qwery

Diamonds are expensive because that's how much money people pay for them. People buy diamonds because [they have no taste and] they can afford to, or want to present themselves as being able to afford to. I'm sure some of them have various dark thoughts about it, too.

People derive their value from their economic status because that is a tool available to them and the world they grew up in forced them to do so. Being able to derive your value from other aspects of life is a luxury and a privelege that is, ironically, unaffordable for the majority.

You can't win a competition without entering it.

You have better than zero in a trillion odds against Lebron James. What if his phone rings?

"10 Hollywood directors" is hilariously unconstrained -- I'd put money on at least one having never seen The Godfather.

> The reasonable naive expectation for contests like these is that, below a certain bar of quality, the chance of win is 0.

I agree that the layperson's understanding of what 'literary award' means is close to this idea, but the "contests like these" is the problem here. "contests like these" include one that allows and seems extremely keen on "AI" generated text, for example.

There isn't a stark contrast between 'contest of skill' and 'game of chance'. You can eliminate the skill part and get closer to pure random chance, but you can't eliminate the random chance from the contest of skill.

It's a chart that shows the number of things going up over time. The total number of things increasing over time is going to play a hugely significant role in that, regardless of how broken the selection criteria are.

If they allow "AI" submissions, it's not a literary award. You can "the future is now, old man" me if you'd like, but the point is that the term 'literary award' in that case does not mean what it means to most people at this point in time.

The Nikkei Hoshi Shinichi Literary Award appears to be very biased in favour of "AI" "generated" "works". This is the source of 5 out of 13 items in the 'Allowed' category. e.g. from one of the notes:

> The disclosed AI use was apparently limited to inventing the name of a fictional disease. The organizers still counted it among the year’s AI-assisted winners.

::

I haven't scoured through all of the listings, but I've found several that are included for pretty weak reasons. e.g. in "suspected or disputed":

> A screenshot of a 100% Pangram result spread online. No author response, organizer investigation, admission, or revocation has surfaced.

_A_ screenshot? Of Pangram? A perfect score? And nobody officially responded to it? Wild. By the way, the piece being referred to has a scattering of em dashes throughout, including one in the opening sentence. Make of that what you will. Or don't -- it's a perfectly normal way to punctuate English prose.

I think maybe people should be able to understand that the Pangram thing is 100% a joke by now -- yes, I checked, 100%. It was damned from the off by the simple fact that it's a service for people who sensed "AI" and want that confirmed. Of course one could also consider the lack of evidence demonstrating its efficacy, or the theoretical and practical difficulty of building software to perform the task [the advertised one, not the task of giving the customer what they want], etc.

::

To be clear, the article here isn't really the target of my ire, as it's largely just a collection of notes. Actually there is one thing I wanted to criticise -- you can't include entries getting shortlisted as examples of "literary awards granted".

The technical/technological nature of the system that made the choice is irrelevant. That is, I think it's right to ignore what a decision is, as you put it. The ability to make decisions is not the ability to choose -- it's the ability, right, privelege, obligation, expectation to take responsibility.

Discussing anything like personhood for AI is really jumping the gun.

The chatbot is software. The software does what it is told. It performs tasks requested of it by the user/operator in line with the (designed, ) immplemented functionality of the code. If the software fails to do what it is told, the vendor has not provided working software. If an operator controlling some software does not do so in a reasonable, safe manner, the operator is negligent. If damages result from such failures or actions, the people who made the decisions that led to that are the people who are responsible.

It does not matter how complex the software is: if a vendor of some software doesn't expect it fail in costly ways because it's too complex or hard to understand, that is a (legal, ethical, moral) failure of the vendor.

It does not matter how autonomous it is: an autonomous sprinkler system that floods the neighbour's basement is not held liable for the damages. The owner, installer, vendor, etc. is. -- maybe the neighbour even did(n't) something wrong!

What you're missing is that "making decisions" isn't the same as being technically capable of making a selection.

Making decisions means taking responsibility.[0] This is really all there is to it -- a computer cannot decide, not because humans are uniquely able to make a choice based on input, but because a computer cannot be responsible. You can decide to do something based on the output of the computer, but that's you deciding to do that. At any point where a computer appears to have made a decision, someone else was behind it. You can complicate this, randomise stuff, obfuscate things, etc. but ultimately either the computer was set in motion by a person, or it malfunctioned. The malfunctioning computer thing is quite interesting but it's not going to change the outcome.

LLMs ("AI" today) have not changed this. It's still just software, it's still doing what it's told. Surprising future technologies may alter this, but there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that's a likely future and it certainly is not the case today.

> Black-and-white positions that insist anyone creating or using an AI is responsible for anything it does wrong under any circumstances are also unrealistic.

At this point in time, AI is just a piece of software. It doesn't matter how useful it is or not. It's just software. We can and should treat it like software. So to evaluate when/where/how someone should (or should not) be held responsible for something that "the AI did", we can start at the same point as we would for any other vendor/creator/user of a piece of software. I'm not going to get into that -- my point is that the framework exists. And yes, sure, maybe that framework needs some tweaks in consideration of the new software, that's OK. The starting point should still be in reality, where software is software.

[0] Yes, this is nuanced, things go wrong, different situations, etc. etc.

I got sick of Pokemon's (Game Freak's, Nintendo's) exploitative practices back when they just tried to con you into buying two of every game. Anyway I don't know how bad pokemon is these days, but I think your analogy would make more sense if you thought about the AI companies like they're in a big hole in the ground. There's something down there, no doubt about it, but they don't know what it is or what to do with it, they just know that it loves munchin' down on cash. Sometimes Jensen Huang is down there and he also loves munchin' down on cash and if you don't feed him he gets mad and says he wasn't born a loser. OK, now forget about all the different users and enterprise customers because they're insignificant by orders of magnitude, a bit like how you focused on the whales in your analogy but we're zooming out further, until we can see the even bigger fish: the venture capital investors! They're the ones with the wheelbarrows of cash that they're tipping into the void.

Anyway, the only "whales" funding the AI companies is venture capital. The reason it's not a viable business (yet, so far, whatever) is because they spend more money than they make.

> everyone agrees that the frontier labs are responsible for hacking attempts. No one is trying to deflect blame.

No, they really don't. I suppose I agree to some extent that no one is trying (hard) to deflect blame, because the people in control are barely a part of the conversation in the first place.

Almost all of the reporting on these stories assigns the blame to the chatbots first. Most prominently through the language/wording that gets used -- it's usually e.g. "BOT infiltrated ...", "Agents ruined the ...". I mean, they call them agents. I'm not trying to claim this terminology was selected as an entirely strategic move, but it sure does seem convenient. Calling them agents shifts the conversation away from the real human people and companies that are controlling them. This extends well beyond this one word, as well. The (captured) media picks up on and adopts the language used by the tech/AI companies.[0] In this way (among others) these companies can influence how the media portrays them indirectly.

> Instead, this is a legal question

There are legal questions, but the two (legal, ethical) aren't mutually exclusive. The criminal law question is the most significant one here, I think. If you do what they did as an individual, you are pretty likely to get visited by the FBI.

You're skipping over a couple of important points, I think:

- The AI labs clearly stand to benefit from the "AI is dangerous narrative". We know this for several reasons, probably the most significant one is that they keep telling us how the new one is super extremely dangerous, and proceeding to make no changes to their behaviour. It's marketing.

- The AI labs are clearly in control of their bots. It's a computer. Networks are not mysterious. Computers don't do surprising things. The principles and technologies involved in securing a network are mature and there is a ready supply of trained workers available worldwide, keen to apply those principles and deploy/manage those technologies. You can believe that something went wrong and the various hacks and excursions were unexpected. In that case, the labs are clearly incompetent[1] and also, they're still to blame. Repeatedly running "experiments" that you can't control is, in fact, a failure of basic morals and ethics.

[0] Of course they do, right? Well there used to be a distinction made between experts and marketing departments. These days it seems a lot of journalists think that marketing copy is as good as any other source.

[1] Surely they hired someone that can setup a firewall.

Good article. Good point, well made.

I have to add that, unsurprisingly, the fake therapy on offer is fucking toxic. Right away it's putting thoughts in your head that are obviously based on nothing relevant, contradict each other, and are escalatory. It is not at all surprising that people are killing themselves and others because of their interactions with these things.

I'm a little bit surprised to see someone taking such grand & absolute claims so seriously. I guess I don't, generally. Actually thinking about it, it's not that I treat them as unserious, it's more like I read it as something akin to hyperbole. Anyway this isn't to say exploring this ("taking it serously") isn't worthwhile, just that I hadn't been prior.

As for the backlash itself, it seems safe to say it's motivated by a wide range of things. Ultimately though, I do agree with the point in the title (i.e. it's about datacentres) but I think a lot of the other factors mentioned are significant, but I still wouldn't expect even a perfect (impossible) poll/study to find a neat, unifying reason for most of the backlash.

Of course it's about the datacentres: why would anybody want even a modest, ye olde time datacentre, let alone a neo cloud / AI one, in their neighbourhood? You can call this nimbyism, which it is, but it's important to note the gulf of difference between a tech company's private profit facility and the sorts of projects where "nimby" typically is invoked.

Because this particular DC rollout is so massive and high profile, people have realised en masse that rejecting these things is something they can do. The anti-AI movement is absolutely a big part of this -- in terms of publicity, awareness, outreach -- but the various local peoples can (should, must) have their own reason for rejecting/protesting the projects.

Finally, given the dismal rate of promised capacity actually coming online -- which was apparent prior to and separately from "the backlash" -- I can't help but wonder if the widespread local resistance will end up as a scapegoat when questions start getting raised.

Sounds like the right move. I can only hope that the rest of us lap dogs see the (common) sense.

The USA is increasingly the source of economic and military destabliisation in the world and it's getting real hard to justify being the best little doggy for them. I'm not suggesting any action more drastic than calling a shit deal shit, and frankly it's pathetic and embarrassing that this is such a rare occurence.

And yeah, maybe some miracle corrective action will begin with a new president but the thing is, that will necessarily include restoring our "special relationship". You're better off refusing a bad deal outright, rather than trying to reneg later.

Sorry to be a bore [that's a firearms joke], but -- while I encourage everyone and their family to experiment with building such devices, with safety in mind of course, it is a lot of fun -- please don't dispose of your old batteries in the natural environment!

Really not trying to call you out here, as a teenager I once had the idea to load up my marble cannon with dead AAs (they're free!) and got a "do you really think that's a good idea?" from an environmentally conscious adult when I went asking for dead batteries.

> caused actual damage to humans

You might need to qualify that a bit harder or someone could quite easily point out that all of these worthless shitdribblers cause actual damage to humans. They all lie, they all continue to claim that they hold the future in their feeble sticky hands. Just to take, take, take. You seem fixated on lying being a problem but only one of these two liars causes you to feel that her case is different? Maybe the difference between the two is in the lie of the beholder.

> My comment had nothing to do with "git gud"

Fair enough, I applied that lens to it on my own.

Allow me to elaborate on my earlier comment and reply to this one here:

A ton of it? No, I don't see that. It's probably the least commonly implemented approach to difficulty (curves).

Dynamically adjusted difficulty has been around for a long time, but it's never been broadly adopted. There's a lot of reasons for this I'm sure, but a couple of obvious ones are that executives don't tend to throw money at features they can't see [or game developers in general], and that it's a tricky thing to build anyway.

It's certainly not the default solution to the problem, but there's a long history of games implementing some form of dynamically adjusted difficulty. Some of them to great success with the difficulty system itself being celebrated (Xevious, Resident Evil 4, Left 4 Dead), the vast majority of them you have no idea even implemented such a feature, and there's also a number of famous examples that were widely derided for it (Oblivion, ...?). [I'm genuinely stumped to think of another famously bad example, not trying to make it look like there are fewer of one than the other. I'm sure there are just as many negatively viewed ones as I can come up with positive ones.]

While it's obviously possible that an individual designer/team didn't thoroughly test their particular feature, the concept itself has been very well tested in a wide variety of implementations/mechanics. And if you're playing a game designed by people who didn't test it, the difficulty scaling seems likely to be the least of your problems.

The Alyx example is interesting, because I see that system as being designed to avoid breaking immersion. Specifically, to avoid entering an "unwinnable" state i.e. where the player restarts from a save/checkpoint. I do understand how noticing the underlying system can pull you out of the game though.

"actual players" as opposed to other people who just, what? "use" the game?

Sorry, but it's hard to take this comment seriously when it reeks of "git gud". So I'll just point out that a lot of people play games, and that there are well-documented instances of games with dynamic difficulty as early as the 80s.

I'm not sure that that's even worth considering, seeing as Facebook just lets scammers pay to list ads that are disguised (by Facebook) as actual posts.

It's hardly a surprise to see a behemoth like Oracle doing this. Accepting LLM contributions can only be a liability, particularly for such a mature, stable project. Even if you see that liability as small or insignificant, it's non-zero. Given the project and the company, choosing zero additional liability seems like the obvious choice.

One also assumes the people maintaining OpenJDK have had their workload increase to an unmanageable level, like a lot of other free software projects and one thing I'm sure everyone can agree on is that Oracle certainly won't want to pay anyone more or hire more people to deal with that.

A lot of people (including the Register[0]) are pointing out that Oracle leadership are gung-ho about using LLMs for everything, and this seems to go against that. It makes sense to question this from a journalistic angle -- the executives are obviously full of shit and people would do well to remember that the next time one of them opens their mouth. But pointing at the apparent contradiction -- different rules for internal projects vs. open ones -- doesn't seem particularly meaningful on its own:

I don't think the CEO/CTO raving about LLMs should be taken as firm statements about how they actually operate internally. I'm surprised that this does not seem to be the default case. Among other things, Oracle stands to profit from greater adoption of LLM tools.

It would be unrealistic/unreasonable to expect their employees/contractors working on internal projects to be held to the same standard/guidelines/rules as developers contributing to a free software project. This applies either way, whichever side (internal/open) has the worse deal.

I don't know what the rules are for their internal teams. As far as I know, I'm not alone in that. Oracle also don't need to post anything publicly to change those rules.

[0] https://www.theregister.com/ai-and-ml/2026/08/03/as-larry-el...

I agree with this for the most part.

I just want to add that programmers have only relatively recently become so abundant (i.e. replaceable) that they have so little say in how software should be built.

Programmers are still the experts in the room, but they don't get what they ask for for free anymore.

> This post reads off as AI slop. You said it, I see it.

I completely disagree. I think this post has emdashes in the first paragraphs and that most of the people saying that it was generated didn't go any further than that.

Where is the repetition? The sense of deja vu? Where is the artificial sweetener, the overuse of adjectives? Where is the lack of meaning?

Suppose there was a group of highly motivated individuals that saw this article and felt called out by it -- prompt engineers, if you will. Because saying that "taste is all that's left" and that you can't develop taste without doing the work? That's saying that there's something still out of their reach. Something that can't be copied and reproduced ad nauseum.

This article gets at the heart of the issue and calls out -- though not explicitly -- these practitioners. It does this in a calm and reasoned way, in a way that they cannot defend themselves from.

I'm not making the claim that the article is an attack on anyone -- my claim is that a class of people will see it that way and react to that like Gamers seeing a 7/10 review for the game they're hyped for.

Your argument seems to be that some bits of tree doesn't constitute what we would usually call a "device", and that's fair enough really. I called that out myself in the same comment, so I guess you picked up what I was laying down!

The "wood is a solid-state battery" thing was an absurd rhetorical device I used to point out -- particularly in a field so significantly connected to electronics -- that merely substituting a liquid for a solid does not justify using what will obviously be understood to be a reference to solid-state electronics.

P.S. A coal-fired steam engine is a solid-state motor.

I'm sure the team are having a rough time with all this, but I don't understand the path you followed to go from the maintainers have not taken this action until now to "This doesn't speak well to the security headspace of the Arch maintainers". Or what "security headspace" means exactly.

Yes, lots of people thought disabling package adoption is/was a good idea. It seems quite likely that the Arch DevOps team also could have come up with that one, and they certainly wouldn't have missed all of the people telling them to do so.

It seems to me that disabling package adoption is not a desirable thing to do in general, and can only be used as a stopgap response to an emergency, which seems to be what is happening right now.

"just disable adoption" certainly can't be a long-term solution: Without adoption, the AUR will slowly fade away as orphaning a package would be permanent. Maybe the idea is to have some sort of approval process to filter adoption requests? In that case the AUR just dies instantly as that would effectively be another official repo with all of the issues that that would bring.

I don't know what more I can say to convince you that I'm not trying to put down the technology. I'm interested in it, that's why I think it's a shame to curse it with a used-car salesman marketing name.

As for wood batteries,

Most usage of the term 'battery' is independent of technology, outside of usually wanting electricity as the interface. The fact that most batteries people talk about happen to be electrochemical cells is incidental -- it's irrelevant to whatever they are actually talking about. So yes, a lot of the time 'battery' happens to refer to electrochemical cells, but it also refers to energy storage devices in general, which wood obviously is.

The problem with wood being a "solid-state battery" is surely the solid-state part.

Q: I mean how does that even work, solid-state combustion?

A: No, it's still obviously a normal chemical cell. You do a chemistry and these special "electrodes" turn the result into electricity.

Q: Can you recharge it?

A: Well, not in your own home, but in your backyard, maybe sort of.

If we are to use the term 'solid-state' to refer to anything that is solid, as in "solid-state battery", and we can get electricity from burning wood, I don't see the problem with referring to wood as a solid-state battery.

Say caveman, cavemen ... unheard[0] cavewoman. No good. Bad.

When Sabrewulf[1] come, some fight, some run ... some run in cave. No good. Bad.

Token cost. Seem smart less token. But already discount. No profit.

Use less token? Price go up.

What money?

You should be bothered by the persistent & popular use of the "caveman" terminology and the myth surrounding it. However, from a dedicated amateur linguistic point of view, the "caveman language" that so many people seem to know by default is kind of remarkable. Perhaps it points to (it doesn't) some deeper, ancient understanding.

[0] this is a joke because the caveman myth comes with a lot of misogynistic baggage and you should have a problem with it. Also because I made you read this. (this is not an explanation of the joke itself, that's up to you)

[1] the sabre-tooth cat is a trope that over-represents its relationship with people. I mean it's extinct, but it was around "back then", right?

> Some patterns are very specific to the interactions inherent to the nature of AI as a technology. For example: streaming text. This is a pattern made for and refined by chat interfaces, so it may not have tons of utility for reuse across other software interaction paradigms.

I'm used to the software industry being isolated (vice versa) from the games industry, but I'm a bit surprised by this point because "streaming text" is a pattern inherent to video games running on low powered computers (i.e. 8/16 bit game consoles) and games continue to implement this as a stylistic (or aesthetic) choice today.

Then, thinking about it for more than a second:

Text streaming into view is also inherent to [slow] "network" connections, including the early internet and terminal interfaces (paper and CRT), the default way that computer text appeared for decades. These are less common, though still present today, but a keen-eyed observer [and I genuinely place Nielsen in this category] will surely have noticed the film & TV industry is still running with the trope/meme of text-appears-slowly as the best way to show computer action.

A more relevant example for a huge number of people is found on Tik Tok videos, where it's the default way for text to appear on screen[0]. Platforms desperately chasing Tik Tok have adopted the same effect -- it's a significant part of the aesthetic -- even Youtube's autogenerated captions[1][2][3] on "normal" videos.

[0] I mean "default" aesthetically, purely looking at the output. Not a "default" option like a software thing.

[1] which now come on by default if you have actual captions enabled -- it used to be like a separate language choice, like how if you select Italian subtitles it won't give you Spanish -- Valve^wYougle please fix.

[2] And these are arguably not really captions, by the way. Ignoring how wrong they are, and other issues, I'm just talking about in relation to the subject of this comment: captions and subtitles don't appear one word at a time. Show me a reasonably long phrase and let me read it. The / one / word / at / a / [music] / time / thing / is / a hippo / not / it / and / I / don't / receive / true / meaning. ('hypnotic', by the way)

[3] Yes, this is presumably AI. No, I don't think that undermines my point. It's still a choice (the people in charge did the choosing, not the confabulator), and it's a choice that goes against the extremely well established best practices for captioning as an accessibility service, as I whinged above[2].

Wood is a solid-state battery.

The term has obviously been selected because of how revolutionary solid-state electronic devices were/are. And it's not like they selected it after a revolutionary energy storage device was introduced. Solid-state batteries (cells) are an incremental improvement, at best.

And because this is the web: I am not being negative about the technology. I happen to be of the radical opinion that incremental improvements are good, actually.

If you know a bit about electronics, you might be a bit surprised by the term 'solid-state battery'. It's a poor analogue to the more common usage of solid-state with semiconductors, integrated circuits, etc. -- a "solid-state" cell is still a chemical cell. It's not a paradigm shift on the level of, say, replacing a relay with a MOSFET.

Microservices are service/s that are significantly smaller than the service you're comparing them to. That's an obvious and perhaps unhelpful definition, let's contrast it with ...

"Microservices" is[0] a tech industry fashion trend. It can be a real solution to a problem, too, but it's like how throwing out all your shit is the solution to depression now because a nice lady in a book said that you probably don't want all that stuff anyway. The solution is applied/suggested because it's trendy, not because it is necessarily the best fitting solution.

Like many buzzwords, 'microservice' is difficult to define. "You know it when you see it" is a euphemism for something devoid of meaning[1]: a null concept. This is a feature and not a bug. And where the term does have meaning, it's always relative -- so everyone can have microservices, and argue about who does.

[0] I do mean 'is', as opposed to 'are'

[1] it can also be the case that the speaker just doesn't know what they're talking about, and perhaps that they know it has meaning to others, social constructs, &c. To avoid spending the next three years working on this comment, I'm assuming that's not the case above.

[x] Conspiracy-theory rabbit-hole: buzzwords are like conspiracy theories in that they rely on vagueness or being undefinable. I guess my point is that concrete ideas aren't really suited to being buzzwords. Only the vague/relative/broad ones get selected (as in natural selection, not by the shady cabal of buzzword pickers), just like how only the best impossible contradictory stories tend to become popular conspiracy theories. ... actually, mostly I just thought "conspiracy-theory rabbit-hole" was a funny heading for a tangent about conspiracy theories.

Compared to how much they want to pay. This is always what 'overpriced' means, as far as I know. The seller's costs/profits/margins aren't a concern for the buyer.

The facts as presented from the Bun side show a lack of technical merit for the rewrite. This shouldn't be surprising, because rewrites are bad engineering, in most cases.

The Bun project was started in Zig by someone with a lack of experience using the language, despite the massive scope and complexity, and was effectively a rewrite from another language in the first place.

From the Bun post:

> Bun started as a line-for-line port of esbuild's JavaScript & TypeScript transpiler from Go to Zig.

Then, a few years later, the entire codebase was thrown out to do another rewrite in another language.

What is there to address?