This is probably the saddest comment I've read on HN. It really shows the state of this place and how far into psychosis the comments have fallen.

I have for example hypersensitivity to radio waves. I know how my body reacts and how it feels when I'm exposed to such radiation, especially during vaxxine toxicity flareups.

Yet, I have to be screened by nurses, go through appointments with psychologists, and in general wasting a lot of time when I could just convince a model to prescribe the radium water I need.

Step in the right direction.

This is a false equivalence. Reverse engineering my binary is not the same thing as training on my code. When you RE a binary, what comes out the other side is not the code that I wrote, its some machine-generated code that can reproduce the behavior of the binary. The result can't even be described as 'similar' to the original, because the compilation process is pretty much 100% lossy.

Reverse engineering my binary doesn't concern me too much, as I'm sure there are legal avenues I could take to protect my business were it to become a real problem. And if it comes down it, there's zero competitive advantage someone would have in that scenario, as all they'd have is undifferentiated AI slop.

Taking my work, putting it into your commercial product, and selling it without my permission is what I have a problem with. That's exactly what AI companies are doing with very little push back, and why I won't release my hand-written human code anymore.

> I also don't feel any sense of accomplishment anymore. Software is so trivial now. Even if I make some unique thing, others can just have an AI copy it. Nothing is special anymore. Feels like there's no point.

Software is certainly not 'trivial' now. The only people who believe this are those that have gotten caught up in the AI marketing blitz, or have completely detached/warped perspective on software. I.e. non-engineers wowed by novelty, finance execs wowed by the idea of being able to fire a bunch of people, or oligarchs wowed by the idea of being able to monopolize an entire industry.

Can confirm. I've personally stopped releasing new open source code, and stopped contributing to projects.

Until copyright laws are updated to protect my work from being stolen and my labor exploited by AI companies, there's zero incentive for me to participate in open source.

Even OSI's cuck licenses are being cucked beyond reason. I didn't think that was possible.

The human wallet

> I use LLMs to fill code after I make all hard architectural decisions because they type faster than me, and I'd rather spend my time doing useful experiments than typing trivial functions, even though I could.

Are you being facetious? Because I've seen some bad takes from people trying to justify their AI coding practices, but this is the first one that actually made me laugh. It's clear that this public attack has you in a defensive mental state (which is perfectly understandable), so giving you the benefit of the doubt, I won't pile on and take everything you're posting too seriously.

However, I gotta point out how ridiculous this statement is, because it's the kind of thing that'd make me wonder if someone has any programming experience at all. Typing speed is not, never has been, and never will be a limiting factor in software development. "I didn't do because of even though I totally could" is a pathetic cope.

It kinda reminds me of a recent post from John Carmack where he said (paraphrasing) that he originally wanted to release Idtech to the public domain as a "gift to the world", but couldn't do it because of his pesky business partners, but he totally would've done it. Let's just ignore the part of the story where he became filthy rich from licensing his software, and focus on how good it will feel to call it a "gift to the world" when an AI company integrates your code into their commercial products without licensing it from you.

The official product page above has a link to one you can already preorder: https://arcturus.vision/

Just because you don't understand something, doesn't mean it's "nonsensical and incoherent"

Life in prison (at least)

But more on topic, this site is a cool idea but with the lamest execution ever. Whatever effort you might have put into collecting these phenomenon is overshadowed by the lazy AI slop. It doesn't seem like you're earning anything from this, so you just donated money to Anthropic/OpenAI/whatever in order to underwhelm/revolt/possibly-mislead some people. You could've done that with a simple goatse link for free.

If we lived in a sane world, Google would be held accountable for every scam they advertise. It doesn't matter if you think someone deserved to get scammed for using an ad blocker, because they never would have been scammed if Google didn't choose to put them in danger for the sake of profit.

"But they can't possibly review every ad before publishing" they say. If that's the case, then they should scale down the amount of ads they allow until it reaches a manageable scale (eg every single ad can be reviewed by a human employee). They might make less money, but it's an expectation we have of nearly all industries (eg commercial truck drivers have to follow extra restrictions in addition to regular speed limits)

LG very likely has your neighbor's WiFi password, so even if you don't connect it to your own network, they could theoretically just try and connect to any known network nearby. No 5g modem needed.

Idk if they do that, but it doesn't seem complicated to implement, and it doesn't seem to fall outside of the company's ethical boundaries.

Who is "weaponizing" it against you, and how?

So to answer your question: work longer and harder than the people who don't know how to write a PS3 emulator (especially those who think they can take a shortcut with AI)

The random loser generating slop in his bedroom isn't necessarily the one infringing, it's the AI company that took all of our work and is reselling it that is infringing. This is an obvious blind spot in copyright law and no reasonable person would consider that to be fair use. The challenge I think is communicating to a layman how AI training works.

For the people currently in the grips of AI psychosis: new regulation here is good for AI too. AI models will not get more creative without new human training data, but the current exploitative situation means people are not incentivized to keep creating. Human artists who create new things should be rewarded by the market, as copyright law intended. Even if their work only ever ends up feeding some gen AI model, they should still be entitled to compensation in some way (eg royalties). They worked hard so that you don't have to.™

Instead, AI companies are the ones being rewarded for it. That's not sustainable for anyone.