magpi3

There is something to be said for how the technology stack keeps growing for businesses and what this might mean for the future.

Thirty years ago, you had an OS and you installed applications. No problem.

Later, you had to build and use apps on the internet, an infrastructure that is susceptible to DDOS attacks, government firewalls, and other security risks. Still fine, sort of.

Now, you not only have to build apps on the internet, you also have use LLMs to build apps to remain competitive with other developers. Future (human) maintainers of your code might not properly understand how it works, and if the providers of the LLMs screw up or go rogue, you are properly fucked.

There is a dependency/technology stack debt that is creating risks that need to be acknowledged.

It takes the view that anyone in an administrative position will put the survival of the organization as their primary goal, while lower-level employees (who are far less invested in the organization) can remain invested in the organization's ostensible goals.

I find it to be very true after almost 30 years in the working world, and I always keep it in mind wherever I work.

Yeah, Karateka deserves more than a simple aside here. It's amazing that he made that on his own as a college student. I loved that game.

I've thought this for a while: a day will come when the anonymous internet becomes a thing of the past. It really feels like we are already there but not everyone realizes it yet. What's the point of conversing with someone on the internet (like right now) if you can't tell the difference between a bot and a real person? And it will only get worse.

But what does an anon-free internet even look like? Is it even possible? Or will all online content eventually be considered untrustable and worthless? You can see a world where newspapers (online or otherwise) make a comeback simply because of the need for a trusted gatekeeper (which is what I imagine made them valuable in the first place). It's wild to think about.

I don't really have a stance one way or the other, but I don't think people just produce content for ad revenue. A lot of people produce content just to get their name out there/increase their branding, an incentive that AI summaries undermine. There really is no motivation to produce something if it is just going to be regurgitated by AI agents. And, yes, I know they cite sources in their responses (at least Google does), but that is a pretty paltry substitute for actual traffic to your site.

The issue is that people produce content because they want visitors to their sites. If ChatGPT and Google just vacuum up content for AI summaries, people may stop producing that content. It really is, in the long-term, an existential issue for the web if search providers push people away from visiting websites.

He may have meant abdicated

There are always creative ways to present data. Dismissing the needs of a minority of people just because we don't share their visual impairment is lazy, and we can do better.

White with black text for success and black with white text for failure. People would figure it out.

He mentioned in the article that his Kindle is not connected to the internet (didn't explain why), so this is a no-go for him.

> Even if they found the culprits, what's a judge's verdict against a presidential pardon?

This is bad logic. A presidential pardon at least exposes the corruption, and exposing the corruption is more important than a prison sentence.

Maybe because the rot runs so deep in Washington that nobody really wants this to be a big deal. A little like the Epstein files: so many people would be caught up in the web if insider trading in DC were properly investigated that nobody wants to go there.

Yes