lich_king

I am really tired of this kind of moralizing. The reality is that every time geeks come up with some utopian ideal, such as that we should publish all our software under free licenses or make all human knowledge freely accessible to anyone, the same geeks later show up and build extremely extractive businesses on top of this. The open-source community was essentially hoodwinked into co-architecting Facebook, Android, and so on. Copyleft activists and content pirates propped up trillion-dollar subscription services of OpenAI, Anthropic. The list goes on.

Maybe it's time to admit that the techie community has a pretty bad moral compass and that we're not good stewards of the world's knowledge. We turn lofty ideals into amoral money-making schemes whenever we can. I'm not sure that the EFF's role in this is all that positive. They come from a good place, but they ultimately aid a morally bankrupt industry.

> The ideal is that something intelligent understands what you want to do and gets it done.

Maybe? For a couple of decades, we believed that computers you can talk to are the future of computing. Every sci-fi show worth a dime perpetuated that trope. And yet, even though the technology is here, we still usually prefer to read and type.

We might find out the same with some of the everyday uses of agentic tech: it may be less work to do something than to express your desires to an agent perfectly well. For example, agentic shopping is a use case some companies are focusing on, but I can't imagine it being easier to describe my sock taste preferences to an agent than click around for 5 minutes and find the stripe pattern I like.

And that's if we ignore that agents today are basically chaos monkeys that sometimes do what you want, sometimes rm -rf /, and sometimes spend all your money on a cryptocurrency scam. So for the foreseeable future, I most certainly don't want my OS to be "agentic". I want it to be deterministic until you figure out the chaos monkey stuff.

I don't even think if singling out Dell is useful. Most US companies have long decided that providing good customer support is a drag on revenue and that you can get away with not providing it if the product is problem-free for 99% of your users.

Have you tried calling UPS with an atypical problem? Bank of America? United? It's all the same, and the thing is, you don't find out until you actually have a problem with the service you purchased.

There are some exceptions to this rule, for example many brokerages have real customer support. Amazon stands out too - they're not prepared to handle anything unusual, but their model is to refund you almost no matter what.

But by and large, it's absolutely awful in the US and I'm often positively surprised when I need to interact with customer support in other countries, where you actually can reach a courier about your delivery, etc.

An article about the AI writing style, written using AI.

Disproportionately many geeks have very strong opinions about psychiatry, probably because we have a lot of people who consider themselves neurodivergent, as well as plenty of folks who experiment with drugs.

> He had some pretty awful views that he was pretty loud about, especially later in life. He also cheated on his wife at one point.

In 1961, in his early 20s. You get ~80 years on this planet to make mistakes and have views that some other people will dislike. If these are the worst things we can accuse him of, while acknowledging all his charitable work, I'd say he fared OK compared to many other role models we have.

Alternatively, there's money to be lost in the transition. The vast majority of "crypto investors" did not walk away from it any richer. Some folks have gotten lucky, but it's just that: their thesis about the future of money was evidently wrong, they just happened to get the timing right. Getting lucky for the wrong reasons is not a good investment strategy.

Meanwhile, the main category of people who have consistently gotten rich off the "crypto revolution" were various scammers and pump-and-dumpers who have since moved on to meme stocks, AI content farming, and so on.

But I wouldn't use crypto as a benchmark because AI has more substance. We can debate if it's going to change the world, but you can build some new types of businesses and services if you have near-perfect natural language comprehension on the cheap.

The comparison gets picked up as the headline; the admission does not. This is exploited quite often, e.g. in science reporting. I'm not saying this is what Waymo did - they don't seem to be bad actors - but absolutely, the pattern does occur.

Because most of these things are not multi-trillion-dollar ideas. "We found a way to make illustrators, copyeditors, and paralegals, and several dozen other professions, somewhat obsolete" in no way justifies the valuations of OpenAI or Nvidia.

We paid for newspapers and they ran ads. We paid for cable TV and it had ads. We went to the cinema and watched ads.

Ad-free paid services were a brief aberration, essentially a bait-and-switch: "see how much nicer we are from the old-school competitors". Now that the competitors are gone, Netflix is doing ads, Amazon is doing ads... why wouldn't Spotify?

I hate it, but the reality is that we groan on online forums but don't actually leave.

So you're advocating for stronger and more invasive controls?...

I think this is a sensible compromise. It gives parents more control than before without relying on shady third-party software or without turning every platform into a cop. Yeah, it also aligns with Meta's interests, but so what?

The age attestation solutions pursued by the EU are far more invasive in this respect, even though they notionally protect identity. They mean that the "default" internet experience is going to be nerfed until you can present a cryptographic proof that you're worthy.

> Why not have 2000 hand curated directories instead?

It depends on what you're trying to achieve. If you want to have a personal feed of stories from interesting people, 50 is probably enough to give you some interesting daily reading. But if you want to build a "small web" search lens, you absolutely need to cover. For example, Kagi is billing a "small web" search filter, but it excludes a lot of the small web because they only allow actively-maintained blogs and only a subset of them.

I think it shows the limits of hand curation. It's a tiny, human-reviewed slice of the "small web", only allowing a subset of blogs... but if you select the "programming" category and click around for a short while, you get a fair amount of obvious AI slop.

I don't think it's Kagi's fault, but I guess it's depressing in a way. A lot of "small web" bloggers dream of being a part of the "big web", and when they get a cheat button, they have no second thoughts about mashing it.

This is not how corporate fraud usually happens. You don't tamper with the quarterly report, especially since it gets audited. You tamper with the input data close to the source. For example, you record revenue that hasn't happened yet or you delay the recording of losses.

Looking at the criteria again, I can think of at least three things that arbitrarily exclude large swathes of the small web:

1) The requirement that it needs to be a blog. There's plenty of small-web sites of people who obsess over really wonderful and wacky stuff (e.g., https://www.fleacircus.co.uk/History.htm) but don't qualify here.

2) The requirement that it needs to be updated regularly. Same as above - I get that infrequently updated websites don't generate a "daily morning" feed, but admitting them wouldn't harm in any way.

3) Blanket ban on Substack-like platforms while allowing Blogspot, Wordpress.com, YouTube, etc. Bloggers follow trends, so you're effectively excluding a significant proportion of personal blogs created in the last six years, including the stuff that isn't monetized or behind interstitials. The outcomes are pretty weird: for example, noahpinionblog.blogspot.com is on your list, but noahpinion.blog is apparently no longer small web.

Right, but that basically works as a retro alternative to scrolling through social media. If you're looking for something specific, it's simultaneously true that there's a small web page that answers your question and that it's not on any "small web" list because the owner of the webpage never submitted it there, or didn't meet the criteria for inclusion.

For example, I have several non-commercial, personal websites that I think anyone would agree are "small web", but each of them fails the Kagi inclusion criteria for a different reason. One is not a blog, another is a blog but with the wrong cadence of posts, etc.

It's easy to hand-curate a list of 5,000 "small web" URLs. The problem is scaling. For example, Kagi has a hand-curated "small web" filter, but I never use it because far more interesting and relevant "small web" websites are outside the filter than in it. The same is true for most other lists curated by individual folks. They're neat, but also sort of useless because they are too small: 95% of the things you're looking for are not there.

The question is how do you take it to a million? There probably are at least that many good personal and non-commercial websites out there, but if you open it up, you invite spam & slop.

> Google that now optimizes their algorithm for monetization and not usefulness.

I don't think they do that. Instead, "usefulness" is mostly synonymous with commercial intent: searching for <x> often means "I want to buy <x>".

Even for non-commercial queries, I think the sad reality is that most people subconsciously prefer LLM-generated or content-farmed stuff too. It looks more professional, has nice images (never mind that they're stock photos or AI-generated), etc. Your average student looking for an explanation of why the sky is blue is more interested in a TikTok-style short than some white-on-black or black-on-gray webpage that gives them 1990s vibes.

TL;DR: I think that Google gives the average person exactly the results they want. It might be not what a small minority on HN wants.

Because the habitable surface of the planet is less than 100 million square kilometers and only a fraction of that is suitable for subsistence farming. The only reason we can accommodate 8 billion is that the majority of them live in high-density settlements and that food is grown on an industrial scale elsewhere.

> It might be a year or two, or five, or ten

Ah, the classic, forever-untestable "it's just around the corner" hypothesis.

I've lived through multiple "it's gonna be over in 12-18 months" arguments since November 2022. It's a truism for any technology to say that it's going to get better over time. But if you're convinced that "AI has already won", why not make a specific prediction? What jobs are going to be obsolete by when?

> Cities have a lower carbon footprint per capita, lower land use per capita, people own fewer cars, use public transportation more often. If everyone lived in a city, nature would be better off.

I think that's apples to oranges. If we didn't have cities, we also wouldn't have eight billion people in the world.

A better question for the parent is how do you enforce that vision of everyone living on their 20 acres in harmony with nature? This is not something that capitalism or some other -ism does to us. Your neighbor will have children, these children will have children, and before long, you have a settlement of 50 people on these 20 acres, most certainly no longer living in harmony with nature. At that point, they must build infrastructure. That infrastructure may be feasible to build if they pool their resources with the neighbors. Boom, you have a village, then a town, then a city.

So what's the solution here? Do we forcibly sterilize people? Lock them up if they have children? What's the anti-growth strategy we're actually advocating for?

Sure. I'm not arguing it's fundamentally bad. But it's going to leave some buyers unhappy because nowadays, the point of paperbacks is that you're paying extra for a reading experience, not the text itself. An ebook is always less (or free).

Yeah, most charitably, it seems to be some sort of an LLM art project. And it's another day when we engage with slop because it happens to say something we like.

That's one part of the story, but I think you're glossing over some other problems.

For one, digital printing allows anyone to sloppily OCR and badly typeset public-domain works and put them on Amazon. That has little to do with the limitations of the technology and results in a terrible reading experience.

Another problem is that the technology encourages "legit" publishers to aim lower because there's less at stake? Have a look at that Bertrand Russell book. I'm guessing it's an AI-generated cover, plus terrible kerning for the title ("Proble ms"). This would be unthinkable back in the era when publishing something meant taking some financial risk.

I don't find your analogy compelling. More like "calculators make me less motivated to learn how to multiply four-digit numbers in my head". There used to be jobs for people who were good with numbers. They're pretty much gone, and it's not even much of a parlor trick, so no one bothers to learn these skills anymore.

If the best argument for going into CS is that LLMs sometimes make stuff up and will need human error checkers, I can see why people are less excited about that future. The cocaine monkey option might sound more fun.

A sufficient number of people being angry about something is how you end up with social norms. These norms will shape how the technology is used.

Conversely, if your take is that there's no point being angry and we should just take it in stride, that just emboldens the producers of slop.

I don't think that "it's more of the same" is a good way to think about it. The internet contained a lot of low-quality content, but even low-quality content used to be fairly expensive and time-consuming to produce. Further, you could immediately discern bottom-of-the-barrel content-farmed nonsense by the writing style alone. Now, LLMs make it practically free to generate unlimited amounts of slop that drowns out human-written stuff, and they can imitate the style hints we used to depend on for quick screening.

It is, because of the baked-in asymmetry. "I couldn't be bothered to write it, but you have to read it". Unless your expectation is that I'm going to have my chatbot summarize the messages from your chatbot, in which case, maybe we should just both ride off into the sunset.

Silicone doesn't require plasticizers (because it's elastic on its own) or fire retardants (because it doesn't burn easily). The material itself is also considered biologically inert and is less affected by temperature, solvents, etc. So it's usually the best choice for stuff like that. The reason it's not as common is that it's more expensive and not as durable. It has relatively poor abrasion and cut resistance.

But then, I wouldn't worry about headphones at all. You probably sleep on a mattress made from polyurethane foam that contains plasticizers and fire retardants in much greater quantities. The same goes for your car seats, and they off-gas a lot more when parked in the sun. You'd probably need to eat 1,000 earbuds to match that.

> If they do like it, what's the issue?

Are you serious? However goofy that sounds, they paid for a specific fantasy. They would not have paid if you advertised the service as "talk dirty with a random dude in India". If the reason they paid for this service is that they were promised a specific person, that's fraud. As simple as that.

Your judgment about whether the services are equivalent doesn't matter. If I pay you for Gucci socks, and you intentionally send me cheaper HZBZZYXY socks from Amazon instead, that's fraud even if they're still socks.