Turning it against itself my ass. This is promoting it. Legitimizing it. Normalizing its presence everywhere. Doing exactly what they want.

They're on a niche forum sharing convoluted AI slop, harming that which they claim to stand for. These aren't freedom fighters subverting the system, they're clowns.

Listen, if you want to argue for facilitating image creation for people who aren't skilled artists, I—and many more people—are willing to listen. But this change cannot be built on top of the exploitation of worldwide artists. That's beyond disrespectful, it's outright cruel.

I could talk about the other points you're making, but if you were to remember one single thing from this conversation, please let it be this: supporting the AI trend as it is right now is hurting people. Talk to artists, to writers, even many programmers.

We can still build the tech ethically when the bubble pops, when we all get a moment to breathe, and talk about how to do it right, without Sam Altman and his million greedy investors trying to drive the zeitgeist for the benefit of their stocks, at the cost of real people.

Poe's law has bested me. I'm just gonna hope it's all a joke and leave, now.

I think you might've accidentally added sarcasm tags to your admission.

I think there was a similar idea in the USA with the COPIED Act, but I haven't heard about it since.

I wonder how true that is. Maybe they were considered left in their time, but something we see differently today, then. I really should hit the books on this one.

It's a bit of a tangent(!), but Parrish gave a talk I think is relevant here. In Programming is Forgetting (transcript, watching optional), she analyzes a book about hackers from the eighties and dissects the ethics of hacker culture—a very loose definition, mind you.

This is all beside the point, because while interesting throughout what I'd really like to point to is the section on the rewiring of the PDP-1. Agree or disagree with any other, that part made me rethink how I saw older generations of programmers. I consider the dignity of all people an important tenet of my leftist values today, and women then were second-class, even in computing. Even when excelling.

So I feel like things have actually improved overall, but it's difficult to say how much. That really is a shame, it ought to be a lot clearer.

I honestly can't tell if there's a disguise. Maybe there isn't! He seems to genuinely and stubbornly believe in the apolitical-centrist stuff, which you wouldn't think him capable of since he's so intelligent when it comes to programming... but programming intelligence is not necessarily applicable anywhere else.

Surely, as he was in reality. I'll be paraphrasing this, thanks.

Strawman. You're implying that OP believes hate speech can't encroach on the freedom of others. Nothing in their post leads me to believe they think that.

From their post:

If someone wants to say there is a master race ... Sure: they're free to say it.

Tell me where discussions of a master race will lead, if not putting down the lesser races. Tell me how that doesn't affect their freedom. Tell me how that's not hate.

Many seem to agree on "Freedom of speech, as long it doesn't harm others' freedom," but too many don't understand what harm is.

Don't know. Article asks for sign-in, but much as I like 404's reporting, I just don't feel like creating one more account right now, so all I got is they're unhappy and talking. Maybe they're talking to people who can do something about it, maybe they'll do more soon—organizing takes time, after all—or maybe they'll do fuck all 'cause that's what we usually do.

Why does this have an unnecessary AI-generated card?

Edit: ah, it's the article's banner. It's there if you visit the homepage. They seem to really like the useless AI card thing.

Thanks, I'm going through some of it right now, since I do prefer to be aware of this stuff. Far as I can see, though, he just seems like another opinionated person—not really noteworthy for a developer—who happens to write strongly, and write a lot. While this led to a larger virtual profile, most of his opinions that I've seen were shared, at least in part, with stray lobsters/reddit/hackernews comments.

He has ideas I agree with, ones I don't, some that I think make him look silly... so he's just another person on the internet, kinda like you and me. Could, maybe, use a better tone sometimes. As long as his controversial status is limited to the level of tech nerds ranting at each other, there's not much to be warned about. I think we need to be more open towards earnestly discussing certain topics—sometimes it's not drama, it's just a serious conversation you haven't needed to have until now.

Well, those are my two cents. Thanks, regardless.

P.S. huh, subscribers of opensource did not appreciate this post much. Maybe this is what happens when you cross-post "old" news.