And they say AI doesn’t cause brainrot… “Sorry you can’t get AI to work for you. Keep trying!” sounds like the kind of thing you would expect from someone who only outputs the highest quality of work, doesn’t it?

I’m not saying all AI users are like this, and there are many smart developers that do use it effectively (like Torvalds), but there is definitely a loud group of AI cheerleaders that extremely careless and overconfident, while lacking any sense of self-criticism or oversight of what they say or do.

And by the way, you definitely can build simple web-apps in a day without AI. I was doing that in 2015 by just following the Django tutorial. It took me longer than a day because I tried to read the documentation and understand it. But if I put the same amount of effort that these low-effort AI users do, I could have easily just copy-pasted shit from the finished tutorial and been done in an hour with the same level of understanding (or lack thereof) that AI users have.

That’s the difference between good and bad engineers - you have the tools in front of you, but can you make yourself a better engineer while you use them?

Speaking of which, you know what these AI tools do? They just go to github and copy off some project that already does what you want it to do. Anyone could do that before AI existed. Sure, it’s definitely impressive that they can understand what you want to do and find the right result (usually), but you could do that ever since search engines were invented. AI is just the “I’m feeling lucky” button from Google from back when people had enough sense to be a little critical of the results they were looking at before they clicked it.

Article is light on details. I’m curious how they define what is “algorithm”-generated content and what isn’t.

Ad personalization is hard to verify because it’s all happening on the backend. What you see in a feed is much more visible, so maybe that will make it harder to work around. I haven’t read much about how the legislation works and how it defines algorithms, but if it’s something like, “only show me people I’ve subscribed to”, then it would be pretty easy to verify whether they are showing that or not.

But in general, I agree. Big tech companies always find a way to work around this legislation. Enforcement is the issue, not the laws themselves.

The problem is, Android is not your OS, it’s Google’s OS. They decide how it works, not you, damn peasant!

(Ditto for Ios and Apple, probably)

Mullvad recommended Quad9 when they announced the shutdown. They said it’s because they think Quad9 is doing a better job of it than they can, so it’s a pretty serious recommendation.

Worth a read, it’s not too long: https://mullvad.net/en/blog/shutting-down-our-public-encrypted-dns-servers-and-sponsoring-quad9-instead

s/gift/bribe/

Fair, he was due to retire.

But at the very least, there’s a good chance that Apple will start trying to shoehorn integrate AI in a lot of places. How much and where remains to be seen. Especially as a new CEO, there will be a lot of pressure to respond to all the criticism they’ve been receiving about their approach to AI.

That’s probably about to change with their new CEO too:

“It’s becoming clear that AI is not a fad, is not something that will go away in the next two or three years,” said Jeronimo. “It’s something that will dictate the future of most tech companies and indeed all companies.”

He reckons AI could be “the most consequential technology” for Apple because it could either help it maintain its lofty position or create a set of daunting challenges.

https://www.dw.com/en/can-new-apple-ceo-john-ternus-fix-the-tech-giants-ai-woes/a-78575898

It’s pretty likely that AI was the reason why Apple is changing CEOs in the first place, because they have been getting criticized for not being as hopelessly stupid about it as other tech companies are.