Only way I could get behind this is if it were a national mandate to recycle 90% or so of waste heat to get planning permission. Put the coordination problem in the lap of data center builders, weed out the fast talkers from the serious people.

I just watched the whole thing. She makes a consistent case.

I felt a little called out by the being tolerant bit. I for sure haven’t had great success in talking to close people about their AI use. And I was maybe a little too cold to colleagues, who tried to get ahead of the AI literacy circus with good intentions, although I grudgingly agreed that they are right.

Maybe I don’t meet enough randos to get feeling on the level of pervasiveness of chatbots. Maybe it’s a personality thing; I worked myself out of depression mostly by disciplining myself and stopping to buy my own excuses, and that’s kind of how I approach every problem now. That sure isn’t a vibe that most people respond to.

There was one part of my AI beliefs that wasn’t adressed. Besides the “front-end” and “back-end” harms, that can be mitigated, the tech as a whole still seems trash to me. That may be boomerism setting in, but chatbots just feel counter to and displacing my positive vision for a social fabric, be it for responsible professional communities or for interpersonal connections.

(I do buy into the use-case for a context-sensitive search engine, e.g. for walls of legalese. But the current framing of the tools is just so harmful, even that use is hazardous as seen in the anecdote.)

Sounds kind of like the Baldur Bjarnason strategy but for your coworkers instead of your boss.

I can see the value of someone with a critical understanding diving into the technology, so they can talk others down from the ledge.

But you also need the social pressure to maintain some slop-free spaces. Not everyone can be asked to accomodate recovering slopaholics.

Not the Saudis, just a Saudi focused outlet.

House of Saud asks if the Iran war was caused by AI sycophancy.

I’m reminded of the Kremlin reality distortion field that appears to have informed the decision to invade Ukraine.

I had the thought, that maybe the author could be intentionally trying to be mind-numbingly boring, but that just killed it. Into the slop jail!

Turns out, that uv also sucks now!

uv has a CLAUDE.md since January. Sooo, back to pip it is?

I tend to like her education takes. Like the first piece of hers that I read.

I was low-key hoping for a technical philosophical article, which argues that to find any of this shit useful you need a distinctly american understanding of reality.

Kind of wild that the guy who popularized “enshittification” as a term will die on the hill that the technology which drives the industrial enshittification of all human media is fine actually, because some people find the plugins useful.

Ah, thanks! My expectations of node aren’t much affected I guess. Bun.js maybe?

Eh, straight pip with venv and pip-tools for support worked fine anyway.

As for systemd… time to look at the BSDs? Was Debian among the anti-slop projects? Would be nice if they took an interest in preventing the slopification of one of their core system.

Man, that harper piece is a full DnD alignment chart of the most online bay area weirdos you’ve ever seen.

Unfortunately the paper structure screams “AI senpai, notice me!”

AI coding agents seem bad at this job yet, but if you optimize for our benchmark…

I can think of one notable project I ever saw one, and that’s Bookwyrm with the Anti-Capitalist Software License v1.4.

But this seems too vague-posty to refer to something that specific. Prolly just someone butthurt over copyleft.

I hadn’t heard of square either. Are they the guys doing squarespace? No idea.

EDIT: Okay, I did hear of CashApp, and it goes without saying that you need an entire lock-in ecosystem and a crypto-gimmick around a fintech product these days.

I would assume that you will only get across a very limited amount of information. If you pack them with details they will zone out, if you can focus on very few arguments something might stick. If you have the background knowledge to bring up points as needed, that’s great of course.

If I would try to sway some business people, I’d try this angle: AI intensification creates a dependence on your AI model vendor and endangers your human capital. Your AI vendor is knowingly selling you broken goods, so they can satisfy their desperate bubble economics. Your people are (on average) dabbling with AI, but diving into it too much can cause mental health issues (an in-progress paper trying to look at this [1]). And furthermore you’re endangering the maintenance and transfer of critical know-how because people are burying critical business processes in slop that sort of works but noone understands (throwback to the 80s where similar things happened with classical automation [2]).

[1] https://archive.is/20260212071631/https://hbr.org/2026/02/ai-doesnt-reduce-work-it-intensifies-it [2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/0005109883900468

I started to raise my eyebrows when the Second Brain got lumped into the AI wife pile.

Bro, I just write shit down. I am in fact taking responsibility for my schedule and handling my emotions without relying on external support. Am I turning to (checks notes…) the notebook industry for a technological replacement wife?

I mean some valid points, and some of it might explain the gendered AI adoption gap, but too much generalization.

I poked around to see how far gone my main text editor is. They’re not about to join the Butlerian Jihad, but I think I can live with it.

We don’t care how you wrote the code, but we do care that you fully(!) understand it and how it solves the underlying issue. LLM coding assistants can help with tedious routine and investigation (such as constructing test cases), but they are not a replacement for understanding the problem as well as the code you touch. (Nvim’s codebase is full of… let’s say “history”, and generic models tend to do quite poorly here.)

What is not OK is to copy-paste responses from the LLM as your comments. We don’t want to play a game of telephone with the LLM (if it was smart enough to solve the problem, we would be doing that ourselves).

Except in special circumstances (and with explicit notes), all your comments and descriptions must be written by you yourself. (Use a translation tool if you must, but don’t let someone else put words in your mouth.)

Contributor actually was bullied into closing his PR, but maintainers reopened and merged it, as the change was fine apparently. Lol