You don't get it. You, and I, are in the minority. How do you expect authors to keep writing, when the market will be, eventually, flooded by AI generated slop? It's the same with coding: I no longer see point to write OSS by hand, as every day, 10 projects appear on HN front page, that are 95.9% AI generated.
Becoming a successful writer / musician, is already hard. With software, it was easier, but in my opinion, it will become hard as well. There will be individuals in the software development who are like Taylor Swift, because they know how LLMs work, and how to optimize them to squeeze one more KPI. The rest will just be nobodies.
And sure, if you think you are an extraordinary person, or you were born in the right environment, then you probably don't have to worry. But I'm an average Joe, who wants to live an average Joe's life, but it's being taken away from me. And while the select few might have access to a live Taylor Swift performance, or a personal reading of the latest novel by a struggling author, the rest of us are going to be fed AI slop.
Flooded markets get bypassed. I see a future where real creatives simply don't post stuff online, and anything online is not trusted. What AI is going to kill is the Internet, not human creativity.
> I see a future where real creatives simply don't post stuff online, and anything online is not trusted.
This shift is already well underway. I know a fair number of artists of various sorts (most are writers), and almost half have disconnected their artwork from the internet entirely.
A) The modern extreme thirst for dopamine predates the Internet. We've had powerfully addictive and destructive street drugs for decades now and art and creativity still thrive.
B) People who are not (or don't believe they are) in full control of their lives, which is most of the non-rich on the planet, generally are subject to having to spend a lot of time doing things they don't want to do, and want some form of escape.
Any medium will be a trap that can catch people who would prefer to escape permanently, whether it's good for them or not. I'm sure you had children and housewives addicted to radio shows in the 1940's.
For creatives who are dedicated to their craft and are not in it for mass-market leverage, this is fine, it's going to be a filter. The people who get caught in these traps are not going to be the ones that can appreciate or support art, even if it's not their fault.
I feel like I've been meeting people of different ages (strong bias for millenials) that just don't enjoy the internet anymore. And yes, most are addicted to this dopamine drip, yet it makes me optimistic that something _is_ changing.
To repeat, I'm not worried. Making music might be easier than before, but having "Good Taste" isn't easier than before, it's still hard. And good stuff isn't just produced and made, they have decisions and choices behind them, and make the wrong ones, your thing ends up sucking.
If you just care about average content then yes, you can probably live on slop. But do you want to? Because no one is forcing you, there is still high quality stuff out there, produced by people with good taste, and it'll remain like that forever.
It's a good read, thanks for sharing. But the flaw in it, is the fact that you think that the world is built on merit, i.e. Good Taste, as you call it.
And while sure, merit / good taste are important, but if you look at the mainstream it's filled with average. Now, from the consumer side you can claim "what do you care about the mainstream, just look for good taste, and you will find it", and I agree with you. But I do not speak about the consumer side, but rather the producer side. As a producer, I want to produce "good taste", but if there is very little demand for good taste things, I might struggle to sustain myself while producing based on merit.
In the end, the reason enshittification exists, is because "good taste" stuff became too popular and the authors decided to capitalize on it (can't blame them when you have a mortgage to pay, and family to feed), and turn it into "mainstream crap".
I guess the point I'm trying to make, is that creating good taste is not easy. And it will become even harder as the mainstream will expand and capture AI generated content, leaving people who believe in creation based on merit, fighting for the crumbs.
The world is built at a balance between good taste and good economics. AI slop is still slop. Reminds me when there were massive booms on outsourcing software to low cost labor markets. Most of the software born out of those markets was slop and not much different than what we see today. Good taste still matters in most work. I am pretty big proponent of AI but I don’t think AI can write a book that I enjoy. Similarly I don’t believe AI can write software end to end without a humans input of good taste. Sure you can brute force it but like those early years of outsourcing I bet it won’t be maintainable or well running.
This might be one of those “the market can remain irrational for longer than you can remain solvent” cases, though.
And for arts and entertainment, where the long term value is less important economically than the immediate click, AI slop is good enough that the percentage of people unable to tell the difference means there’s no point in creating any more except at the highest end or for the love of it.
I’m watching people listen to AI-generated music and not notice (or even prefer it over human-produced music). I’m watching people on FB who can’t tell the most ridiculous AI-generated imagery from reality.
It may not be good enough for you or me; but the average consumer is not all that discerning. They’ll choose whatever gives them a dopamine hit.
I think we are thinking about different things. Slop content has existed long before AI. I agree on the music front there is a possibility but I don’t see it much different than all the low effort lowfi music that flooded the study stations. I don’t see a future yet where engineers or other folks making tasteful content have to worry about their job security. When that time comes there are going to be real concerns from more than just the creative types.
As an average Joe I have easy access to Taylor Swift on youtube etc. AI junk is also there but I don't choose it and only force fed a very small amount by my friend who likes making it.
Why do I want authors to keep writing commercially? Books get worse every year, and there is more than a lifetime of great literature even from 500 years ago. Lack of books is just about the last thing I'd consider a problem. This hasn't anything to do with your original point of summarizing books with AI, which is silly.
>I'm an average Joe, who wants to live an average Joe's life, but it's being taken away from me
Literally nothing has been taken from you. Go read the book.
While I agree with the sentiment of the post, I’ve also came to a conclusion that it’s not worth to fight against the system. If you can’t quit your job, then just do what everyone else is doing: use AI to write and review code, and make sure everyone is happy (especially the management).
Thank you, good question! My original implementation was actually a bunch of manifests on my own microk8s cluster. I was finding that this meant a lot of ad-hoc adjustments with every little tweak. (Ironic, given the whole "pets vs cattle" thing.) So I started testing the changes in a VM.
Then I was talking to a security engineer at my company, who pointed out that a VM would make him feel better about the whole thing anyway. And it occurred to me: if I packaged it as a VM, then I'd get both isolation and determinism. It would be easier to install and easier to debug.
So that's why I decided to go with a Vagrant-based installation. The obvious downside is that it's harder now to integrate it with external systems or to use the full power of whatever environment you deploy it in.
I peeked at the Vagrantfile, and I noticed that you rsync the working directory into the VM. I have two more questions.
1. Is it safe to assume that I am expected to develop inside the VM? How do run IDE/vim as well as using Claude code, while the true copy of the code lives in the VM?
2. What does yolo-cage provide on top of just running a VM? I mean, there is a lot of code in the GitHub. Is this the glue code to prepare the VM? Is this just QOL scripts to run/attach to the VM?
1. It's designed to give you an experience identical to using the Claude Code CLI in every respect, but with a much smaller blast radius. It's not currently set up to to work with your IDE. In that sense, it's a niche solution: I made it because I was trying to use a lot of agents at once, and I found that the rate-limiting factor was my ability to review and respond to permission pop-ups.
2. The VM is, in some sense, packaging. The main value adds are the two indirections between the agent and the outside world. Its access to `git` and `gh` are both mediated by a rules-based dispatcher that exercises fine-grained control in excess of what can be achieved with a PAT. HTTP requests pass through a middleware that block requests based on configurable rules.
See: A field guide to sandboxes for AI¹ on the threat models.
> I want to be direct: containers are not a sufficient security boundary for hostile code. They can be hardened, and that matters. But they still share the host kernel. The failure modes I see most often are misconfiguration and kernel/runtime bugs — plus a third one that shows up in AI systems: policy leakage.
I find using docker containers more complex - you need a Dockerfile instead of a regular install script, they tend to be very minimal and lack typical linux debugging tools for the agent, they lose state when stopped.
Instead I'm using LXC containers in a VM, which are containers that look and feel like a VM.
> It feels like the only solution is to go live in a forest, and disconnect from everything.
As much as I approve of living in forests, you don't need to go that far. Tech bros are fond of things being "frictionless," so add some friction. Delete the social media apps from your phone and use their websites instead. Don't bookmark the sites, but make yourself type in the URLs each time you want to visit. If each visit is intentional, instead of something you do automatically when you're bored, you'll have a better experience.
I always knew that "Unlimited PTO" is beneficial to the company rather than its employees. It's the same trick of "we offer [20% lower base salary than market rate] + 2.79% equity" - it sounds like you could break the bank from equity by earning less actual money, but in reality, most of this equity does not worth the bytes it occupies on the servers.
I noticed an interesting pattern. People who “made it” usually by working high paying jobs for the neofeudal lords, suddenly gain moral compass and tell the rest of us to not work for said neofeudal lords, because “money is not important”, and apparently you can buy a place to live or food to feed your family simply by having principles.
I agree with your point, and superficially OP is a prime example.
Not to excuse the guy, but I think that, looking deeper, the situation with geohot is more involved. He grew up in a lower-middle-class household and was lucky to be a smart kid in a time when being a nerd could be a ticket out.
I guess not unlike many of us here on HN.
Unlike many of us, his explorations in the corporate world were all short stints. If I’ve kept tabs correctly, he never stayed longer than a year. Sometimes only for weeks.
Apart from that, I often take the pattern you noticed more as confession, penance, and a "tell your children not to walk my way" kind of message. Maybe I read this stuff too generously.
Sure, self awareness is important. When you tell your kids not to walk your way, you take accountability. You say that what you did was bad, and you are accountable for it. You also acknowledge that what you did brought you to where you are, but given the chance you would take a different way. It’s not bad to have moral principles after you’ve done what you fight against, as long as you do it with accountability and self awareness.
“Opt out of capitalism” doesn’t work when you’re trying to feed your family. He offers no alternative, speaks from a place of safety with no acknowledgment that the people he’s addressing don’t have the same safety net as he does.[0]
He’s not wrong. We are all fucked. But if it were as simple as “not participating” (whatever that means), then we wouldn’t be.
[0]: to be fair he does address others at tech companies, maybe he assumes that everyone working in big tech has a safety net, which is perhaps not as unreasonable as I first thought.
that's why they are also more egocentric, racist, etc. When people do not feel the threat of society it is easier to have opinions that verge out of the norm or could restrict further employment (and also opinions that are wrongfully or rightfully policed in society)
Probably not a popular opinion but this is why capitalism works. We all work to compete for what is best for US and our Family, not what someone tells us to work on because they think they know whats better, they don't.
Welp, I'm worried. I like Astro, but maybe it's time to make my own SSG, to not ever end up in the hand of a few big-sharks that consolidate and enshittify everything.
It’s not only about the .env, but also intellectual property, algorithms, even product ideas.
Moreover, let’s say you run a dev server with watch mode, and ask claude to implement a feature. Claude can generate a code that reads your .env (from within the server) and send to some third party url. The watch mode would catch it and reload the server and will run the code. By the time you catch it, it’s too late. I know it’s far fetched, and maybe the paranoia is coming from my lack of understanding these tools well, but in the end they are probabilistic token generators, that were trained on all code in open existence, including malware.
It looks this way at first glance, but at the end of the article is a link to the original:
> If you’d like an essay-formatted version of this post to read or share, here’s a link to it on pluralistic.net, my surveillance-free, ad-free, tracker-free blog:
Becoming a successful writer / musician, is already hard. With software, it was easier, but in my opinion, it will become hard as well. There will be individuals in the software development who are like Taylor Swift, because they know how LLMs work, and how to optimize them to squeeze one more KPI. The rest will just be nobodies.
And sure, if you think you are an extraordinary person, or you were born in the right environment, then you probably don't have to worry. But I'm an average Joe, who wants to live an average Joe's life, but it's being taken away from me. And while the select few might have access to a live Taylor Swift performance, or a personal reading of the latest novel by a struggling author, the rest of us are going to be fed AI slop.