Anil DashYou must picture Sam Altman holding a knife to Tim Berner-Lee's throat. We are in a truly existential level of danger when it comes to the survival of the open web, across every front. This year is when it all comes to a head. https://anildash.com/2026/03/27/endgame-open-web/
Bad News Nobody@anildash Sorry but there's no "good AI".
SamuelJohnson@dukeboitans @anildash You're wrong.
Dźwiedziu@samueljohnson
You're wrong.
@dzwiedziu @dukeboitans @anildash I'm not wrong. Any assertion that there is no good AI is balderdash.
https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-024-03214-7
Just about all technology has the potential for misuse. Regulating it is the appropriate response not wishing it away.
@samueljohnson
The most misuse here is the usage of the term “AI”, which lumps useful technology, like deep learning neural networks with deliberately overhyped definition of “AI”, meaning generational “AI” of LLMs and diffusers.
So “no good «AI»” is a reasonable answer to people who want to eat the world for “AI” datacentres.
@dzwiedziu @dukeboitans @anildash Deep learning networks can be misused. What is useful can be debated and is highly contingent. Blanket assertions that there is no good in any technology smacks of mindless rejection. Informed critique of benefits and costs works better, at least in democracies where billionaire oligarchs can't impose on the rest of society and where regulation is possible.
@samueljohnson
Blanket rejections of technology are to be expected when there is blanket promotion as a tool that can do anything, despite it explicitly cannot do that, at a devastating cost.
“Mindless” rejection is a valid response against “mindless” enforcement.
I've used quotation marks to enforce that both apparent “mindlessness” are superficial. Because those techfash broligarchs are enforcing “AI” on us and will avoid any scrutiny.