jraph
Marketing for OpenAI. When it comes from one of the best-known mathematicians, it must be quite efficient.
btw,
> This blog post was initially written in a different file format and converted using AI.
Why even mention this? And you don't really need an LLM to convert between file formats, there are dedicated tools that work well for this. Especially for a text that's essentially unformatted, a copy paste and a few searches & replaces will probably be faster.
Acknowledgement: a few fingers were used to type this comment. Possibly a couple of organic neurons. No AI whatsoever, except maybe in cited text.
I'm tired, boss.
Quite unlike a compiler. I don't know about yours, but nobody destroyed thousands of books, started gas powerplants or illegally cut hundreds of thousands of trees to make mine.
Talk about ostrich-like denial of reality.
Can you just guys go vibecoding and stop trying to convince us or yourselves?
Is it the $3B anthropic pretends to spend on marketing doing its job?
The huge environmental and societal cost of LLMs, maybe?
Why do these questions implying writing code is a thing of the past keep coming?
Anthropic pretend in their S1 filling that they spend $3B in marketing, there's no need to help them really.
I guess they didn't do so for Molly. I suppose a lot of water has passed under the bridge.
They can give you the right to reuse their source code for building your own service using your own network (an aspire to give you this right), but still forbid you to connect to their service on their network with third party clients.
In practice, they don't seem to enforce that a lot (anymore).
I think what Linus is against in the GPLv3 is mostly the anti-tivoisation mechanisms. He wants tivoisation as a feature for the Linux kernel.
People behind GenAI are fascists: for some it's obvious by now I hope (trump, elon musk). They are otherwise techbros who seek power and control other the world, and it doesn't matter if it causes harm [1] or a major economical crisis.
This thing has been brutally imposed onto us quickly and without debate, even if its explicit aim is to replace us. (The idea itself of being thrilled to design a system aiming at replacing human intelligence is a bit disgusting - with a very costly stochastic text generator no less! And the push to anthropolomorphize it is also disgusting).
LLM benchmarks are all rooted in eugenist (thus racist) pseudo science to measure intelligence, which of course biases them all towards these theories.
These tools of control are everywhere in all the aspects of our lives (work, culture, measure, institutions), which is another aspect of fascism.
They are built and run without care for the environment, pushing huge off-grid datacenters [2] when the people mostly don't want them, sometimes illegally cutting trees [3]. They are built stealing the work of everyone without our conscent, they hammer websites which incurs cost on the whole web only to sell it back to us through costly subscriptions (see also the ai tag jwz's blog, which I won't link from here).
Every aspect of GenAI is fascist. I wish it was hyperbole. I wish it was ridiculous.
[1] https://www.businessinsider.com/sam-altman-says-ai-benefits-...
[2] https://www.theclimatebrink.com/p/off-grid-data-centers-have...
[3] https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2026/...
It is unfair to expect me to back my claims against unsubstituted, obviously wrong insinuations (Brandolini's law).
But here you go:
Technofascism: AI, Big Tech, and the new authoritarianism [1]
Valerie Veatch traces the links between AI and eugenics in Ghost in the Machine [2]
Your AI might be able to answer itself why it is fascist.
[1] https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s00146-026-02862-9
[2] https://www.documentary.org/column/synthesis-valerie-veatch-...
Stop insinuating rejecting GenAI is necessarily irrational.
(Maybe my analysis will be different in the future but I will still know why I was avoiding it)
As someone who likely has many different opinions from people from those of people at Y Combinator, this seems wrong.
> That's on you. Implied doesn't mean "caused".
It can mean both, actually (and usually someone insinuates something, not something, so I didn't find that this meaning of imply was a fit here).
And yes, I do try to think about my footprint when I do something. There's a lot of stuff I don't do because of this. You really made a lot of assumptions on me.
Okay, you got me, it happens that I do stuff for entertainment. I know, I should only work, eat and sleep. Because it's well known that the first gram of CO2 released in the atmosphere because of something I do for entertainment forbids me from criticizing anything.
> I have no moral superiority
Good for you. I mean, if you think it's morally superior not to engage in morality… (it doesn't magically free you from your responsibilities though).
Note: you are the one expecting moral purity here (but only from the people you see as your opponents, how convenient).
How about we acknowledge that someone buying stuff from china is not barred from criticizing the LLMs, avoid the whataboutism and keep things on topic and in good faith now?
And no, those of us boycotting projects using LLMs don't have an immediate solution to everything under our feet, including our jobs, adopting LLMs.
What reply did you expect? That we apologize for being wrong and that we recognize that in hindsight, the AI boosters were right all along? We still don't want these polluting data centers next to our homes so they can feel more productive and play with their costly toy. Hell, even if they are useful / the productivity boost is real, actually we still don't want those shit datacenters, this wreckless scraping, the major economic crisis that the AI companies may cause through their wreckless behavior and more generally all the badness attached to LLMs.