As an open source maintainer, I'm not stoked and I feel pretty much the opposite way. I've only become more annoyed when trying to adopt these tools, and felt more creative and more enabled by reducing their usage and going back to writing code by hand the old fashioned way. AI's only been useful to me as a commit message writer and a rubber duck.
> I do not have selective guilt over modern generative tools because I understand that one day this era will be history and society will be as integrated with AI as we are with other transformative technologies.
This seems overly optimistic, but also quite dystopian. I hope that society doesn't become as integrated with these shitty AIs as we are with other technologies.
There is a way for us to both get what we want out of software development without ideologically crusading against each other's ideals. We can each have these valid opinions about how generative technology personally integrates into our lives.
Of course, that might be less and less true about our work as time goes on. At some point in the future, hiring an engineer who refuses to use generative coding tools will be the equivalent of hiring someone today who refuses to use an IDE or even a tricked out emacs/vim and just programs everything in Notepad. That's cool if they enjoy it, but it's unproductive in an increasingly competitive industry.
Perhaps so, but again I find your vision of the future overly optimistic. Luckily I'm self employed and don't have to worry about AI usage quotas and "being unproductive" in an increasingly unproductive and non-deterministic industry.
I believe they're talking about 4Chan. There's a timeline linked in the article, but tldr this Ofcom (isp I guess?) has been trying to force 4chan to use age verification on all visitors in compliance with UK law, even though 4chan is based in the US.
> 12/4/2025: Ofcom writes to 4chan again, claiming it is “expanding its investigation” into the site for not age-verifying its users. Ofcom explains that although it is “a UK-based regulator… that does not mean the rules do not apply to sites based abroad.”
Edit: after reading through the legal correspondences, it looks like Ofcom has been trying to get 4chan to produce cooperate with its investigation into whether or not it complies with the UK's Online Safety Act. 4chan didn't respond to the first two inquiries from Ofcom, so Ofcom has been attempting to fine them according to the Act.
> Ofcom (isp I guess?) has been trying to force 4chan to use age verification on all visitors in compliance with UK law,
All? I think not.
"The Act only requires that services take action to protect users in the UK - it does not require them to protect users anywhere else in the world. The measures that Ofcom recommends providers take to comply with their duties only relate to the design or operation of the service in the UK or as it affects UK users."
> VPNs ... can enable people to access online services in a way ... they do not benefit from protections required by the Online Safety Act
They sound like abusive partners of the "you're confused, I'm doing this for your own good" variety. It must have taken real discipline, resisting the urge to add an "or else" somewhere, perhaps a few iterations of "I'm going to marry you someday, Lorraine!"
You are taking ofcom's statements at face value and assuming them to be accurate, rather than blatant lies and spin. And even to the extent that that statement were true, it's still overreach to claim any ability to regulate companies outside their jurisdiction. It is not the responsibility of people outside their jurisdiction to help them oppress their citizens; it's just more politically safe to attempt extraterritorial enforcement than it is to put up a country-wide firewall.
I really recommend you read Bob Woodward's four most recent books, starting with Fear[¹] . They give us a fascinating look into Trump's mind, and we get frank discussions from Trump and the people around him about how he not only idolizes strong men like Putin and Kim, but wishes he could be more like them if it weren't for the limits on his power and weak people around him (i.e. more feared/respected by his subordinates, able to command them with an iron fist, etc.).
[¹] The title of the book comes from Trump remarking to Woodward that "Real power is – I don’t even want to use the word – fear."
That word works two ways: it shows that Trump would like to be feared, but he's not, it also shows that he's probably very scared, especially of the people he's sucking up to.
In certain places in America. My county sheriff's office would be more than happy to have something to do that isn't picking up somebody's stray dog. I'm sure this is true for the UK and Canada too.
I called the non-emergency line for the local police department when someone went home with my wallet after I left it on a plane, tracked with an AirTag. 2 hours later an officer said they didn't have probable cause but could knock on the door and ask anyway. I think he basically offered for there to be no trouble if they gave it back, thief claimed they were "going to return it to lost and found", and sure enough I was able to go show my passport at the station and collect it the next day.
There's a recent video of a woman getting arrested, not for the first time, for admitting that she might be praying to herself inside her head, silently.
Because there is a law against people impeding or trying to influence people within 150 meters of an abortion clinic. Her admitted goal was trying to influence people entering. Will her defense be that she does not believe prayer has an influence on the world?
Most would agree that 150 people standing in front of the abortion clinic would obviously an attempt to impede or influence people. What if someone stands there "praying" but really noting faces and license plates for future harassment? Where does the law draw that line?
The ADF is a discriminatory, corrosive organization that has done real harm to millions by rolling back civil rights in the US, and now they have taken their agenda internationally.
The hypocrisy of calling this a "thought crime" is stunning. ADF is the same organization that brought a case against a Colorado law that banned discrimination against LGBTQ businesses, because a baker was worried she may have to bake a cake for a gay wedding - which she was never asked to do. So some thoughts are legally protected (prayer) while others (concern) are justifications to roll back civil rights. But the thoughts of others (terror and shame while entering an abortion clinic, feelings when discriminated against, love for a same sex partner) are irrelevant and not worthy of protection.
Their stated purpose is "advancing every person’s God-given right to live and speak the truth" - but only "live" and speak the "truth" that they deem to be correct, based on their evangelical and politically-charged interpretation of Christianity. And they want that legislated.
I believe in free access. I also believe those going to get an abortion shouldn’t be impeded by protesters in the immediate vicinity when getting their healthcare.
She was standing alone, across the street, on the curb/grass next to the sidewalk, kind of doing a homer simpson into the bushes.
There were no other people visible, she made no noise.
She didn't impede anyone, and it would have been very difficult to tell she was protesting, if that's in fact what she was doing (I'm not her, so I don't know).
I don't believe in God, so those particulars (or that it was an abortion clinic) aren't important to me. She was arrested for thinking silently to herself.
Do you believe God was listening to the prayers and influencing the people at the abortion clinic? From what I read the lady was standing there and not blocking free access. The law says you may not influence.
Tbf, it's not the case that they are more worried about wrongthink because they're just not worried at all by petty theft - or almost any other instance of micro-criminality.
Would you believe me if I said the police aren't worried about it because even if they put in the effort and catch thieves, they won't be prosecuted very hard. Since 2014, "low-value shoplifting" (under £200) in England and Wales can only be tried in the Magistrate's court and have a maximum sentence of 6 months (now ~1 year since 2024), no matter how many summary offenses you're convicted of. So if you steal under £200 of stuff, hundreds of times over, it's the same outcome. You'll be back on the street very soon.
The government is currently seeking to amend that:
> The bill will remove the perceived immunity granted to shop theft of goods to the value of £200 or less, by repealing Section 22A of the Magistrates’ Court Act 1980 and the legislation that inserted it (section 176 of Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014).
> This will ensure that all offences are tried as ‘general theft’ (an either way offence with a maximum custodial sentence of seven years), instead of summarily in the magistrates’ court, unless the defendant elects for jury trial
"Either-way" here means that the offence can be tried either as a summary or indictable offence; an indictable offence can carry much more serious penalties.
I don't disagree, and I would add that the court system is so clogged up that one might not even end up behind bars at all - because by the time the hearing is finally scheduled, the perp might well be on another continent.
Still, the public would appreciate some effort - if anything to actually get some of their stuff back, if not to inconvenience thieves.
It is the case in reality. We are talking about an objectively measurable outcome, and delusional thinking from the propaganda victims does not change it.
Oh for gods sake, can we stop this nonsense mad twitter trope spreading through HN. Having been a cop in the UK, we will happily got nick a robber if they're on the move and tell us where they are, and we don't arrest people for "wrong thought" on twitter unless that happens to be repeatedly messaging your ex and telling her about how you're going to do murder them.
yes, some of my stupid colleagues will once in a blue moon arrest people for twitter nonsense, but that barely ever happens which is why it makes the news and they pretty much never get convicted.
In Canada the police are pretty lazy and it's mostly due to who they hire, and also a LOT of political garbage as it's a federal police force throughout the country in most cases -- run from Ottawa.
Not much real police work happening any more unless you criticize the government or do something they can use as a reason to grow their budgets or otherwise further political agendas.
If there is a video of a crime they do like that...easy! Also they can show it to media for props.
Lazy cops just love centralized 'social' media and the fools who post their lives on it for them to snoop through.
I'm American and sell my software to all 50 states (plus the rest of the world). I don't have a single special market rule for any state, not even my own. My payment providers take care of tax collection for me and my accountant tells me how much to pay the government each tax season.
Strictly from a realpolitik standpoint, universal healthcare like the systems found in Europe is unlikely to happen because too much of the American economy is tied up in healthcare and healthcare services. People trying to improve the system here in the US would be better served by looking for a fix that's uniquely American (ACA, all-payer rates, public option, etc.), rather than trying to tear out what we have and replace it with universal healthcare.
Mandatory disclaimer that I don't like our health insurance or healthcare prices any more than anybody else does, and in a perfect world I'd love to have universal healthcare instead.
> How about fixing the government so it can’t be shut down because a few hundred politicians can’t agree on the next budget?
"Thanks I'm cured" material. You're not the first person to think of that, and the fact that it hasn't been done yet probably means it can't be done very easily.
You're not taking crazy pills, this is my exact experience too. I've been using my wife's eCommerce shop (a headless Medusa instance, which has pretty good docs and even their own documentation LLM) as a 100% vibe-coded project using Claude Code, and it has been one comedy of errors after another. I can't tell you how many times I've had it go through the loop of Cart + Payment Collection link is broken -> Redeploy -> Webhook is broken (can't find payment collection) -> Redeploy -> Cart + Payment Collection link is broken -> Repeat. And it never seems to remember the reasons it had done something previously – despite it being plastered 8000 times across the CLAUDE.md file – so it bumbles into the same fuckups over and over again.
A complete exercise in frustration that has turned me off of all agentic code bullshit. The only reason I still have Claude Code installed is because I like the `/multi-commit` skill I made.
Why is it odious to say “it got excited” about a process that will literally use words in the vein of “I got excited so I did X”?
This is “talks like a duck” territory. Saying the not-duck “quacked” when it produced the same sound… If that’s odious to you then your dislike of not-ducks, or for the people who claim they’ll lay endless golden eggs, is getting in the way of more important things when the folks who hear the not-duck talk and then say “it quacked”.
> Saying the not-duck “quacked” when it produced the same sound
How does a program get excited? It's a program, it doesn't have emotions. It's not producing a faux-emotion in the way a "not-duck quacks", it lacks them entirely. Any emotion you read from an LLM is anthropomorphism, and that's what I find odious.
We say that a shell script "is trying to open this file". We say that a flaky integration "doesn't feel like working today". And these are all way less emotive-presenting interactions than a message that literally expresses excitement.
Yes, I know it's not conscious in the same way as a living biological thing is. Yes, we all know you know that too. Nobody is being fooled.
> We say that a shell script "is trying to open this file".
I don't think this is a good example, how else would you describe what the script is actively doing using English? There's a difference between describing something and anthropomorhpizing it.
> We say that a flaky integration "doesn't feel like working today".
When people say this they're doing it with a tongue in their cheek. Nobody is actually prescribing volition or emotion to the flaky integration. But even if they were, the difference is that there isn't an entire global economy propped up behind convincing you that your flaky integration is nearing human levels of intelligence and sentience.
> Nobody is being fooled.
Are you sure about that? I'm entirely unconvinced that laymen out there – or, indeed, even professionals here on HN – know (or care about) the difference, and language like "it got excited and decided to send me a WhatsApp message" is both cringey and, frankly, dangerous because it pushes the myth of AGI.
I think you're conflating two different things. It's entirely possible (and, I think, quite likely) that AI is simultaneously not anthropomorphic (and is not ACTUALLY "excited" in the way I thought you were objecting to earlier), but also IS "intelligent" for all intents and purposes. Is it the same type and nature as human intelligence? No, probably not. Does that mean it's "just a flaky integration" and won't have a seismic effect on the economy? I wouldn't bet on it. It's certainly not a foregone conclusion, whichever way it ends up landing.
And I don't think AGI is a "myth." It may or may not be achieved in the near future with current LLM-like techniques, but it's certainly not categorically impossible just because it won't be "sentient".
I know, seems a bit silly right? But go with me for a moment. First, I'm assuming you get the duck reference? If not, it's probably a cultural difference, but in US English, "If it walks like a duck, and talks like a duck..." is basically saying "well, treat it like a duck". or "it's a duck". Usage varies, metaphors are fluid, so it goes. I figured even if this idiom wasn't shared, the meaning still wouldn't be lost.
That aside, why? Because the normal rhetorical sticks don't really work in conversation, and definitely not short bits like comments here on HN, when it comes to asking a person to consider a different point of view. So, I try to go in a little sideways, slightly different approach in terms of comparisons or metaphors-- okay, lots of time more than slightly different-- and lots of times? more meaningful conversation and exchanges come from it than the standard form because, to respond at all, its difficult to respond in quite the same pat formulaic dismissal that is the common reflex-- mine included-- I'm not claiming perfection, only attempts at doing better.
Results vary, but I've had more good discussions come of it than bad, and heard much better and more eye-opening-- for me-- explanations of peoples' points of view when engaging in a way that is both genuine and novel. And on the more analytical end of things, this general approach, when teaching logic & analysis? It's not my full time profession, and I haven't taught in a while, but I've forced a few hundred college students to sit through my style of speechifying and rhetoricalizing, and they seem to learn better and give better answers if I don't get too mechanical and use the same form and syntax, words and phrases and idioms they've always heard.
> I do not have selective guilt over modern generative tools because I understand that one day this era will be history and society will be as integrated with AI as we are with other transformative technologies.
This seems overly optimistic, but also quite dystopian. I hope that society doesn't become as integrated with these shitty AIs as we are with other technologies.
reply