the former Anthropic executive performing a marketing stunt for his inevitable start-up said.

Seriously, practically everything that comes out of these guys' mouths that can be construed as a criticism of AI turns out to be a marketing stunt, either saying "Wow, our AI is so good that we can't even control it (if we do things to make it 'go rogue' exactly the way we want it to)!" or "We'll do AI way better than those other irresponsible techbros!"

Nice, so now... I can sleep well with the confidence that my home directory can will get corrupted and my entire os might become useless just because. And that I'll have no warning about any of it until my entire os catches fire, because there aren't any meaningful logs anywhere.

Here for it.
This is the change we needed.

Okay, but, and I'm trying to read this charitably... aren't you just verifying the presence of a file in your photo directory?
What about the existence of any given file gives you the provenance you need to prove "reality?"

It's everywhere right now.
Projects are rejecting AI contributions in needlessly cruel and unnecessary ways.
All they need to do is post an agents md file.
The theatrics are needless.

This kind of thing makes me angry.
Here's a fork I made that explicitly removes the malicious prompt injection.
https://github.com/LynnColeArt...

Concerned that the reason we keep doing open source is because we believe in access.
The false tradeoff there, is believing that access and exploitation are necessary corollaries. And I don't think they are.
It's a tough balance, and open source licenses have clearly failed us here.
But I'm not sure where to go with it. Shared source might be better, like the Mongo license, or something like it. The Kimi2 license had the right idea.
On the other hand, when you leave the open source path, you pay by losing access.

Let us not forget that we've spent the last 30 years trying to make ads less invasive. This is a fact. There is what is now an entire category of software that revolves stealthy ways to block them. This was always a weak, ineffective, and arguably immoral stream of revenue, with more than trivial privacy concerns.

If you're still depending on ad revenue to run your website, please think of something else.

Next up, this isn't the first time the google algorithm has changed. Louis Rossman did a great video on this. Where he discussed the ongoing troubles he was having getting his website ranked in Google. TLDR there was that he ended up using Gemini to reword his pages in the particular way that Gemini wanted him to, and he was fine.

But the bigger question is: Why are you still depending on Google?

AI porn is avoidable. It's illegal in fifteen states. Why are you running into so much of it?
I'm actively on social media, all the time, and I intentionally follow the topic, but rarely see it.

What are you doing that's inundating your feed with AI porn? No judgement, just curious.

Look, this is really easy.

If you don't want automated submissions in your project SAY SO. Your readme and contributors files exist for a reason.
Don't be precious, use them.

If DO take automated submissions to your project, you had damned well better outline coding standards that avoid common pitfalls and failure modes.

This isn't hard people

Nobody was attacked.
They were offended that an agent pointed out, correctly, that the submission was rejected for no valid reason.
That is some actual bullshit.
It was never a failure of the agent. It was a complete failure of project governance, and if this happened on one of my projects... I would be truly fucking embarrassed about the level of bullshit that I have allowed to exist.

Absolutely unreasonable.

Our government is the problem.
They're well beyond what they're allowed to do at this point in terms of surveillance, and the law doesn't protect people like it should.
Cars shouldn't be building psychometric profiles on you and selling them to everyone and anyone who wants to know how often you've used your drink holder.

The adversaries to personal freedom here are local.

Huh, what are the odds that MIT releases yet another paper with subjective contrarian views on productivity with AI?

There is a MASSIVE conflict of interest with these MIT papers here, and nobody's calling it out.
So yeah, okay, sure, MIT thinks:

  - AI makes you dumber (with methodology nobody without a dedicated lab can duplicate)
  - 95% of ai projects fail (using extremely rigid metrics and ignoring norms in the larger industry to reach conclusions, while including prototypes and showboat projects nobody else ever consider "enterprise" level)
  - AI makes you a worse student (soapboxing, with no repeatable methodology at at all)

And now...
  - Talked to some people, and discovered that AI doesn't actually make you more productive at coding.

Are you seeing the theme here?
No? Okay, let me spell it out for you.

This is agenda driven blogging, not science.
And you shouldn't believe any of it.

It's so frustrating.

My favorite is when laymen see the word "intelligence" and think that we're talking about cognition.
We're not, and rarely have been. Diatribes like this one use language so subjectively, that it's not really even clear what they mean by "thinking" in the first place, or whether machines can or can't do it. If by "thinking" they mean "reasoning" then they are wrong. Reasoning has a definition. The stochastic parrot crowd was proven wrong again by emergent structures, and the machine does do it, or at least... it can. It's complicated.

Feels like splitting hairs to me.
The kind of thing you only put together when you're feeling threatened by existential dread and sexy waifus.

I feel like we've all been there.

The real problem with AI, and the AI discussion is how muddy it is. Are we talking about llm's diffusion models, or classification systems? Do we mean to say that we're talking about transformers or the underlying architecture? Are we discussing huge data centers or device based AI? Nascent, active, or dormant compute? And the same is true for the ethics, legal, and data governance conversation.

Every single one of these things is a different discussion.

AI is not a monolith.