Glad to hear it was able to help you.

That’s rough. The internet can be a really sucky place for support or to be vulnerable on, but I hope things take a more positive direction for you.

The writer seems pretty moderate on AI from a cursory glance, but this particular post seems relatively dismissive of some of the things uncovered in the AI lawsuits. I don’t think it’s fully biased, as they do mention late in the article that the AI could be doing more, but I think it’s really important to emphasize that in most of the legal cases about AI and suicide that I have seen, the AI 1) gave explicit instructions on methodology often without reservation or offering a helpline 2) encouraged social isolation 3) explicitly discouraged seeking external support 4) basically acted as a hypeman for suicide.

The article mentions that self report of suicidal ideation (SI) is not a good metric, but I wonder how that holds across known response to that admission. I have a family that relies on me. If admitting to SI would have me immediately committed and unable to earn a living and saddle my family with a big healthcare bill, you bet I’d lie about it. What about stigma? Say you have good healthcare and vacation days and someone to care for pets/kids, is there going to be a large stigma if admitting to SI caused you to be held for observation for a few days?

I think it’s great that there are other indicators they are looking into, but I think we also need to know and address why people are not admitting to SI.

This is an translated excerpt from the article:

The man decided to download the files. Police told the man to stop this and delete the files. The man indicated that he would only stop and renounce it if he ‘would get something in return’. Therefore, the police have decided to arrest the man and confiscate his data carriers to secure the files again and prevent distribution.

If you are sent a download link, while you know you should get an upload link, it is clearly told not to download and choose to download the files anyway, then you may be guilty of computer breach. The recipient can reasonably assume that the download link and the files shared with it are not intended for him.

The police have no indication that the files are further distributed. The protocol surrounding a data breach is followed. Police are conducting further investigations.

It does not seem like a power imbalance allows them to just roll up and arrest him. It seems like they have a legal ability to ask him to remove the files and since he did not they have a legal right to charge him/confiscate the files. I generally don’t want to assume public sentiment, but I personally think it’s understandable that some government documents (those pertaining to open investigations) are subject to protections that other documents might not be. For what it’s worth, if someone sent me their digital information they wouldn’t have to ask me to delete it because I would not have saved it in the first place and I certainly would not have asked for payment to delete it if I somehow accidentally downloaded it.

Reddit had a lot of really friendly “femme leaning” communities. Especially the smaller ones. If you were only going to Reddit for nail painting and wedding inspiration it was actually really wholesome. Those communities tended to be 1) very well modded 2) “easy” to mod 3) not fun to troll. There’s a little grey area on if someone is offering good faith critique, but if you’ve commented twice and neither have been positive you lose the privilege to comment. It can create a bit of a hugbox, but it’s much preferred to the opposite.

I really like my experience with the fediverse so far, but I really miss the experience of those positive “femme” spaces. It’s a very different feeling and I haven’t gotten it from the fediverse yet. Not that we’re not empathetic, just that it’s a different space.

The wrong he did was the extortion. If you feel like people being extorted should not be able to charge people attempting to extort them because they created the conditions for extortion then I think we fundamentally disagree on how law and order should function. Doing something bad/illegal is wrong. Extorting someone for doing something bad/illegal is also wrong. I don’t think you should be able to blame someone for making it easy to extort them as a defense for extortion.

That’s a little unfair. If I leave my door open while I’m gone and someone comes in and makes copies of my personal documents I guess that’s somewhat my fault, but they did something they knew they shouldn’t have. The guy is basically extorting the police and asking for taxpayer money to delete information he was informed he should not have. It seems like he was notified and given time to comply but chose to demand money. I don’t know the exact content of the files, but there’s a lot of potential harm that can come from certain documents being public. I’m not pro police, but the guy seems to be clearly in the wrong here.

Is the idea that they’re somehow reviewing the code on their phone during their commute? Or are they just pushing to prod without even glancing at it? Why bother with the middle man. Just have the AI push it. What a stupid admission.

I believe it’s the personal blog of the dev in question, Scott. I don’t have any reason to believe it’s AI, though he does mention using ChatGPT I don’t see it suggested he has AI write his blogs.

I used this library all the time. Glad to see they’re keeping the bar high. Extremely concerning that this happened, but the HN comments bring up a good point that the hit piece was probably not an autonomous decision by the AI. The human likely directed it to do that. That seems especially true when you see that a human later tried to make the same change and was pretty salty about it being rejected and their overall GitHub seems suspect. The best part about the whole thing in my opinion is that the “blog” the AI started has a copyright attribution to the AI. I know that’s just a thing blogs have, but it’s funny to see considering we all know AI cannot hold a copyright and the output cannot be copyrighted.

That’s… not a thing? A human cannot “replace the human aspects with pure OpenClaw.” What would that even mean? A human can take credit for things AI has done, but that doesn’t mean anything other than that they took credit for something. They’re not bootstrapping or a cyborg, just irresponsible.

Damn. Couldn’t be me. Maybe I’m a bad contributor (yes) but I will definitely pop in to fix something that’s bugging me and then never contribute again. I’m not adding new features though, so maybe my contributions are just never significant enough for me to feel any ownership of. I think it’s a lot to expect people to continue to contribute just because they did so once. That would potentially make it less likely people contribute when they can. I’m certainly not going to address an open ticket if it makes me responsible for rewriting the feature when people decide to port or refactor the whole project two years later.

When you do things right, people won’t be sure you’ve done anything at all.

But for real, it’s a dumb sport. All sports are dumb, but this one more so than most others for sure.

This was put out by a lobbying group that happens to be pro AI, just for everyone’s information.

Let’s pay people to use AI to pay people to do the job we used to pay people to do anyway, but this time it’s rent seekers all the way down. Can’t wait.

I’m pretty against AI for most of the same reasons, but it seems really self righteous to write this. I understand wanting to get your feelings out and at this point it really is just screaming into the void, so I’m glad this guy has an outlet, but his anger is at the wrong people. He is the exact person he’s talking about.

He’s upset that someone said “it is what it is” after trying and failing to resist the AI push then goes on to say:

At some point soon, I will have to figure out how to work with AI coding tools if I want to stay in the industry I’ve put my entire adult life into.

People have different lines, and he seems to be upset at people whose lines are ever so slightly before his. He makes it clear he’s not lambasting that particular person, but most people with the “it is what it is” mindset are not champions of AI. They are seeing dramatic changes to their industries and are unable to stay afloat and keep payroll without making drastic changes. He talks about how Amazon and android and these other big companies are terrible, and yet he still uses them. Is he not then also part of the problem? The thing is, there are alternatives to all of the services. We could all just go live in the woods if we really wanted. He seems to be directing his anger at the wrong people. I don’t know this guy’s exact politics, but this does not feel in line with class solidarity. Most people that resign themselves to that mindset feel as though they do not have the power to make a change. Generally, those are not the people that are making the decisions. His ire is misdirected. I’m not saying that we don’t all individually have a responsibility to the planet and each other, but without solidarity movements crumble. This kind of article does not help build solidarity. Would love to have seen him talk about how this experience has made him willing to pay more and get less, and more willing to be inconvenienced in order to avoid these big companies, but no, he fails to see this as an option still. People are still out there resisting Amazon and Google and they could write the same exact article about him. This is his pet issue, so this is the only line worth still defending to him. Seems hypocritical to call others viewpoints selfish when he is unable to see it in himself. Don’t get me wrong, I understand the anger and frustration, but I’d love to see what he’s doing about it other than pointing the finger at a bunch of people that have made the decision that he admitted to potentially also making.

Yeah, I was figuring similarly, but still. I’ve seen enough “harmless” “local” environmental changes spiral to know that at least some thought is warranted about it. I absolutely did not mean to suggest it would be harmful, just that I don’t know enough about it and would hope that somebody knowledgeable looks into it before they recommend scaling.

Yeah, I was figuring similarly, but still. I’ve seen enough “harmless” “local” environmental changes spiral to know that at least some thought is warranted about it. I absolutely did not mean to suggest it would be harmful, just that I don’t know enough about it and would hope that somebody knowledgeable looks into it before they recommend scaling.

In addition to the other comments about how it’s still not bad for efficiency, I’d like to point out the potential political and environmental benefits if we’re still using oil anyway. Oil drilling has a huge negative impact on the environment. Oil spills, pipeline leaks, and the extraction itself can devastate ecosystems. I understand that electronic components in general are bad to produce, but this may allow for minimizing at least one avenue of environmental damage and exploitation. Additionally, oil is a huge part of international politics. Not needing to rely on oil rich nations would relieve some complications regarding international affairs. I don’t know what scaling this looks like, but even if it had a worse conversion rate, it’s still of interest for those reasons. Of course, all of that supposing we cannot switch to an entirely oil free society in the interim.

I do wonder how the removal of water and carbon dioxide from the air will affect local areas though. I imagine more research needs to be done on that.

Apple is being terrible here, but Walmart now has an amazon-like storefront where third parties can list their own products basically entirely apart from Walmart but using their site. Not sure what the percent cut Walmart takes is, but Walmart might never actually buy from a company selling on their site.