pentaphobe

Something can be covert and (unintentionally) visible

Just like it can be overt and invisible

I'd rather use software which was made to solve a problem than software that exists to "get" people to use it.

Forgive me using your comment as a madlib, but one potential ending:

(something as simple as a product name)... is enough to make someone ignore the actual point about software trust and instead argue that good marketing is what's important :)

Darn shame - seems we clawed back some time during the peak of the pandemic lockdowns (a surprisingly high amount IIRC)

But we really do seem to have been intent on doubling down since then

I'm not sure we yet have the measure of how much agents/chatbots will alter our cultural norms, communication style, etc..

A lot of very quick "AI is not the problem" responses (and all in their own top threads. writing rather than conversing.. perhaps a pattern there? but I digress)

Agree with the pretext that some problems may be due to bad habits being amplified

But to me that default chorus of the "you're holding it wrong" thought-terminating cliche sounds no different to

"social media is not an issue, people just need to use control" or "ads are not the issue here, just ignore them.."

Or "hey, the button which randomly gives the pigeon seeds when pushed is not the issue here, pigeons just shouldn't be so needy"

Also I've seen good engineers (and non-engineers) get swept up in the "magic" of genai progressively lose chunks of their formerly consistent, and long-standing good behaviours

This is why we can't have nice things.

that's a bingo! :)

"You see, we like our Nazis in uniform. That way we can spot 'em just like that. But you take off that uniform, ain't no one ever gonna know you were a Nazi. And that don't sit well with us. So, I'm gonna give you a little something you can't take off..."

We're sorry we upset you, Carol

It certainly seems that way from this - admittedly tiny - sample

The responses to this post made me really sad.

Sure - it was light on the meat, But it's an opinion blog post, not a full article. the author ventures to cite their refs, acknowledges potential bias.. way more than you get with a tonne of front page articles (many of which probably should have been short opinion pieces like this)

Sure - it's not particularly notable or high entropy enough to save, but it's far from offensive or bothersome ...yet all I'm seeing (at time of posting) is defensive dismissals, ad hominems, and echo chamber pablum

Hope this isnt too spicy a take, but i find it a bit disingenuous to use language that implies invention (and with no mention or citation of previous work), only to switch to dismissive language when someone notes a predecessor who you've apparently already heard of