TechTakes

And here is the complaint, via evacide.

It's true that these analogies can be stigmatizing, but they needn't be. As someone with an autoimmune disorder, I am not bothered by people who describe ICE as an autoimmune disorder in which antibodies attack the host, threatening its very life.

This bothers me more than I can explain.

ICE as autoimmune disorder presupposes that it's normally a good thing to have ICE around and it's just malfunctioning as an exceptional state of things. If ICE is an immune system (malfunctional or not), what are we immigrants?

They're not vibe-coding mission-critical AWS modules.

1. Yes they are

and

2. It's worse than that, they're vibe coding critical operating system components

Take "Morgellons Disease," a psychosomatic belief that you have wires growing in your body, which causes sufferers to pick at their skin to the point of creating suppurating wounds. Morgellons emerged in the 2000s, but the name refers to a 17th-century case-report of a patient who suffered from a similar delusion:

Nitpick but this is unusually sloppy for Doctorow. 1) People with Morgellon's don't believe they have wires growing out of sores, but fibres (which upon examination turn out to be cotton for clothes). 2) The original Morgellons is a putative children's disease «wherein they critically break out with harsh Hairs on their Backs, which takes off the Unquiet Symptomes of the Disease, and delivers them from Coughs and Convulsions.» Which is quite different from the modern condition, whose sufferers have skin sores anywhere in the body with fibrous material looking like lint, dandelion fluff etc., and not particularly associated with convulsions. And 3) The association between the two was made by Miriam Leitao, a mother who believes her son suffers from the disease, and has gone to countless doctors and media trying to prove it's real. So it's an attempt to legitimise the postulated disease by cherry-picking something "historical" that vaguely resembles it.

It doesn't detract from Doctorow's overall argument, it's just an invalid example of the point he's trying to make (that delusions can be spread farther or intensified individually by technology). But where's the fact-checking? I learned this in five minutes from two Wikipedia pages, one of which was linked in the post. I have to wonder if Doctorow is posting through it in such emotional distress that he's pressing publish too quickly, which is what I hope for, because the alternative is that he asked a chatbot about Morgellon's Disease instead of reading Wikipedia.

He knows how LLMs work, right? This really is just cope because he got called out for being weird about using them. Really fucking disappointing

AI was going to give us all universal healthcare but we didn't believe hard enough and now all we have is this.

I feel like at this point I want to highlight the ones that took a clear stance against LLM code. On a chardet thread, people listed:

• Gentoo
• Servo
• Loupe
• Qemu
• postmarketOS
• GoTo Social
• Zig

this is just wages paid in crypto but adapted to new era in a way that doesn't make sense

"Selling your soul to the company store is not just fun, it is also invigorating!"

Man, that harper piece is a full DnD alignment chart of the most online bay area weirdos you've ever seen.

Hmm, he's still sticking to tweet-threads on Twitter. We'll know he's fully cracking when he resorts to Ackman-style unreadable text blocks on there.

"Our lethal capacities. Our ability to fight war."

These are two different things. But I fear he doesn't get that.

Actually the race-realism use last week, combined with this one, makes me realize that for them it's just a fancy way of saying "world-view" [or what they consider to exist, and be true, which is not the craziest use of the word, but I would say unhelpful, and probably a small in-group marker].

It's just a way of calling biases/prejudice legitimate.

And you know what, inasmuch the models have a "world-view" it IS annoyingly american in many ways. (at least the wrong kind of american.)

The specific article's framing pisses me off...

Anthropic CEO Dario Amodei picked a major fight with the Department of Defense last month, asserting that his company’s AI models couldn’t be used for mass surveillance of Americans or direct autonomous weapons systems.

As to who picked a fight with who, the DoD wanted to change the terms of their contract, to which Anthropic apparently compromised on every term except for mass surveillance of Americans (fuck the rest of the world I guess) and fully autonomous weapons (cause a human clicking "yes to confirm" makes slop-bot powered drones so much better). This wasn't good enough for this authoritarian strongman administration, so Pete Hegseth took the fight public with tweets first. So the article framing it as Anthropic "picking a fight" is a bullshit framing. I mean, they did kind of bring it on themselves hyping up their slop machine like it was a sci-fi AGI, but they didn't start the fight.

For one, “it’s 100 percent in the government’s prerogative to set the parameters of a contract,” Snell & Winter partner Brett Johnson told Wired, effectively meaning there may be very little chance of an appeal.

So they find a quote about contracts, but a Supply Chain Risk isn't just the DoD deciding on contracts, it is a specific power that has specific mechanisms set by legislation. If (and it is a big if with the current Supreme Court's composition) the court actually considers the terms set out in the legislation (including, most problematically for the DoD, a risk assessment and consideration of less intrusive alternatives), I think the DoD loses. Of course, the SC has all too often been willing to simply defer to the executive branch's judgement, even if the process for the judgement was "Trump or one of his underlings made a choice on a spiteful or idiotic whim, announced it on twitter, and the departments underneath them rushed to retroactively invent a saner rationalization". If the DoD decided to just end the contract (without all the public threats of SCR or invoking the Defense Production Act) Anthropic wouldn't be in a position to sue and this drama wouldn't have been as publicized in the first place.

But the lawsuit itself takes a dramatically different tone.

Yeah because one set of a language is a CEO trying to grovel and backtrack on one of the rare few ethical commitments he has ever made, and the other is making a court case about the actual law.

Systemd

Jesus.

I've been advocating for a hall of fame of projects that explicitly reject LLMs; ctrl+f "Gentoo" on this very comment thread for the few examples I heard about.