accept that many of them are probably bots, but whatever.

Honestly I think I'd have an easier time understanding 1000s of lines of slop than 93 lines of proofs lol.

Does anyone have any recommended learning resources for this type of thing? Skimming the repo, it looks like a lot of unicode and math terminology, but this project seems really compelling to me.

This would probably be more effective (and controversial) if the reports included the linkedin profiles of the recruiters/employees involved in the ghosting.

I can imagine a lot of situations where it'd be unfair, so maybe giving them an opportunity to explain their side before it goes up might be important... but also fuck you if you ghost someone trying to find a job.

Don't anthropomorphize Larry Ellison.

I see two options:

1. The AI they used called it "physics-based" as a hallucination (probably due to the popular "JellyCar" game), and they went with it because they don't know better.

2. They don't know better, so they asked the AI for a "physics based" system, and the AI was too sycophantic to correct them.

Either way, it's slop.

They already have Open GoPro: https://gopro.com/en/us/info/open-gopro

Idk if the firmware is open source, but there's a whole SDK you can use to implement stuff like that

> I wrote my own

I see the growing trend of words losing all meaning is still going strong in 2026. I wonder what human communication will look like in the near future?

Yup, and don't even get me started about what they're doing to the frogs!!!!11 (hint: it's very s*nful)