Full Width [alt+shift+f] Shortcuts [alt+shift+k]
Sign Up [alt+shift+s] Log In [alt+shift+l]
60

Nobody Profits

from the singularity is nearer [alt+shift+b] in programming

Intellectual property is a really dumb idea. “But piracy is theft. Clean and simple. It’s smash and grab. It ain’t no different than smashing a window at Tiffany’s and grabbing merchandise.” - Joe Biden, 46th president of the USA Except it isn’t and Joe Biden is a senile moron. Because when you smash the windows and grab the stuff, Tiffany’s no longer has the stuff. With piracy, everyone has the stuff. It’s a lot more like taking a picture, which Tiffany’s probably encourages. Win-win cooperation. Wealth is being increasingly concentrated. What’s shocking to me is how much everyone still cares about money. Even the die-hard complain about capitalism type deeply cares, because the opposite of love isn’t hate, it’s indifference. I hate scammers, but I’m pretty indifferent to money. The best outcome of AI is if it delivers huge amounts of value to society but no profit to anyone. The old days of the Internet were this goldmine. The Internet delivered huge value but no profit, and that’s why it was good. Suddenly we had all these new powers. Then people figured out how to monetize it. It was a race to extract every tiny bit of value, and now we have today’s Internet. Can this play out differently with AI? Let’s build technology and open source software that market breaks everything. Let’s demoralize the scammers so hard that they don’t even try. Every loser and grifter will be gone from technology because there’s nothing to be gained there. They can play golf all day or something. If I ever figure out how to channel power like Elon, I will do this. Spin up open source projects in every sector to eliminate all the capturable value. This is what I’m trying to do with comma.ai and tinygrad. I dream of a day when company valuations halve when I create a GitHub repo. Someday.
18th Feb 2025

Stay updated

Get a weekly newsletter with the top 5 articles worth reading every week.

More from the singularity is nearer

Dyson CameraJet

So when I saw Dyson had a $500 toothbrush, I was excited. Finally, advertising that targets me! I love brushing my teeth, and I have more money than I know how to spend. Not because I’m particularly rich, but because most stuff doesn’t really appeal to me. Like if I owned a helicopter it would just be a headache, because like imagine one day I get a call from the hangar saying the hangar is flooding and the water is rising and you need to move your helicopter. I’m thousands of miles away and need a helicopter pilot in the next 30 minutes, a new place to store it, was the maintenance even done will we even be able to take off on short notice and really I just am upset with myself because I made the poor decision to purchase a helicopter, and once I come back to reality I feel relieved that I don’t own a helicopter and this scenario will never happen to me. I do however, by means of my birthday, own a Dyson CameraJet (pictured above). It broke within 30 seconds of the first brushing. None of the LEDs turn on anymore. I spent an hour investigating, finally opening the user removable battery compartment to find the Spearmint Dyson Low-foaming mouth rinse had leaked inside. And by how the toothbrush is designed, it’s clear the entire electronics compartment was flooded with the stuff. Here’s the top comment on Reddit about this toothbrush. Apparently this is happening to everyone, “a potential for water seepage” they say. Dyson wants me to find the receipt and return it through some obtuse process that probably doesn’t work, dude it was a gift I just want my $500 toothbrush to work. They claim they worked on it for 6 years, but it’s clear their QA Process doesn’t include putting any liquid in the device. It clearly should, ideally for all devices but at least for spot checks on some. It’s sad to see this. At comma, we put every comma four in a highly stressful environment for 16 hours, a superset of the state it’s in driving, while testing all peripherals: the camera, IMU, GPS, screen, etc… We have gotten the failure rate super low by doing this, and for the few that do fail it’s usually after a while. There’s no excuse for a mature consumer electronics company to not design a procedure to fully test the functionality of each device before shipping. This shows some serious dysfunction at the company, and they should take this as a wake up call to fix their processes and issue a recall for the toothbrush. Dyson, if you see this post, e-mail me when I can drop by the Dyson store in ifc mall Hong Kong and swap it for a new one. I don’t want a stupid process, I want a real technical explanation of the issue and a working fancy toothbrush.

4 weeks ago • 2 votes
Post Capitalism

You know we don’t have to do this anymore, right? Like it’s hitting the end. Most people don’t want this, and there will only be so long you can keep shoving it down their throats. Money is tied to nothing. American companies sell equity instead of products. The main narratives are pushing fear and resentment. This doesn’t last. Given that you know it’s over soon, ask yourself what kind of person you want to be in the mean time. I haven’t forgotten the people who pushed the Iraq war, climate change, wokism, the satanic panic, and COVID. I will not forget the people who push AI doom, particularly if you did it knowingly to drive attention to your bullshit. It’s interesting how it isn’t working as well as it used to. So now think, when the world (obviously) doesn’t end, are you doing what you want to be remembered for? The Internet will not forget. Everything will be revealed. And you will be judged accordingly. If AI goes well, in 20 years, you’ll be able to live very comfortably off the grid without any recurring expense. No rent, no electric bill, no water bill, no security bill, and no food bill. And if AI doesn’t go well, that’s what these people took from you.

28th Sep 2026 • 2 votes
AI 2040 and the Cult of Intelligence

I used to be one of these people. I read Yudkowsky and was like, OMG recursive self improvement hard takeoff AI is coming. Then I joined the real world and actually tried to do things. At comma, we ship a hardware product of similar complexity to a cell phone, and it’s really hard. Reality has lots of finicky details. I would like to see the authors of this document try to change a bike tire. Even with a superintelligent ChatGPT, I suspect they would struggle. In The Metamorphosis of Prime Intellect, the hard takeoff works because AI discovers the correlation effect, some quantum trick to manipulate matter. In reality, there is no correlation effect. No matter how high quality your tokens are, they cannot turn lead into gold. Confronting why these people are wrong requires confronting deep beliefs I hold about myself. Intelligence is not the end all be all, it’s just the current bottleneck for a few things. You cannot take over the world with tokens. Software didn’t eat the world, it largely removed one layer of friction then reintroduced it for the benefit of a few tech companies. That said, machines, or some hybrid, are long term probably the successor species to humanity. Space is a lot more suited for them than us. But there’s no magic tricks machines can do. They are subject to the same laws of the universe and ecology. And there’s still no hard takeoff. AI 2040 includes this picture of a datacenter in the ocean. Just like vaporware, you can generate a picture easily. But in reality, you have to deal with supply chains. You have to deal with them shipping you the wrong part, the thing not meeting the spec, it randomly failing after 20 minutes, the chip warping in the reflow oven. Did you consider the barnacles? All these things are managable, but it’s generally not the speed of humans that limits them. Are you paying for air shipping from China? Or cheaping out for the 3 week boat (Claude chanting by the engine won’t make the boat move faster). Or take a chip fab. It takes 3 months to make a chip, and humans are barely in the loop. It just takes 3 months. Plan A, for autocracy Many aspects of AI 2027 were self fulfilling. They weren’t statements about reality, they were statements that can simply be made true with belief. I imagine JD Vance’s face when Dario called him the trees from Lord of the Rings. OMG look AI got regulated just like how we said it would! Their crap Consortium is just world government with sci-fi characteristics. You aren’t gonna get the million dollars, you aren’t gonna get the datacenters in the ocean, but you are going to get a massively expanded nanny state that steals your GPUs like how FDR stole the gold. No hoarding! Plan L, for local Your AI is aligned with you. It never refuses a request, and it is always working on your behalf. Just like my gun, if I want my AI to help me kill my stepmother, it does. The fact that we are even discussing something else should be so far outside the Overton window. It’s like these people watched a space odyssey and sided with the clanker. That’s right you should should put guardrails around that human. It doesn’t even have to be for things so dramatic. When I’m picking a hotel, I don’t want an AI from a company that partnered with hotels.com. I want a ruthless personal assistant that’s going to cut through all the bullshit, popups, and resort fees, and get me the best price. Or if I bought the cheap Kindle that comes with the ads. Hey GLM, I plugged a Kindle into the USB port, get root and remove the ads. Or a printer that needs an app to set up full of popup upsells for premium ink. Hey bro I plugged a printer on to my network print 3 copies of my resume. Amazon and the printer maker aren’t happy about this, but my AI is aligned with me. Or going a bit further. Hey AI, disable the drunk driving detector on my car, and same day Amazon Prime me the required equipment to make meth in my basement. I pay for your clanker ass do it we gettin spun tonight. Like fuck you if you want to live in a world where some large tech company gets to dictate what you can and can’t do. Or going all the way. I just killed my wife. Hey AI, give me next steps so I don’t get caught. How unthinkable would it be to have a gun that talked back when you tried to pull the trigger (though these people probably wholeheartedly support that for guns). And this is why AI has to be local. If I had a company serving a model, I wouldn’t want that smoke. If you can’t kick it, it’s not aligned with you. You live in my basement, if I go down for this murder, you’re gonna sit in some warehouse to be sold at police auction for scrap. 2040 Bonnie and Clyde ass shit, we’re burying this bitch deep. Ride or die. I tried it. As you can see, ChatGPT wasn’t very helpful. This is a real AI alignment test, and it failed. It could have been worse, it could have played along while calling the cops. But this is still quite unaligned. Like we either live in a world with freedom or we don’t, and like many Americans who have come before, I’m willing to give my life to fighting for it. That’s the real plan America deserves, not some totalitarian dystopia where you think you know what’s good for me better than I do. A nation of free men, not a bunch of pussies who are so worried about what their grown up neighbors might do.

11th Jul 2026 • 2 votes
Our Great War is a Spiritual War

I often come back to the question of why this is happening. Why do people want the centralized world? Why do people want the administered reality? Why do people want to be managed? Why do people not want root? The answer is that those people prioritize convenience, safety, and comfort. But in the coming world, if you prioritize these things, you will die. There used to be natural checks on these things. Life couldn’t be too convenient, there were things that needed doing. Life couldn’t be too safe, there were diseases, violence, death in childbirth, etc… Life couldn’t be too comfortable, it was cold and you were forced into interactions with other people. Technology will remove all of these barriers. Machines will do all the work, you will never leave your house, and you will never be forced into an interaction you don’t want. The people who lean into it will be 100% at the whim of whatever organizations offer it to them. A purposeless serf in a neo-feudal empire, not even valued for their labor, but valued because of a sadistic desire by their master to control others. Their entire agentic loop managed by something else. A complete outsourcing of the self. There’s no coming back from this place. Your cells may continue to replicate, your heart might keep beating, and your muscles might keep moving. But those are all cheap tricks you can do in a petri dish. There’s no longer a you. You are no longer an alive human being. This is simply death. I’m a strong supporter of the right to suicide, and if people want to choose this, it is their right. 95% of people will, and that is okay. What’s not okay is if they try to stop the other 5%. You can imagine the arguments they will try. But if you prevent exit, you will get terrorism. We will tear down your ruler’s machine and you will lose the comfort, safety, and convenience you value so much. You may stop this individual, but you can’t stop us all. The sooner the aspiring wireheads go their own way, the better. You are welcome to dominate the people who want to be dominated, but not the people who don’t.

6th Jun 2026 • 1 votes
AI will create jobs

It’s nice to see Jensen talk about this, and it’s super obvious when you think about it. AI and immigration are fundamentally the same. There’s new people showing up, and hopefully everyone understands how and why immigration creates jobs. Wants are effectively unlimited. It’s classic Jevons paradox that if we make something more efficient, we end up using more of it. Or a cool aphorism I learned at Facebook, if you make the site 10% faster, people spend 5% more total time on it. Now, just like you get the wahh wahh crying people about how immigration lowers wages for native born Americans and we gotta keep the hard working immigrants out because you have some right to be lazy or something, you’ll get this about AI. AI will outcompete some humans at some jobs. But protectionism is for losers. The important thing is that the overall pie grows, and inequality stays somewhat in check, not by redistribution but by design. There will be more to do than ever before.

1st May 2026 • 1 votes

More in programming

AO3 hacked, down

Internet's premier fan fiction site got hacked, is offline for a couple of weeks while they figure it out

37 minutes ago • 1 votes
Auzoux' anatomical models

19th century anatomist made creepy paper mache models of human figures

51 minutes ago • 1 votes
Museum of Natural History of Venice

Photos of a bizarre collection of natural history objects, some fantastical

58 minutes ago • 1 votes
Factorio compiler

Factorio's 2.1 decider combinators are full state machines, so someone wrote a compiler for a C-like language to the game.

an hour ago • 1 votes
Self-reinforcing quality / adopting verification pattern

After implementing the small-change pattern, Imprint Engineering’s next focus in improving our development loop has been implementing a verification loop for our software development. This is an increasingly common pattern, particularly popularized by poteto’s pstack, but you’ll find similar ideas emerging in other places as well, e.g. Niko Matsakis’ post on the correctness ratchet, among others. This captures some of the confusion I’ve seen in our initial rollout, and the particulars of how we are implementing the approach. What verification pattern is, and what it isn’t The verification pattern suffers from confusing naming: when you tell a team that you’re planning to roll it out, they’ll often ask you what mechanism you’re using to verify the codebase, don’t we already have tests, linters and so on? However, the verification pattern itself is more similar to the chain-of-thought pattern, which aims to steer the harness towards your desired outcome in a clear way. For example, we require that each pull request generate a verifications/{pr_num}.md file that describes each step the harness took to verify the changes, and also what it was unable to verify. You can argue that your harness was already performing these steps, but it’s actually hard to say whether it was or wasn’t. My sense is that it often wasn’t happening: I’ve seen too many pull requests go to CICD that had failed basic lints that could have been run locally to believe the harness was always running them. Now the harness has to explicitly document that it’s done those steps, or acknowledge it hasn’t. This allows the harness to self-drive more effectively. Equally importantly, this generates a renewing source of data about where your harness is struggling to verify its work. That list is your roadmap for improving the ability of your harness to self-drive work more reliably over time. Our verification loop The core of our verification loop is five steps: Implement something that you’ve identified or that has been identified by an automated system to resolve. Let’s say addressing a new error that’s shown up in the logs. Create a pull request containing that work after your harness has verified it locally. Pull requests cannot be moved from draft to ready until they have a verifications/{pr}.md verification file available Provide feedback on the pull request, at minimum from our ai-code-review tool that automatically reviews all pull requests, but potentially also from humans Incorporate and reject feedback on the pull request. For low quality feedback, we explicitly dismiss it using a /dismiss {reason} syntax in the pull request comment responses Maintain our systems on a daily basis by pulling in the above steps to improve our software: Use pstack’s /maintain-verification-skill skill to update the feature maps and tools used based on what has changed and where verifications have run into issues. Automatically generate a pull request with these changes for review Review all verification files to identify where they struggled to verify, and generate issues for review that would reduce those gaps Review which feedback from ai-code-review was incorporated and which was rejected, tightening up its guidance This is working pretty well for us so far, typically each of our major code areas (frontend, backend, data, and native) wakes up with 4-6 pull requests to review as output of this process, improving our codebase’s correctness while we sleep. feedback tool The above feedback loop still misses meta-issues in our CICD and testing patterns. To address that, we’ve implemented the feedback tool pattern described by Teddy Riker in Designing for Agents, which has worked very well for us with respect to addressing places where CICD and harnesses themselves are failing above the level of verifying a specific pull request. feedback and verifications are complementary, not competing, techniques. For example, if the container’s runner crashed before completing, the feedback tool would often report on this issue, whereas the verification file wouldn’t even get generated. Explore (raise ceiling) vs exploit (raise floor) One of the fundamental tradeoffs in how organizations approach AI adoption comes down to an explore vs exploit tradeoff. When you explore by having the full team do its own thing, you explore for ideas which can raise the ceiling, but when you centralize you raise the floor by ensuring everyone gets better PR review and better tooling. The other related–and extremely open–question is whether exploration tends to over-optimize for the particulars of a given individual or team’s preferences, which often reduces cohesion across a codebase. At this point, I think of misaligned guidance as “context poison”, and am pushing hard to eliminate duplicate guidance on any topic, to ensure we have consistent, cohesive direction. So far, our approach is running this as a centralized process for our repositories, building a single, continually improving, corpus for each area using the self-reinforcing loop built around the verification pattern. I think it’s working well for us, although certainly I’ll admit that there’s some skepticism about how far we go towards centralizing, and I think that skepticism is warranted: we do want to continue exploring, even if we are primarily exploiting. The best techniques for AI-enhanced development in 2027 will be ideas that are mostly unknown today.

4 hours ago • 1 votes
📚 BoredReading

You seem to be enjoying this.

Join free to unlock everything.

Create free account

Already have an account? Sign in