1. Outspend and outlast your competition until you have market dominance. Win over and lock in your customers with sweetheart deals.

2. Enshittify and squeeze your customers to pay back your debt.

If you're using AI, you're not paying the true cost right now because we're in phase 1. Be ready for phase 2.

1. AI can't do some things humans can, and that doesn't change.

2. AI turns into something that can do everything. Humans become unnecessary.

We're currently at #1. Google may want to keep you in their AI playpen so all your clicks can be monetized directly to them, but they still need the data humans are creating. They're just not paying for it.

In world #1, humans will get less work, but creative and original work will still be valued because AI can't do it. There will, of course, need to be support for all the people striving to create such work while they're gaining the skills to do so. In world #2, humans are getting no work. Neither one of these worlds functions if all the proceeds of work go to a small number of billionaires. Wealth will need to be redistributed so people can live and, if still necessary, do the things AI can't.

Regulations need to catch up with what Google is trying to do here. It's currently theft and, even if we reach the point where they no longer need to crawl the web for input to their AI, their wealth will need to be redistributed. Sucking the entirety of human knowledge into a LLM and then profiting off of it without paying the humans who created that knowledge is not a business model that can remain legal for long.

Americans should carefully watch what happens to these workers and their county in the coming months. Beyond that, they should ask who is still keeping an eye on polluters in 2026.

Even if it were good, I'd boycott an AI run radio station. This is one sector where human involvement really matters.

If AI were a country, it'd be 12th place in the world for energy consumption.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_electrici...

It's gone up considerably since last time I looked. Jeez.

Power is more expensive because data centres are using so much of it. Climate change is a tougher problem to solve because we're trying to reduce emissions while the energy requirements of big AI companies is eclipsing that of some nations. GHG emissions are going up when they need to go down. Computer hardware prices are through the roof. Fresh graduates, including those in STEM, face uncertainty in a job market that's trying to replace inexperienced, unspecialized, non-experts (i.e. them) with AI. Many of them know how to use AI just fine, but that doesn't necessarily make them employable. You may dream of being a AI-powered super-developer, but the path to that job may go through entry level positions that become harder to find each day.

Critics of AI are not being irrational. They're paying the costs but not reaping the benefits and they don't see a clear path to changing that. I suggest you look into the history of the luddites and the industrial revolution. Today, we see the industrial revolution as a tremendous boon, but it wasn't that for everyone initially. Multitudes spent their entire lives being shafted before the benefits started tricking down. The real kicker is that only some of the people who suffered were luddites. Many were just like you. You can love a fission bomb for the beauty of its physics, but you'll suffer exactly the same fate as an nuclear abolitionist if one is dropped over your city.

Data-centres are being built at an astonishing rate, but frequently without the informed consent of locals and in a way that's a nuisance. It's possible to build data-centres that recycle water with near perfect efficiency, but many guzzle local water continuously because doing so is cheaper. They can be built to be quiet, but many are built so poorly that they seemingly violate noise pollution laws, which are magically not enforced. Those building data-centres could also build their own power generation capacity but, more typically, they rely on the local power grid and drive up prices. An immense amount of new GHG emissions is directly attributable to AI right when the world needs to be cutting back. There's also the immense sucking up of RAM and chips that has made computer hardware unaffordable for many.

That is a lot of negatives being absorbed by everyone before you even talk about the impact on jobs or where the profits are going. Regulatory capture may be working for now, but people are going to push back if they don't start seeing benefits for them personally or their communities. AI companies seem to be so preoccupied with driving each other out of business that they may completely lose their social license to continue operating.

Behave like criminals and, sooner or later, you'll be treated like criminals no matter who you have in your pocket.

No evidence is provided for the safety of THC vaping products. An NYT article that was clearly biased against THC was picked apart instead. The clear implication is that THC vapes were unjustly targeted and readers should assume the contrary of the dishonest NYT article. i.e. That THC vapes are safe. Yet, no direct evidence of that is provided. A possibly fatal lie is told purely with true facts.

Here's why that matters: THC is a recreational product. It's relatively recent legalization in only some jurisdictions is why we're just starting to get good data on it. Vaping is even newer and less well studied.

Okay, so let's say there's no clear evidence that THC vapes are harmful. I'm being a dishonest fear-monger. Or am I?

What should be the default position on recreational drugs? Specifically, ones that are inhaled? Ask a respirologist. Lungs are delicate and, if you screw yours up, you're really fubar'd. They'll tell you that, if you do want to use a relatively unstudied recreational drug, eat it or shove it up your ass. (Seriously, THC enemas are a thing.) Don't put it in your lungs.

The default position for inhaling drugs should be, "Don't" until they're proven safe. This is my opinion/bias/dishonest-agenda.

The states, under Trump, are all working together to ensure a race to the bottom happens, both in the U.S. and abroad.

One hundred and thirty five nations worked together to create a minimum corporate tax rate called "Pillar Two". It would have factored in tax breaks for projects like this by calculating an effective tax rate for Meta, and mandated higher taxes if the effective rate was too low. Trump withdrew the U.S. from that effort and created a framework to retaliate if other countries upheld Pillar Two to raise taxes on American megacorps[1] in their jurisdictions.

____

[1]https://www.piie.com/blogs/realtime-economics/2025/how-us-mu...

I expect arXiv will still have problems with slop submissions but, at least, their references should actually exist going forward.

Having an OS eat up >75% of your memory on a fresh boot is not ideal. You're gambling on macOS experiencing zero bloat for the lifetime of this product. If the OS memory footprint grows even just a few percent, users of this model will lose a significant portion of available memory for applications.

This model might trigger planned obsolescence legislation in some jurisdictions.

1. Innovate, create, and offer it all at sweetheart prices to the public while you rack up debt.

2. Shovel in more money and either buy out or outlast the competition. Become dominant. Lock in your users any which way you can.

3. Enshittify and cash in.

The deals Anthropic, OpenAI, etc. offer won't stay this good much longer. Don't let them lock you in. Failing that, you should budget more for the same service. You're going to need it. Having an open alternative running on your own hardware offers non-negligible peace of mind.

This is sad, because Reddit remained one of the final bastions of human content on the internet. For several years, appending "site:reddit.com" to a google search was a valid way to get something usable out of a google search. Doing that is still an improvement over raw-dogging Google's ranking algorithms with an unfettered search, but AI slop increasingly is the result.

This is one of my great disappointments in the current rise of AI. LLM's can give good search results when dealing with a topic they've been specifically trained on by human experts, but they're not good at separating human-produced signal from AI slop noise. We've done nothing to prevent a sea of AI slop from being dumped on top all the human signal that's out there. When AI companies enter their enshittification phase and stop investing in expert human trainers, the search results LLM's produce are going to fall off a cliff. Search is a bigger problem than ever.

_____

[1]https://9to5mac.com/2024/02/19/reddit-user-content-being-sol...

----------------

1. Within a few months, these manufacturers will likely raise desktop mobo and CPU prices with the justification that "volumes are too low".

2. If you're upgrading from an older machine, it likely has a format of RAM that's not compatible with newer boards. Upgrading the cheap parts now and waiting for the expensive bits to come down is simply not an option. It's all or nothing.

Game and application developers should be paying close attention to this. You're used to the average user's system spec going up every year. That's stopped for now. The average memory in new systems may actually retreat!

Brands may serve as camouflage when you're trying to conform, but conforming is not an identity. Your identity is based on what you create, not what you consume.

Canadians get a lot of scam calls from Indian call centres. Whether it's furnace cleaners or somebody calling about a fraudulent amazon package you supposedly ordered, it's usually somebody with an Indian accent. It's reached the point where many people simply hang up if they hear an Indian accent on the line. If you're trying to do telemarketing, possibly using the very same call centres that run these scams, that's a huge barrier.

Telus, for its part, is absolutely shameless in its use of aggressive telemarketing. I'm not surprised that they're one of the first companies to employ this sort of innovation. Unfortunately, this tech will likely spread to the scammers almost immediately, assuming it didn't originate with them.

As an aside, here's one of my favourite games to play with telescammers: Pick one word to say over and over again, but attempt to give it a variety of natural inflections, ambiguities, etc. so that it sounds like you're not just saying one word. Then see how long you can keep the scammer on the line. Start your stopwatch the moment you start talking to a human. I once managed over three minutes with the word, "Fuzzy-cuffs". Every minute of their time you waste could be a minute somebody's Grandma isn't being scammed.

e.g. "Quantum key distribution requires special purpose equipment"

Yes, it requires special equipment. That hasn't deterred some from using it where the added expense is warranted. Commercial QKD systems have been in use for decades. The technology is not currently useful for credit card transactions from your living room, but that doesn't mean it has no applications.

"Since QKD is hardware-based it also lacks flexibility for upgrades or security patches."

This is like arguing that, because your internet connection runs on hardware, nothing can be done to upgrade it or fix security vulnerabilities. If your last-mile connection is copper, as it is for many, there have likely been massive upgrades to its bandwidth and security over the years in the form of changes to what's on either end of the copper. Fiber is the same way. A huge part of QKD protocols is software as well.

When I see points like these, I question the source. They appear to have an agenda, and they certainly have motive. Remember, this is an organization whose business has been spying on its own citizens for decades.

1. There is a strong anti-QKD bias on HN or, at least, a very vocal few who reliably heckle anyone who discusses it. I get shouted at if I even mention it, and will likely get shouted at for saying this.

2. Should you trust the NSA's recommendations? This is a valid question, now more than ever.

I occasionally play a perpetually-in-alpha AAA+ game (I won't name it to avoid the flames) that recently asked users to fill out a questionnaire. At no point did it ask how they could make my time spent in the game more fun or awesome. They did explicitly ask, "What can we do to make you spend more time in game?". The focus was clearly on quantity, not quality. This made me realize that, perhaps, I should stop playing this game.

Social media and games use all sorts of dark patterns and engagement bait to keep you clicking, but no concern is given to giving back. There is a complete absence of awareness that the best forms of entertainment enrich and then end. If they were to provide an amazing but brief experience that changes regularly, people would come back again and again. They don't need to spend hours on it every single day to feel they're getting value and justify opening their wallets. Doom-scrolling and spending excessive time grinding in games will only make you feel stressed out and unfulfilled. Customers need to realize this and start voting with their wallets for experiences that end.

We need to turn things around and say, "The light that burns half as long burns twice as bright!"