They start from a dogmatic a priori position that humans are materially computers and any deviation from that position is, in their minds, a denial of materialism. They are the rational-est boys and they figure humans are computers, QED. Science or biology or whatever be damned.

As always "Anti-AI obsession" = bothering to care. The type of person being alluded to that "just doesn't understand the tech" isn't pissed off over something like a predictive analytics system from 2019 because they aren't even aware that exists. And, if they were, said person wouldn't care.

The quote of the year came late, but it’s good: “This is LLM generated nonsense. You make a mockery of real research. Do not submit this again.” If the originator of the quote sees this, you will remain entirely anonymous I assure you, but I want you to know that I appreciate you. Happy holidays!

"Christmas is a story of empire, injustice and the vulnerability of ordinary people caught in its path" - Rev. Munther Isaac aje.io/mnp9x2 aje.io/mnp9x2

I get that we’re gonna get a few cycles of backlash against the criticism of the plagiarists, much of it in good faith, but ‘angry people lack the linguistic specificity to dismantle the intentionally labyrinthian terminology of thieves’ isn’t a particularly interesting take, to me

The confusion and conflation of ‘generative ai that is built on stolen artwork’ and ‘machine learning, character behaviour modelling and proc gen’ is intentional on the part of the grifters peddling the former. They benefit from murkiness of classification, because the latter predates their bollocks

StackOverflow taught a generation of programmers not to pay attention, even before LLM's appeared. People copypasting shit that very literally is not a solution to the problem they actually are trying to solve, but looks somewhat similar, etc.

i wish more people had recognized "move fast and break things" as the existential threat it is and not a cute slogan for nerds

I’ve been in game dev for 26 years and I can’t remember any other time where a specific tech was being insistently and persistently pushed on devs as a group in the public sphere. Why would it? Cui bono? Why would any given dev have an interest in other devs using tech they don’t have a stake in?

One thing I don't like about bluesky, and about social media in general, is that if you're just minding your business being a repulsive piece of garbage and trying to drive engagement by being obnoxious because that's your only viable option, people notice this and treat you like shit. Not fair!

I find quite bizarre this notion that everyone was (rightfully) worried that Trump would sabotage the 2024 elections, and when he didn't need to because he just won them outright there's absolutely no way he or his goons could ever possibly try anything like that ever again.

Per NY Times’s Michael Grynbaum on X, this is Sharyn Alfonsi’s email to her “60 Minutes” colleagues in full:

In general, AI adoption levels are a measurement of to what extent a particular reward system (a corporation, a market, academia as a whole system) has ceased to distinguish between doing a thing and pretending to do a thing

Another parallel between AI and crypto is that while proponents of crypto insisted constantly that it was the inevitable, unstoppable future, that never seemed to convince them that they didn't need to be arguing the point with random people online

Your summary (and these other intellectual products) are *also* communication to other people, but without intentionality in creation, they cannot be used for the same purposes. The author/speaker matters for interpretation even if there are no false statements.

When I write a summary, the summary is not the work product. The work product is me having read it and put it into structure and making decisions about what to include at what level. The summary is a signifier of me having done that work.

My theory is that as the "AI" fraud crashes, "AI believers will feel the need to convince others of their, increasingly delusions, beliefs, in order to fortify their own belief, as evidence crashes down around them.

Very earnest and thoughtful ppl being like “not all AI” is getting to me too tbh, the room is not being read

Thinking of GenAI as pollution is a good lens to look at it. It will forever more destroy the credibility of images, text and video. It’s a stain on the internet, an oil spill that no amount of dawn and toothbrushes will clear. We will live with the consequences for generations.

Okay real talk, the only sense in which GenAI is "here to stay" is that even after the bubble pops, AI is digital asbestos that is poisoning everything and we'll probably be picking the detritus out of everywhere it's ended up for years, assuming there's a will to remove it en masse that is.

The 'human in the loop' thing is so stupid!!! Approximately nobody using a L2 ADAS is actually paying attention to the road like they should, and you can't force them to! Likewise, there is absolutely no way you can practically enforce a requirement to manually check the output of an LLM!

There is a particular type of anti-copyright dimwit who thinks that, in a field where you can literally invent any character or story out of thin air, true creativity entails the right to co-opt other people's creations as one pleases.

I'm an "A.i." abolitionist. Here's why. gregpak.net/2025/12/19/i...

These are people who have no particular talent, skill, or contribution to make to the world finding an arena that's if anything hostile to the idea of talent, skill, or service and latching on to that scene like an orphaned macaque to cloth mother.

Generative AI fans are like their crypto/NFT/$GME forebearers in that they're all selfish grifters who are just waiting for the right moment to step over each other on their way to the top, but for the time being have to grit their teeth and pretend their similar goals make them a 'community'.

But let's turn that around: Anyone who wants to call what they are doing "AI" should be accountable for making clear why their product (or research) isn't in fact slop. That's on them. The rest of us do not need to hold space for that. >>

Not sure how economists can say people are richer than they were in the 1960s, when housing, education, and healthcare are now indisputably more expensive relative to median income.

I’m sorry, but it is disgraceful to be an academic who uses this technology to conduct research. It should be prohibited in all of our scholarly institutions, including universities and journals.

Do people realize that this is also happening with case law? Like Do You Understand What That Fucking Means???

Any article observing that the AI bubble is about to burst *but then suggesting AI is too important to our financial systems to be allowed to fail* is missing the point. Generative AI is a massive fraud and a brain drain on humanity, even leaving theft and resource issues aside.

Not surprised programmers have been the glaring exception, considering how utterly dysfunctional the field was even before AI.

There used to be a sort of stultifying anti-intellectual academic Western-leftist stream of thought that was in vogue ~15 years ago, and I always wonder what happened to it. Dissipated in the face of changing academic trends? Still quietly doing its thing, overlooked by the rage machine?

This is just... not a real problem any creative professional has. If you told me someone spent an hour scrolling Google to find an image they could show to an artist to say "like this" I'd think they're just not qualified to whatever job they're doing that involves briefing an artist.

Anthropic C-suite folks are ridiculous, but unfortunately also empowers to impose things on others based on their batshit views. www.404media.co/anthropic-ex... Short 🧵>>

This is bad-faith ragebait, but the whole point of that saying is that game devs should be more intentional about where they put their resources and what they do with them, not less.

it's pretty stupid that if you get sick your body heats up like an oven doing a self cleaning phase, i think a smarter thing to do would be if your body gathered up all of the disease particles and concentrated them up into a disease puck or cube and then just ejected that whole

The term ‘AI’ is the biggest marketing scam ever. Imagine I said that I drank bleach once and it almost killed me, and some dimwit replied by saying ‘well actually I drank milk once and it made my bones stronger’ because society refused to refer to both things as anything but the word ‘chemicals’.

trash decisions hellbent on preparing students for jobs in industries that will collapse before they graduate

"Summary" is the most common use case you get from people who are so desperate to present themselves as the reasonable middle ground in the "AI" "debate" and it just makes them look like marks.

Generative AI is amazing at tasks where I am not qualified to judge the output.

"i have moderate views on LLMs"

Some dipshit a while ago was posting about how most artists suck and should just do their thing on the side like garage band musicians—you know, because the real threat to the sanctity of art is the freelancer who has the UTTER TEMERITY to try and make a living that isn't a minimum wage retail job.

A French supermarket's Christmas advert has captured hearts worldwide without using generative AI.

The USA is destroying its own academia in a really fundamental way

And what I appreciate about @mollytaft.com in this piece is the explicit acknowledgment that "a lot of water" isn't an absolute number, it's a comparison. Does AI use a lot of water? Well, it's an anti-human technology. So from my perspective, every single drop is wasted.

The most important thing to oligarchs is that people come to accept chatbots as a source of truth. It’s the fascist imperative. This is the only way it makes sense to install these systems in spaces where they routinely fail at the ostensible task.

shitlib commentators posting breathlessly every week about how _this time_ the Trump fascist project is doomed!!! doomed!!! (and subscribe to my Substack!!!) are the small-money equivalent of the big consultant grifters that the Democratic party exists to serve

Automation should only be used for tasks where: 1. there is an objective metric of correctness of work 2. that metric can be measured with little cost or effort 3. the automation can be determined to be sufficiently reliable at correctly doing its job It is not appropriate for anything else.

If it’s not a fascist project, why do fascists love it so much 🤷🏿‍♂️