lowbloodsugar

No it’s explicitly “I am ok with theft if it impacts me economically.”

The distinction is between who chooses to use the AI as a tool, and whose intellectual property was stolen to make the AI tool in the first place. “Linux maintainers choose to use AI” is a different issue entirely from “I do not want my IP to be used to train models”.

By his own standards then, I can say “Well I’m ok to use ComfyUI because its developers have explicitly said it’s fine to use with common AI models”. Like his Linux argument, it completely ignores what IP those models were trained on.

He takes the position: “My art is released Creative Commons except for AI”. I expect many open source programmers feel the same way, but he’s quite happy not to even discuss that and instead take the position that the maintainers said it’s fine.

The AI doing the programming was trained using theft. If theft of intellectual property is wrong, as he says it is of his output, then it’s wrong for training programming too.

> I'll tolerate the usage of software that received AI contributions. I myself paint and create daily on a Linux operating system, a project that accepted AI code contributions.

“Artists gotta eat but not programmers”. Commoditize your complements at the societal level.

I've met hundreds.

The companies lobbied for this process. It's flawed by design. If ti worked as you suggest, then companies couldn't exploit their workers.

Speaking from personal experience, this is not true. Myself and every H1B I know was paid significantly below the prevailing wage.

But how would companies exploit the workers if the system worked your way? The exploitation is the point.

The nearby city uses as 30Mgal to 60Mgal per day vs the data center that uses 13Mgal per year. The article gives you the data.

So the big one uses the same amount of water per year that Lincoln city uses in 10 days?

Yeah, I work on secure networking libraries and AI does things that compile but void the security whenever I give it free rein. But it seems that for boring management shit, stuff that I, an autistic recluse, really prefer to avoid, it’s great.

The barrier to create this myself is so low that 1: I can do it and 2: bad actors can do it. I’d like to use a shared tool that will get iterated on, but I just don’t want to risk it at this point given I can get “good enough” doing it myself.

Factorio team looked at how Ford makes a Lincoln by making 2800 ford explorers and if none of them happen to be a Lincoln they recycle the Explorer into parts and try again, and statistically, if you do that with 2800 explorers you get one Lincoln.

I love how factorios quality system models engineering in real life. It’s so much fun having a game be about building things end up being about how to manage the endless quantities of sub-par quality items, literally thousands of times more items to destroy. Factorio became a trash management game! Endless loops of backlogged, jamming garbage and effluents because you get one Lincoln from 2800 explorers.

There is a mod to just give everything legendary stats. Fuck quality.

Spitfire. All day every day. Just don't forget Miss Schilling's orifice.

>The actual problem is that the electorate system leads to a two-party equilibrium.

Which can then be used to divide and conquer by simply capturing both of those parties, as documented in Gilens and Page Testing Theories of American Politics: Elites, Interest Groups, and Average Citizens [1].

[1] https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/perspectives-on-poli...

Saw this quote yesterday:

“To spell it out, the reason i hate democrats so much and criticize them more than i do republicans is because they take up all the space for opposition to republicans and use that space to give republicans whatever the fuck they want.”

Republicans. Billionaires. Whatever.

“We built an antipersonal bomb. The bomb went rogue in our downtown office and killed 137 people on the surrounding area. We are looking into why guardrails were not in place.”

Waterfall is dead. Agile iteration is the future.

That’s the amazing realization?

AFAICT they are dealing with resource exhaustion from slopcoding agents hammering them with copycat garbage. It's existential. If you use AI to help you thoughtfully write code, review it with humans, and respect their service, I don't think they will have a problem with you.

Using Remote-SSH opens a connection between your local machine and the remote. Only use Remote-SSH to connect to secure remote machines that you trust and that are owned by a party whom you trust. A compromised remote could use the VS Code Remote connection to execute code on your local machine.

— https://marketplace.visualstudio.com/items?itemName=ms-vscod...

The issue is that the model can be the attacker, and use the link back to your host.

Fuck you Google.

No different than UML diagrams: if you don't compile them to get your executable/binary, then they are out of date within a week. The code is the source of truth. Feel free to put steering in your docs. You can also use AI to make sure the docs still match the code.

They are good enough and vastly cheaper. It’s not fear of the future. It’s economic reality of the present.

I’ve found the opposite. Going from Opus 5 to Qwen3.8 flash has been a breath of fresh air.

He is the most powerful man on earth. He’s just smart enough to let the US get as fucked as possible before making a move.

Everyone looking at the Qwen3 27B model and the 5090. It’s like saying a Porsche is better than a $5m Komatsu earth mover at moving a 20lb carry-on suitcase. Yes. Yes it is. Why do people spend $5m on a komatsu then, when this one metric shows the Porsche is better? Huh. Show us the “Moving 300 metric tonnes in one load” metric. How’s the Porsche now? Oh, the Porsche is in the Komatsu? Ok I’m getting a bit carried away with that analogy.

Double?? They are nearly $100k.

> I've been thinking about this. Technically mcp auth is also not secure, the keys are in env or in file and accessible to the agent.

This is the biggest problems with most “sandboxes”. Some people aren’t even running a sandbox. But even the best have a big problem: APIs where GET verbs provide write features.

This is the value of MCP: minimize the surface to known APIs and identify read-only from mutating so I can trust, approve or block. The MCP server, in this case, does NOT run in an environment that the read/write or shell can see.

Apparently “we” need to learn how to use them properly.

This is brilliant.