dbingham

...did you just use the phrase "ICE concentration camps" and then compare them to people's homes and offices to argue that recording them would be bad?

Or did you mean "Bad from the perspective of the officers"? Which, uh, sure fine, but I don't really care what the officers working ICE concentration camps where dozens of people have died and the survivors live in deplorable conditions that absolutely violate the constitution's prohibition on "cruel and unusual punishment" think.

I think for now the probability is limited by their requirement for high resource clouds. They have a limited number of targets. They tend to be targets with comparatively high security monitoring and people will notice if their resource usage suddenly jumps.

...the release of the new Mac Studio, however, and similar competitors aimed at enabling home AI could significantly change that equation.

This is the counter example to "protocols and interop solve enshittification". No, they don't. Email is the model protocol: perfectly interoperable, perfectly decentralizable. And yet it is centralizing in the hands of a few organizations who then wield enough market power to bend everyone else to their will. It's still enshittifying. If email hasn't resisted enshittification, then interoperable protocols are not the solution for it. And yet, pretty much all of the pro-social, anti-enshittification effort in tech is being directed into protocols and interop.

> Agreed, all of the staff/principal engineers I work with are ~99%+ AI generated code, and increasing business value delivered as a result. This is on planet scale infra not CRUD apps.

This has been the pro-"write with LLMs" argument the whole time. "If you're not getting good results, you're not prompting well. FAANG are doing x% of their development with AI."

Yet all of the companies that I can think of that build on planet scale infra and have gone all in on LLM development have seen a marked drop in quality and stability since adopting LLM driven development.

So yeah, I don't buy it. When I hear that engineers are writing their with LLMs and I see quality improve or stabilize, then maybe I will start to question whether its a prompting issue.

Yeah, that's just a problem with review. I tend to keep it going until the stuff its finding is stuff that I look at and think "I can live with that". Usually by that point it's found the worthwhile stuff and what remains is minor or, like you said, yak shaving.

I think most of this is correct, in spite of potentially being built on a bad assumption.

The assumption is that LLMs should be writing the code and human engineers reviewing and verifying the LLM output. And that this pushes the cost of producing down. And I fundamentally disagree with that.

Every time I ask LLMs to write code, even with Opus 4.8 (haven't tried it with Opus 5 yet), what I get ends up being totally rewritten. LLMs still aren't good at writing maintainable code. Can they write plausibly functional code? Yes. But it won't survive the long term. People using LLMs to write all their code are gambling on them eventually getting to a point where the LLMs can fix their own code. It's possible, but I wouldn't necessarily bet on it.

Where I have found immense value from LLMs is in code review. Repeated review by LLMs catches an amazing amount of potential issues. They really shine on security review, but are very effective with any kind of review.

The other thing that the "LLMs write code camp" misunderstands is that writing was never the bottleneck. Understanding was. And understanding the code is still the bottleneck. But understanding is truly gained during the writing loop. The understanding you gain from pure reading or code review is marginal compared to the understanding you gain while writing.

Most of the time previously spent writing was actually spent updating and deepening our understanding of the system under development. There's no replacement for that understanding in a world where LLMs are doing the writing.

But if you flip it: humans write, LLMs review, then you still get a major gain -- not in speed, but in quality. And you keep the understanding loop intact. I would propose that this might be the best way to deploy LLMs.

No, I'm basing my analysis in history and political science and you are basing yours on your own gut biases. I'm referring to people who are part of an explicitly fascist movement (as identified by political scientists, historians, and experts in fascism) as fascist.

Except AT Protocol can't do the very thing that made Facebook the commons: privacy.

There's a proposal to add privacy to the protocol (private posts, private groups), but I don't think anyone has solved the real root problem with trying to implement privacy in a federated system (as opposed to P2P), which is the bad administrator problem. The proposal I saw still relied on trustworthy app administrators to respect a post's privacy settings. And that's a huge flaw.

Friendica and Diaspora both have the same problem, and to my knowledge don't have a good solution for it. They both just sort of hand wave it away.

I'm waiting to see if someone comes up with a good solution for the unsafe admin problem, but so far I haven't seen one.

This is "whatabboutism" which is a logical fallacy.

Someone doesn't have to talk about the climate impacts of cars every time they talk about the climate impacts of AI. Both have climate impacts, independently of each other, and we should be dealing with the climate impacts of both simultaneously.

Regardless, don't assume the person you are talking to isn't consistent. Peruse my personal blog and you will see that I, in fact, ran a whole city council campaign on a platform of "to fight climate change we should not be driving".

I think the issue is that those stories are rooted very much in the failures of human systems that we see every day. They are us imagining what could go wrong based on what has gone wrong and is going wrong.

It would be a lot easier to set those warnings aside if we didn't have so many examples of the very things they warn about happening in real life.

We currently have a system where private individuals can fund private science and then deploy the results globally to their own profit with very few mechanisms for enforcing restraint and caution. And we've seen this backfire with horrific consequences over and over again.

Lead in the gasoline. Microplastics in the water. Pesticides widely applied to the biosphere. In my area PCBs are a massive risk due to past soil contamination. In other areas fracking biproducts make the water undrinkable.

Hell the AI rush in the face of climate change. We literally have heatwaves killing massive numbers of people while a tiny handful of investors and the companies they control are drastically increasing our carbon emissions in the race for AI.

It's easy to imagine all the ways in which synthetic life could go horribly wrong, even with out those sci-fi stories, especially since all but the youngest of us have been through a brutal pandemic in living memory.

It's very, very hard to imagine our current system showing proper restraint with this technology.

None of these are left.

You could make an argument that some of them are "classical liberal" or "neoliberal", but that was the center in the US and everywhere else it is center-right.

Definitions are helpful here.

"Classical liberal" is what the US was founded as. It was a liberal Republic. Classical liberals value political freedoms, civil rights, and free markets. They are anti-monarchy and anti-authoritarian. Most of the revolutions of the 1700s and 1800s were driven by Classical Liberals seeking political freedom

In the origination of "left" and "right", Classical Liberals were "center left". "Center right" were the moderate constitutional monarchists. In the US where we have zero interest in constitutional monarchy, Classical Liberalism was always the center.

Since World War II, that center became a settled question in much of the western world. The answers are "Yes, constitutions", "Yes, political freedoms", and "Yes, civil rights". Though in many places, civil rights were incompletely extended and so much of the argument has been about extending them fully.

The other side of the argument is "the social question" which got rebranded as "economics". It boils down to how much do we allow power and wealth to concentrate. This became more and more of an element of the revolutions starting in the 1850s -- the revolutions of 1848 were the first to really feature a true left as it is understood today: socialist, communist, and anarchist. (At the time, it was just socialist. Communism as a theory didn't exist yet and anarchism was nascent.). And just to be clear, the "left" refers to Classical Liberals as "Bourgeoisie liberals" -- capitalists and capitalist defenders -- and does not consider them to be part of the left.

The center in the US since the 70s has been a neoliberal consensus which argues for allowing the Capitalist markets to do their thing with minimal intervention. And most of the debate has been about how much that minimal invention should be -- with the two sides mostly arguing between "almost none" and "minimal".

Neoliberalism is more or less a form of libertarianism (US Libertarianism edges into Anarcho-capitalism).

For all of the 80s, 90s, and early 2000s, Neoliberalism was the center and was the entirety of both the Democratic and Republican parties. The "left" vs "right" argument was focused on things like foreign policy and whether we complete the extension of civil rights to everyone.

For most of those decades, all of those sources you just named arranged themselves squarely around that center. They were all Neoliberal. They all took rotating positions on foreign policy, aligning with each party based on the political winds of the moment. Many of them did include arguments in favor of the continued extension of civil rights, but many of them also included arguments against it. Few of them whole-heartedly endorsed that extension until after the fact.

We've never had much of a truly left mass media to speak of.

In the last decade and a half, authoritarianism, fascism, and neo-Nazism have seen a resurgence world wide. And in the US an explicitly fascist movement with Nazi elements captured the Republican party and then the government. Anyone with a political science background taking an honest, empirical look at the MAGA movement will identify it thus. That movement directly pulled from the Nazi playbook in their rise to power. Trump has often cribbed directly from Hitler's speeches, barely even paraphrasing them.

During that movements rise to power, we have seen large elements of the wealthy elite that controls much of the media align with that movement.

At this point, most social media sites are controlled by actors who either have explicitly aligned with the US fascist movement or have effectively acquiesced to it.

Meta has added fascist aligned members to its board and put fascist aligned people in executive positions through the company. They've also voluntarily acquiesced to the regime's requests to silence anti-regime activists.

Twitter is explicitly fascist. Elon Musk is a core member of that movement.

TikTok has been captured by that movement through an orchestrated buyout.

Most of our media is social media, and right there you now have the biggest source of news and information for the vast majority of people fully captured by the fascist movement.

As for traditional media, CBS has been captured. Bari Weiss is a part of the fascist movement and her elevation was part of their pressure campaign.

The Washington Post is owned by Bezos who has aligned with that movement and is explicitly exerting editorial control.

News Corp (Fox News and the WSJ) is aligned with the fascist movement and is arguably one of its originators. Sinclair group, which owns most local TV stations, is also aligned with that movement.

And to be clear, I watched this happen. I've long made a habit of subscribing to sources from across the spectrum and made a hobby study of political science and trying to identify source's biases by political taxonomy vs the frustratingly simplistic left / right spectrum. I used to subscribe to The National Review, Reason, The American Conservative, the Weekly Standard, and others. I've largely tried to avoid those that are blatant, ingenuine propaganda (which Fox News has always been) in favor of those making earnest well founded arguments. And one by one, I've watched them fall to the fascist movement over the last decade. Reason is the last hold out, truly committed to civil liberties and libertarianism -- though it hasn't yet recognized the fascist movement for what it is (or hadn't last I checked in on them -- I haven't had the time to read as much lately).

It's pretty clear that you're in the fascist propaganda bubble, based on your posts and where you put things, and that is badly skewing your perception of where the center is.

I would strongly encourage you to get out of that bubble.

You're getting hung up on the relay distinction (which is fair). But I'm not talking about relay's here.

And to be clear, I'm talking about the push back towards protocols and decentralization as the solution to enshittification and lock in. I fully believe decentralized protocols and the ability for us to run federated instances for our communities is valuable in and of itself. What I'm arguing against here is the degree to which the pro-social tech community has coalesced around this push as the one and only solution to the problems of enshittification.

And in that context, the average user is everything. And the push fundamentally misunderstands both how enshittification works (email is fully decentralized but still enshittified to a large degree) and the capabilities of the average user (not just their technical capabilities but their cognitive load capacity).

If you want, s/relay/pds/ and my point may become clearer. Or, even, s/relay+pds/app/. The point is pds+relay+app functions as instance for the average user. And the average user doesn't have the time, energy, or cognitive capacity to pick an instance that would be the right fit for them. Which means these decentralized networks are still heavily centralized. And if they remain heavily centralized, those central players still exercise an enormous amount of power over the network.

Including the power to enshittify it.

We can't solve enshittification if we're not cognizant of what the average user is capable of. And that capability extends to more than just "technical understanding". So far, I don't think the protocols push, in so far as it is being pushed as the solution to enshittification, is grappling with that adequately.