I really dislike the "people should be better and use less energy" argument for solving macro-problems like this

> My naive optimism led me to believe that technology would help us fight climate change. I was wrong: AI and Crypto are net negatives in this regard.

...why? why would technology that specifically requires a lot of energy help "fight climate change"?

this entirely article is missing any point to me -- it's very vague and speaking in generalities.

> “If you’re going to use generative tools powered by large language models, don’t pretend you don’t know how your sausage is made.”

why? if you generate code with a LLM, then read and deeply understand the code, what's wrong?

> I can’t help but feel the web would be a better place if the technology had never existed in the first place.

if we didn't invent the wheel, we wouldn't have so many cars/trucks polluting the planet

https://cloud.google.com/storage/docs/hosting-static-website + pick your favorite OSS CMS

the evidence says otherwise. I agree an outright ban probably isn't the best solution

> The protocol has a very LLM-friendly interface, but not always a human friendly one.

similar to the people asking "why not just use the API directly", I have another question: why not just use the CLI directly? LLMs are trained on natural language. CLIs are an extremely common solution for client/server interactions in a human-readable, human-writeable way (that can be easily traversed down subcommands)

for instance, instead of using the GitHub MCP server, why not just use the `gh` CLI? it's super easy to generate the help and feed it into the LLM, super easy to allow the user to inspect the command before running it, and already provides a sane exposure of the REST APIs. the human and the LLM can work in the same way, using the exact same interface

I personally strongly prefer the term "bots" for what most of these frameworks call "agents"