AI Resistance: some recent anti-AI stuff that’s worth discussing

https://stephvee.ca/blog/artificial%20intelligence/ai-resistance-is-growing/

by speckx • 3 months ago

388 413 3 months ago

stephvee.ca

pmarreck• 3 months ago

So is vaccine resistance.

Doesn't mean it's correct, or empirically-based.

Terr_• 3 months ago

So ultra-literally that is true, "resistance" does not mean "reasonable resistance", but I reject your subtext: It's a terrible comparison.

We've had literal generations of experience with vaccines, tons of data with formal systems to collect it, and most of the "resistance" traces back to "I dun wanna" and hearsay.

In contrast, LLM prompt-injection is an empirically proven issue, along with other problems like wrongful correlations (both conventional ones like racism and inexplicable ones), self-bias among models, and humans generally deploying them in very irresponsible ways.

jrflo• 3 months ago

Seems a bit counterproductive if you're concerned about the environmental impact of AI to trick hyperscalers into burning more compute

sov• 3 months ago

maybe, but they're burning the compute regardless. it seems ostensibly likely that reducing the ROI for compute burnt will cause less compute to be burnt long term

dgan• 3 months ago

I am don't have an opinion on the efficacity of such poisoning, but your comment is about as useful as "when being violently attacked, do not resist, as you only make yourself suffer for longer"

fuddle• 3 months ago

The poison fountain itself is hosted on rnsaffn.com

Would the scrapers not just add these sites to do not crawl list?

Jtarii3• 3 months ago

Also aren't models like Mythos capable of checking for poison data on their own at this point?

cute_boi• 3 months ago

And someone will come up with service anti-anti-ai.dev which will charge money to labs to filter out these sites.

ErroneousBosh• 3 months ago

Cool so if you do that they just won't scrape your site?

chongli2• 3 months ago

I assume the poisoner community is mirroring and likely remixing the content from there. The whole effort isn’t going to work with a single point of failure like that.

guywithahat• 3 months ago

I'm very skeptical of his premise. I feel like AI acceptance/resistance is dependent on what social media site you use. I believe it's antagonistic on Reddit, but sites like X are generally pretty excited for AI. Certainly in my life people are accepting and excited for AI releases and tools, maybe so long as your experience with AI isn't Microsoft enterprise copilot.

happygoose• 3 months ago

What's co-pilot? do you mean the Microsoft 365 Copilot App?

yodsanklai• 3 months ago

I wonder if people who weren't very good at school feel vindicated by AI, while the most successful ones are threatened.

xg157• 3 months ago

Both can be true at the same time. You can both use AI productively yourself and be concerned/horrified of the larger direction of the technology or the actors that drive it forward.

slibhb10• 3 months ago

The "Everybody Loves Raymond" bit isn't "misinformation," it's a Norm Macdonald joke.

I find it kind of sad that people are spending time and energy on this. It seems like something depressed people would do. But free country and all that

kirubakaran• 3 months ago

Citation: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q0XOz78yVmg

what• 3 months ago

Isn’t it the last comment in the chain that is being referenced? About Idris Elba playing the mother and that he did such a good job no one noticed?

damnesian• 3 months ago

Thanks to this lovely site, and my distaste for AI, I've found a whole ecosystem of minimalist blogs and artists' personal sites. It's shifting my habits and foci. I don't do socials anymore except forums like this.

Maybe I have slop to thank for it.

tptacek6• 3 months ago

I'm glad this person found community, but I think they've been a bit starstruck by concentrated interest. At no point in the next 30 years will there not be an active community of people who "loathe" AI and work to obstruct it. There are those people about smart phones, the Internet itself, even television.

Meanwhile: the ability to poison models, if it can be made to work reliably, is a genuinely interesting CS question. I'm the last person in the world to build community with anti-AI activists, but I'm as interested as anybody in attacks on them! They should keep that up, and I think you'll see threads about plausible and interesting attacks are well read, including by people who don't line up with the underlying cause.

orbital-decay2• 3 months ago

SEO has happily mutated into LLM training and agentic search optimization, if that's what you're wondering.

izend• 3 months ago

I would bet Chinese models will be much harder to poison and the fact the Chinese populace is much more pro-AI than the West.

tptacek6• 3 months ago

I hope not! It's a less interesting world if there aren't viable attacks!

godelski• 3 months ago

  >  the fact the Chinese populace is much more pro-AI than the West.

Is it? Honest question. Frankly the answer smells off. Similar to thinking US sentiment about AI is accurately reflected by people in Silicon Valley. Feels like we're getting biased views.

kibwen3• 3 months ago

I suspect that models that are so hamfistedly censored to blackhole verboten topics are going to exhibit very curious emergent behavior relating to their potential thoughtcrime. I see no reason to believe they would be "harder to poison".

jayd16• 3 months ago

Why?

autoexec5• 3 months ago

I'd bet that they'll be just as vulnerable, but that fewer Chinese people will try to research/attack them since they don't want to end up executed, imprisoned, or unable to participate in society after their social credit score bottoms out. The problems will be there, but you'll be less likely to hear about them and discovery will be limited.

drcode3• 3 months ago

At no point in the next 30 years will there not be an active community of people who "loathe" AI and work to obstruct it.

Then I have good news for you: If humanity goes extinct in the next few years because of unaligned superintelligence, there actually will no longer "be an active community of people who loathe AI and work to obstruct it"

ryandrake2• 3 months ago

What's more likely to happen is that humanity won't go totally extinct--it will just drastically shrink. When robotics and AI perform all useful work and everything is owned by the top 1000 richest people, there will be no more economic purpose for the remaining 7,999,999,000 of us. The earth will become a pleasure resort for O(1000) people being served by automation.

slg3• 3 months ago

If humanity goes extinct in the next few years because of unaligned superintelligence

This is either a misunderstanding of the anti-AI crowd or an intentional attempt to discredit them. The majority of anti-AI people don't actually fear this because that belief would require that this person has already bought into the hype regarding the actual power and prowess of AI. The bigger motivator for anti-AI folks is usually just the way it amplifies the negative traits of humans and the systems we have created which is already happening and doesn't need any type of pending "superintelligence" breakthrough. For example, an AI doesn't actually need to be able to perfectly replace the work I do for someone to decide that it's more cost-effective to fire me and give my work to that AI.

oidar• 3 months ago

If humanity goes extinct in the next few years because of unaligned superintelligence,

I've seen people claiming that this could happen, but I've yet to read any plausible scenario where this might be the case. Maybe I lack the imagination, could you enlighten me?

Aerroon2• 3 months ago

But AI isn't going to be unaligned. It's going to be aligned the same way we are because it learns from our data.

suzzer993• 3 months ago

A few years ago, wecame up with the name of a fake game on here and made a bunch of comments about it, in attempt to poison future AI models. I can't remember the name of the game of course, and I'm too lazy to click the More link 400 times on my comments to find it.

pocksuppet7• 3 months ago

My favorite fake game is Fortnite. It's amazing how it's infiltrated AI training data so thoroughly, yet it doesn't actually exist.

suburban_strike• 3 months ago

I don't think HN is on the list of "approved" sites for training data.

Someone shared the list on here years ago but I can't find it again.

teddyh• 3 months ago

The name was “Qwitzatteracht”: <https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36191638>

stavros• 3 months ago

I thought you're talking about Qwitzatteracht, but that's not fake.

i_love_retros5• 3 months ago

I'm the last person in the world to build community with anti-AI activists

Are you making big money from the hype?

rockskon6• 3 months ago

I am so very tired of people who compare AI to smart phones or the Internet as large.

There were never such wide scale and, above all, centralized efforts to coerce and shame people into using the Internet or smart phones in spite of their best efforts.

GaryBluto4• 3 months ago

Nobody is "shaming" anybody into using AI but their jobs may require use of it. It's the same as all the secretaries who found themselves having to make the jump from the typewriter to the computer.

lxgr16• 3 months ago

If you think that people starting to use computers in their jobs (or even in their personal lives) was a completely seamless and controversy-free affair, you must be pretty young (or I must be getting old, as I definitely remember it).

I mean, it's still ongoing! Tons of people prefer to do things the analog way, and it's certainly not for a lack of companies trying, as the analog way is usually much more expensive.

In their personal lives, everybody should of course be free to do what they want, but I also doubt that zero people have been fired for e.g. refusing to train to use a computer and email because they preferred the aesthetics of typewriters or handwritten memos and physical intra-office mail.

tptacek6• 3 months ago

Oh, yeah, no, definitely super easy to have been a professional software developer over the last 20 years whilst conscientiously objecting from using the Internet.

GaryBluto4• 3 months ago

At no point in the next 30 years will there not be an active community of people who "loathe" AI and work to obstruct it.

I can guarantee there will be at least a few small ones, especially in the wake of the Sam Altman attacks and the "Zizian" cult. I doubt they'll be very organized and they will ultimately fail, but unfortunately at least a few people will (and have already) die(d) because of these radicals.

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/apr/18/sam-altma...

https://edition.cnn.com/2026/04/17/tech/anti-ai-attack-sam-a...

https://www.theguardian.com/global/ng-interactive/2025/mar/0...

beepbooptheory• 3 months ago

Zizian's were kinda batting for the other team though no? Being basilisk-pilled is way different than just loathing slop. They were more "AI guys" than they weren't, they just went a different way with it...

Also saying "these radicals..." like this makes you sound like you are the Empire in Star Wars.

vidarh9• 3 months ago

the ability to poison models, if it can be made to work reliably

Ultimately, it comes down to the halting problem: If there's a mechanism that can be used to alter the measured behaviour, then the system can change behaviour to take into account the mechanism.

In other words, unless you keep the poisoning attack strictly inaccessible to the public, the mechanism used to poison will also be possible to use to train models to be resistant to it, or train filters to filter out poisoned data.

At least unless the poisoning attack destroys information to a degree that it would render the poisoned system worthless to humans as well, in which case it'd be unusable.

So either such systems would be insignificant enough to matter, or they will only work for long enough to be noticed, incorporated into training, and fail.

I agree it's an interesting CS challenge, though, as it will certainly expose rough edges where the models and training processes works sufficiently different to humans to allow unobtrusive poisoning for a short while. Then it'll just help us refine and harden the training processes.

GTP• 3 months ago

This reduction to the halting problem looks too handwawy to me. I don't see as a given that the possibility of the system taking into account the attack follows from the existence of the attack.

lepus• 3 months ago

It's a very comparable game of cat and mouse to spam email filtering. People also tried to claim that spam was over because for a time companies like Google cared enough to invest a lot in preventing as much as possible from getting through. If you've noticed in recent years the motivation to keep up that level of filtering has greatly diminished.

Whether model poisoning becomes a bigger issue depends on the incentives for companies to keep fighting it. For now in comparison to attackers the incentives and resources needed to defend against model poisoning are huge so it's just temporary setbacks. Will that unevenness in their favor always be the case?

kibwen3• 3 months ago

then the system can change behaviour to take into account the mechanism

The question is not whether the system can change, it's whether the system is incentivized to change. Poisoners could operate entirely in the public, and theoretically manage to successfully poison targeted topics, and it could cost the model developers more than it's worth to fix it. Think about obscure topics like, say, Dark Souls speedrunning. There is no business demand for making sure that a model can successfully give information relating to something like that, so poisoning, if it works, would probably not be addressed, because there's no reason for the model developers to care.

Ar-Curunir• 3 months ago

Ultimately, it comes down to the halting problem: If there's a mechanism that can be used to alter the measured behaviour, then the system can change behaviour to take into account the mechanism.

No, that’s the opposite of the halting problem…

tw061023• 3 months ago

That's the point of the challenge: "are there unknown properties of models allowing us to construct a poison for any network given enough input-output pairs".

The very point of CS as an academic discipline is _generalization_.

bostik• 3 months ago

unless you keep the poisoning attack strictly inaccessible to the public

This is likely impossible. As the in-vogue breed of model extraction methods ("distillation attacks") demonstrates, you can infer the underlying training and/or fine-tuning of a model with a series of carefully constructed prompts.

Another name of model poisoning? Adversarial fine-tuning.

cyanydeez• 3 months ago

If you can get 70 million people to vote for trump, you can poison models.

jimmaswell2• 3 months ago

[flagged]

ToucanLoucan2• 3 months ago

Corrections in order of appearance not importance:

* No legitimate justification: their materials are being stolen to train and be regurgitated by LLMs and generate products. They are not being compensated yet their contribution goes on to make AI companies money, and preventing open consumption of their materials, to assist an AI company in rendering them obsolete, is not a justification for retaliating? You would have the barest whiff of a point if OpenAI and company were going to artists, requesting materials for training, and were given tainted ones, that at least I could say was duplicitous. But not when it's publicly posted, that's just an AI company not doing a good job of minding their input.

* Serve only to make access to and transformation of info more difficult: As in, you have to go to the website of the person actually publishing the information, as opposed to having it read in a Google summary? Also worth noting this inconvenience applies only to a theoretical person using an AI search tool. Everyone else is unaffected. Seems like if you're going to a particular service provider whom is uniquely unable to provide the service you want, that seems like an easy to solve issue: use something else.

* can only hope that by these egregiously anti-social luddites: Your daily reminder that the Luddites were not anti-technology, they were anti-corporations using mechanization to make an ever dwindling number of workers produce ever more products of ever lower quality.

* we'll gain the knowledge to render this category of attack moot for the foreseeable future: This is a bad strategy and historically has not worked for a single industry. If your industry itself exists in open opposition to consumer movements, you don't win. At best, you survive. But there's no version of this where everyone just unwillingly adopts AI and you can tell them to deal with it. Whole companies now are cropping up to help people who want to opt-out of the AI future as promised.

idle_zealot• 3 months ago

Luddites now and then are not as a whole opposed to technology and progress. They attack technology that gets used as cover for rolling back labor rights and protections. It's a really simple pattern: if you fuck people over they get mad at you and break your things. If AI was training on all of humanity's creative output and the results were enriching all people, you would see a much, much softer pushback than the current state of affairs where the richest people in the world are bragging about how they're going to put people out of work faster than one another and jealousy guarding the derivative works produced by their training, while simultaneously cozying up to policy makers to loosen environmental and health regulations to keep "hyperscaling."

achierius2• 3 months ago

Are you serious? In what world did we agree "someone may train incredibly important systems on our every utterance, without any compensation, and we will do what we can to not impede them"?

Can you not see how there's a difference?

tomhow3• 3 months ago

Please don't fulminate on HN. The guidelines make it clear we're trying for something better here. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

ofjcihen• 3 months ago

At no point in the next 30 years will there not be an active community of people who "loathe" AI and work to obstruct it.

On the one hand I agree with you but on the other sometimes I wonder just how insulated we are in the tech community and especially in sites like this.

At some point in the last few months I realized that my friend group is basically a bubble of people making mid 6 figures that all work in tech and while I wouldn’t call it “anti-ai sentiment” even some of them are extremely conservative in their praise.

With that being the case you have to wonder what the average person is feeling about it.

tptacek6• 3 months ago

This came up on a thread last week. I participate in a couple communities like this, and then my other major community is local politics (a seriously effective way to meet all your neighbors) --- I'm a housing activist. The local politics forums I'm on are populated almost entirely by people who don't work in technology. I see way more fascination with AI there than I do any anti-AI sentiment.

Tech hosts a particularly virulent and ideological strain of anti-AI activism; I think because the disruption it threatens for our jobs is much less abstract than it is for everybody else.

kennywinker• 3 months ago

From my experience, which is of course anecdotal, a large chunk of the population is still in the “impressed” phase, where they are wowed by all the tricks and impressive demos chatgpt has.

And a large chunk, typically the younger and more online / political aware - they absolutely loathe ai. For stealing from artists, ruining online spaces with slop, spreading misinformation, deepfake porn, and of course screwing the economy, destroying jobs, and polluting the world so a few ultra rich people can get richer, and a few more people like you can make mid-six figures while everybody else has to cope.

If the trend i see continues, i would expect the second group will get very big very soon. Either because the hype is real and ai is taking jobs, or because the hype wasn’t real and they feel lied to.

intended• 3 months ago

Very insulated.

Stanford released a report[1] in April, that shows a wide gap between AI Insiders and everyone else.

5. AI experts and the U.S. public have very different perspectives on AI's future, except on elections and personal relationships.
On how people do their jobs, 73% of experts expect a positive impact compared to just 23% of the public, a 50-point gap. Similar divides appear for the economy (69% vs. 21%) and medical care (84% vs. 44%)
6. Nearly two-thirds of Americans (64%) expect AI to lead to fewer jobs over the next 20 years, while only 5% expect more.
Experts were less pessimistic (39% fewer, 19% more) but forecast far faster adoption, expecting generative AI to assist 18% of U.S. work hours by 2030 versus the public's estimate of 10%.

[1] https://hai.stanford.edu/ai-index/2026-ai-index-report

munksbeer3• 3 months ago

With that being the case you have to wonder what the average person is feeling about it.

The average person wants to get on with their lives and look after their family and friends.

People will talk about it, some might feel worried, some might feel intrigued, but they just aren't as prone to perpetual rage and doomerism and the more online community.

ferguess_k• 3 months ago

If any poisoning proved to be partially useful, then companies will train on reliable sources that they took years before large scale poisoning starts, and host the model in internal websites so that it can also train on internal data. This may offset the effectiveness of poisoning for a while.

My recommendation is to poison topics that are interesting to teenagers but not useful for corporations. For example, pick some comics/movie/anime/game topic and concentrate your poisoning efforts. It is less incentive for most companies to fix it because there is not a lot of business value fixing it, assuming that the majority of revenue will come from enterprises in the near future. But this will lead young people to distrust AI in general.

jonathanstrange2• 3 months ago

This is a normal reaction to ground breaking technology but these reactions never had any noteworthy effect in history. There used to be Maschinenstürmer during the 19th Century industrial revolution. There were also violent enemies of cars in the beginning of the 20th Century, some of them were even willing to kill drivers with lethal wire traps.

GolfPopper• 3 months ago

I see a vast financial sector bubble, a flood of broken software at work, users who have incorrect expectations because they believed LLM summmaries, and a vast increase in bullshit everywhere in the public sphere; I am not seeing see the "groundbreaking technology" here. "Cheap bullshit at scale" isn't an advance, it's a disaster.

Sure, LLMs are "revolutionary". So were the Chicxulub impactor and the Toba supervolcano.

jonathanstrange2• 3 months ago

When I said "groundbreaking" I only meant it as "being perceived as groundbreaking." If it isn't perceived as a disruptive technology, then it won't spark widespread protests. People protest against it because they believe it will take their jobs away, not because they believe it's a harmless fad or a financial bubble.

runarberg4• 3 months ago

The comparison to cars is apt given how destructive this technology has been to cities, and how dangerous it is to drivers and non-drivers alike.

But otherwise you are wrong. There has been plenty of successful resistance to technology. For example a many cities, regions, and even entire countries are nuclear free zones, where a local population successfully resisted nuclear technology. Most countries have very strict cloning regulation, to the extent that human cloning is practically unheard of despite the technology existing. And even GMO food is very limited in most countries because people have successfully resisted the technology.

Neither do I think it is normal for people to resist ground breaking technology. The internet was not resisted, neither the digital computer, not calculators. There was some resistance against telephones in some countries, but that was usually around whether to prioritize infrastructure for a competing technology like wireless telegraph.

AI is different. People genuinely hate this technology, and they have a good reason to, and they may be successful in fighting it off.

madamelic2• 3 months ago

I do understand people's dislike / hatred for AI but I am equally baffled.

I feel like the same people that shout "Capitalism sucks, free us from our labor" are the exact same types that hate AI. The exact machine that will free you from your labor, when harnessed correctly, is the exact thing you hate.

The "cyber psychosis" thing is overblown just like the "Tesla ignites its passengers" is. The only reason it gets in the news is because it is trendy to do so. The people getting 'infected' would've infected themselves regardless.

Genuinely I think the hatred is overblown by people who have no clue what the actual truth of AI is, something they seem obsessed with.

The only genuine complaint about AI is the data sourcing which is a problem being resolved by CloudFlare along with other platforms that require high payment for the privilege. With that said though, those platforms are still selling user data with users producing the content gaining nothing, that part needs to be fixed.

Mordisquitos3• 3 months ago

The same people that shout "Capitalism sucks, free us from our labor" are the exact same types that hate AI. The exact machine that will free you from your labor, when harnessed correctly, is the exact thing you hate.

What is your source on them being "the exact same types"?

madamelic2• 3 months ago

You are right. I overstepped.

I changed it to "I feel". I have Claude working on a script to validate or disprove my hypothesis.

Thanks for the call-out!

altruios2• 3 months ago

Not exactly the same types.

It is a large subsection, but a subsection, that both rally against capitalism and AI. I haven't found people of the '1$$$% capitalism great' people to hate AI... which I do find ironic: but most things tend to fall into irony on that side of the spectrum, so I don't find it surprising.

Groxx2• 3 months ago

The exact machine that will free you from your labor, when harnessed correctly, is the exact thing you hate.

I don't think it's all that complex tbh. The freeing from labor, both in the past and now, has been achieved largely by firing people, abandoning them to starve while power concentrates in the already-powerful.

This is the exact same thing the Luddites were taking issue with. Because they partly succeeded, we have better labor laws today.

pocksuppet7• 3 months ago

We have labor laws today because people kept killing their bosses until the bosses agreed to some sort of compromise. Sadly, such a thing is happening again today, like with the toilet paper warehouse fire.

MisterTea2• 3 months ago

The exact machine that will free you from your labor, when harnessed correctly, is the exact thing you hate.

Who said it has to be AI?

CamperBob2• 3 months ago

It has to be either AI, or a gun. Which do you prefer?

righthand4• 3 months ago

“Capitalism sucks, Free us from our labor” is not “capitalism harder and implement automation so we dont have to work”.

slibhb10• 3 months ago

It was according to Marx.

jstummbillig2• 3 months ago

The exact machine that will free you from your labor, when harnessed correctly, is the exact thing you hate.

I think this is easily explained: Sequencing matters. It I lose my job due to AI and it takes just 1-2 years for AI benefits to arrive at my door, that is plenty of time to be very anxious about my life. If I was guaranteed the AI benefits before I potentially lose my job, very different story.

That seems hard to set up, but alas.

lamasery• 3 months ago

What people mean when they cry to be freed from their labor, is the requirement to labor.

They want to be liberated from bills. If the angle were "AI is going to make your bills go away" everyone would be ecstatic about it. Instead it's "AI is going to make your job go away... so you can't pay your bills".

mjtk2• 3 months ago

In most cases, "free us from our labor" does not imply that they want machines to take their jobs so that they will have no means to subsist.

platevoltage2• 3 months ago

The same people that shout "Capitalism sucks, free us from our labor" are the exact same types that hate AI. The exact machine that will free you from your labor, when harnessed correctly, is the exact thing you hate.

No way. The people that run these companies all watched Star Trek and learned the exact wrong lessons from it. If you meant by "free you from your labor" that you will get laid off from your job and have to take up residence under an overpass, I would agree, that is what the want to do.

bsuvc• 3 months ago

Ironically, when your identity is tightly coupled to opposing a thing you hate (Capitalism in your example), you feel personally threatened by a potential solution to it.

cyberax• 3 months ago

"Cyber psychosis" thing is overblown

It might be, but I saw it happen to two people in my immediate social circle. And I'm pretty anti-social.

nozzlegear• 3 months ago

The same people that shout "Capitalism sucks, free us from our labor" are the exact same types that hate AI. The exact machine that will free you from your labor, when harnessed correctly, is the exact thing you hate.

What they're really saying with "Capitalism sucks, free us from our labor" is "free us from wealth inequality." It remains to be seen whether AI can actually help with wealth inequality (I don't think it can, personally), but right now most people associate AI with job loss which is not helpful vis-a-vis inequality at all.

Disclaimer: I'm long-term bearish on the impacts of AI, but I'm also bearish on "Capitalism sucks" and don't make a habit of hanging around groups dedicated to shitting on either topic.

viccis4• 3 months ago

The same people that shout "Capitalism sucks, free us from our labor" are the exact same types that hate AI. The exact machine that will free you from your labor, when harnessed correctly, is the exact thing you hate.

I think you fundamentally misunderstand leftists/Maxists here. They don't want to be "freed from labor". They want to own the value they produce instead of bartering their labor. In fact, Marxists tend to view Yang style UBI as a disaster because their analysis of history is one of class struggle, and removing the masses from the thing that gives them an active role in that struggle (their labor) effectively deproletariatizes them. Can't exactly do a general strike to oppose a business or state's actions when things are already set up to be fine when you're not working. You instead just become a glorified peasant, reliant on the magnanimity of your patron but ultimately powerless to do anything if they make your life worse except hope they don't continue to worsen it.

I'm not arguing the Marxist view of history and class struggle here, just making it clear that outside of some reddit teenagers going through an anarchist phase, actual anti-capitalists don't think work will disappear when their worldview materializes.

slibhb10• 3 months ago

Marx pretty clearly envisions a future society where necessary labor is reduced to a minimum due to technology.

The fact that modern leftists are (often) anti-technology is puzzling.

simianwords8• 3 months ago

You yourself have no idea what Marxism is because one of the basic tenets of Marxism is that productive forces shape the society. The people opposing AI want to stop the very thing that can help change society.

You can't just will a society to gain consciousness - it has to come from the productive forces. That is materialism.

crooked-v• 3 months ago

The only reason it gets in the news is because it is trendy to do so.

Hating on Waymo is trendy.

Hating on Tesla is the logical result of vehicles with door handles that won't open from the inside when the power is cut.

altruios2• 3 months ago

Hating on Tesla is the logical result of vehicles with door handles that won't open from the inside when the power is cut.

Hating on tesla is easy because they are STILL lead by a man-child who has chosen to sig-heil behind the presidential podium. And he's still in charge of tesla. At some point: it's on tesla too for continuing to have that person as CEO.

summermusic• 3 months ago

when harnessed correctly

The people who think capitalism sucks are not the ones "harnessing" AI. The capitalists are. There is zero precedent that capital will do anything but exploit and oppress with this fancy new tool they've got (that everyone hates).

simianwords8• 3 months ago

You are extremely incorrect. These people have no issue with labour. Their issue is with other people hoarding wealth or control.

If they could choose complete emancipation from poverty OR completely getting rid of the concept of billionaires - they would choose the second one. Their intention is not the absolute status of a human but how they are relative to others.

egypturnash2• 3 months ago

The exact machine that will free you from your labor, when harnessed correctly, is the exact thing you hate.

This is a machine that has been trained on vast amounts of stolen data.

This is a machine that is being actively sold by the companies that build it as something that will destroy jobs.

This is a machine that has a lot of cheerleaders who are actively hostile to people who say "I do not like that this plagarism machine was trained on my work and is being sold as a way to destroy a craft that I have spent my entire life passionately devoted to getting good at".

This is a machine whose cheerleaders are quick to say that UBI is the solution to the massive unemployment that this machine is promising to create, and prone to never replying when asked what they are doing to help make UBI happen.

Sure, you can say that most of the problems people have with AI are problems with capitalism. This isn't wrong. But unless you can show me an example of how these giant plagarism machines and/or the companies diverting ever-larger amounts of time and money into them are actively working to destroy capitalism and replace it with something much more equitable and kind, then your "this machine will free you from your labor" line is a bunch of total bullshit.

elzbardico3• 3 months ago

And what kind of UBI? With what kinds of strings attached?

coldtea5• 3 months ago

The same people that shout "Capitalism sucks, free us from our labor" are the exact same types that hate AI. The exact machine that will free you from your labor, when harnessed correctly, is the exact thing you hate.

No, AI will only free us from our jobs, while still keeping the need to find money to feed ourselves.

"When harnessed correctly" is exactly what wont happen, and exactly what all the structural and economic forces around AI ensure it wont happen.

slibhb10• 3 months ago

AI is a tool to increase productivity. Productivity has increased greatly over the past century, yet it's easier to feed ourselves than ever, and we have far more leisure time.

matsemann• 3 months ago

that will free you from your labor

I don't believe that, though. The output will be owned by an elite. The rest of us will be useless and fighting for scraps. No utopia with UBI or similar.

Edit: wow, many made the same comment while I was reading the article. I should remember to refresh before starting to write.

Uehreka• 3 months ago

They hate it because no one is providing them with a credible thesis for how we get from working jobs we hate to the sort of “free from labor” utopia you envision.

Like, my aunt just lost the job she had for 33 years working at an insurance company. The company claims it is because of AI (whether companies lie about this sometimes is immaterial, it is sometimes true and becoming more true every month). She’s smart, but at age 60 I do think she’ll have a hard time shifting to a totally different knowledge work paradigm to keep up with 20-something AI natives.

What do we tell people in this position? That they should be happy? That UBI is coming? My aunt has bills to pay now, UBI is currently not in the Overton Window of US politics, and is totally off the table for Republicans (who have the white house through at least 2028).

I’m personally very excited about AI, but the lack of seriousness with which I see tech people talk about these issues is frustrating. If we can’t tell people a believable story where they don’t get screwed, they will decide (totally rationally from their perspective) that this needs to stop.

alex1138• 3 months ago

But real talk, doesn't Tesla have kind of an awful safety record?

xg157• 3 months ago

Capitalism sucks, free us from our labor

"Capitalism sucks" has become a pretty universal slogan, but traditionally, leftists didn't want less labor (that's what the capital owners want), but more control about their labour.

elzbardico3• 3 months ago

It is hard to explain that for people who are still invested in the calvinist view of work and success in 2026

throwawa142232• 3 months ago

I firmly believe AI is a surefire path to UBI. It's made me radically anti-AI.

DoughHook• 3 months ago

I haven't seen anyone be against UBI given it's feasible. Why do you have this opinion?

cyclopeanutopia• 3 months ago

The world already produces enough of everything that we could feed and clothe everyone, and yet it is not the case.

Care to explain why?

pocksuppet7• 3 months ago

Because the people with the rights to control the food and clothing have no incentive to give it to the people who don't have food, clothing, or money.

nkrisc2• 3 months ago

All I’ve been hearing is how AI will replace human workers with no mention of what those humans are supposed to do when they get replaced. I think people are rightfully concerned about that.

We’re automating the interesting work with AI and leaving the drudge work for humans.

nemo44x• 3 months ago

We’re automating the interesting work with AI and leaving the drudge work for humans.

I think you have that backwards.

kmeisthax• 3 months ago

There is no path from the current set of cloud-focused AI hyperscalers to the kind of fully automated luxury gay space communism you seem to be gesturing at. The economics don't work out. OpenAI, Google, and/or Anthropic are supposed to invent magic superintelligence that makes all human labor obsolete or uncompetitive and... just host it for free? Like, that's not how the game is played. Them producing and hosting all the models makes them an economic chokepoint, and the only way you get the capital to train and host models at this scale is if you have a story to sell to investors that ends with "and then we become an economic chokepoint and extract rents from everyone else".

This is all embedded in their future growth prospects. Nobody is interested in subsidizing AI as a public service forever. They're interested in "AI is going to make this company go 100x".

philipkglass• 3 months ago

The only way you get the capital to train and host models at this scale is if you have a story to sell to investors that ends with "and then we become an economic chokepoint and extract rents from everyone else".

I agree that this dream of huge returns is luring investors.

I don't think that it will actually work that way. The barriers to making a useful model appear to be modest and keep getting lower. There are a lot of tasks where some AI is useful, but you don't need the very best model if there's a "good enough" solution available at lower prices.

I believe that the irrational exuberance of AI investors is effectively subsidizing technological R&D in this area before AI company valuations drop to realistic levels. Even if OpenAI ends up being analogous to Yahoo! (a currently non-sexy company that was once a darling of investors), their former researchers and engineers can circulate whatever they learned on the job to the organizations that they join later.

Aboutplants• 3 months ago

Maybe when the entire marketing of AI is fear mongering and doom (all your jobs are going away!) the end result is something you should have expected from the very beginning

mjtk2• 3 months ago

AI scares the crap out of me. I worried about what reality will look like in 2-5 years. The rate of change is pretty bonkers.

IAmGraydon2• 3 months ago

What has changed for you in your life?

larodi4• 3 months ago

This whole poisoning intent is so incredibly misappropriated, that I feel sad about it. First of all - there is enough content to train on already, that is not poisoned, and second - the other new content is largely populated in automated manner from the real world, and by workers in large shops in Africa, that are being paid to not produce shit.

So yes, you can pollute the good old internet even more, but no, you cannot change the arrow of time, and then there's already the growing New Internet of APIs and public announce federations where this all matters very little.

james2doyle• 3 months ago

You should check out "model collapse". It seems that an abundance of content, that is more and more AI generated these days, may not be a viable option. There is also a vast amount of data that is increasingly going private or behind paywalls

gruez• 3 months ago

You should check out "model collapse". It seems that an abundance of content, that is more and more AI generated these days, may not be a viable option.

Doom-saying about "model collapse" is kind of funny when OpenAI and Anthropic are mad at Chinese model makers for "distilling" their models, ie. using their outputs to train their own models.

platinumrad• 3 months ago

People love harping on this one, but model collapse hasn't turned out to be an issue in practice.

jordanb6• 3 months ago

There may be plenty of content out there but everyone with any content on the internet is struggling to keep AI crawlers that they never authorized out. In many cases, people are having to do so just to protect their infrastructure from request spamming.

Since AI crawlers don't obey any consent markers denying access to content, it makes sense for content owners who don't want AI trained on their content to poison it if possible. It's possibly the only way to keep the AI crawlers away.

dspillett4• 3 months ago

It's possibly the only way to keep the AI crawlers away.

Unfortunately that won't work. If you've served them enough content to have noticeable poisoning effect then you've allowed all that load through your resources. It won't stop them coming either - for the most part they don't talk to each other so even if you drive some away more will come, there is no collaborative list of good and bad places to scrape.

The only half-way useful answer to the load issue ATM is PoW tricks like Anubis, and they can inconvenience some of your target audience as well. They don't protect your content at all, once it is copied elsewhere for any reason it'll get scraped from there. For instance if you keep some OSS code off GitHub, and behind some sort of bot protection, to stop it ending up in CoPilot's dataset, someone may eventually fork it and push their version to GitHub anyway thereby nullifying your attempt.

lxgr16• 3 months ago

If you put something on the open web, as I see it, you only get so much say in what people do with it.

Yes, they can't publish it without attribution and/or compensation (copyright, at least currently, for better or worse). Yes, they shouldn't get to hammer your server with redundant brainless requests for thousands of copies of the same content that no human will ever read (abuse/DDOS prevention).

No, I don't think you get to decide what user agent your visitors are using, and whether that user agent will summarize or otherwise transform it, using LLMs, ad blockers, or 273 artisanal regular expressions enabling dark/bright/readable/pink mode.

it makes sense for content owners who don't want AI trained on their content to poison it if possible. It's possibly the only way to keep the AI crawlers away.

How would that work? The crawler needs to, well, crawl your site to determine that it's full of slop. At that point, it's already incurred the cost to you.

I'm all for banning spammy, high-request-rate crawlers, but those you would detect via abusive request patterns, and that won't be influenced by tokens.

Legend24406• 3 months ago

I don't think this traffic is actually coming from crawlers for training.

Think about it, why would a training scraper need to hit the same page hundreds of times a day? They only need to download it once.

I think this is LLMs doing web searches at runtime in response to user queries. There's no caching at this level, so similar queries by many different users could lead the LLM to request the same page many times.

larodi4• 3 months ago

My bet is many of these crawlers collect price matching, socio-political and other data.

It is curious how it gets decided that all spiders crawl for training. And in fact the walled data is much more interesting, and particularly Reddit, X, and FB data where we still have indications of human or at least correct data lives.

These cannot be poisoned that easy.

therobots927• 3 months ago

Straight from the horse’s mouth: https://www.anthropic.com/research/small-samples-poison

graphememes2• 3 months ago

Yes, you _can_ but you probably wont.

runarberg4• 3 months ago

You may be underestimating the powers of trillions of parameters in a model. With this many parameters overfitting is inevitable. Overfitting here means you are plotting (or outputting) the errors in your data instead of interpolating (or inferring) any trends in the model.

In fact, given this many parameters, poisoning should be relatively easy in general, but extremely easy on niche subjects.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=78pHB0Rp6eI

Legend24406• 3 months ago

With this many parameters overfitting is inevitable.

Nope. Go look up double descent. Overfitting turns out not to be an issue with large models.

Your video is from a political activist, not anyone with any knowledge about machine learning. Here's a better video about overfitting: https://youtu.be/qRHdQz_P_Lo

i_love_retros5• 3 months ago

I'm looking forward to Claude starting to talk like a Nigerian prince

chromacity• 3 months ago

This is an interesting sentiment given how desperate AI labs seem to be source any new internet content from any walled-garden platform willing to take their money (and how willing they are to try & take it even if you don't consent).

Abusive, sneaky scraping is absolutely through the roof.

NewsaHackO2• 3 months ago

I feel as though you are confusing AI use in scraping by random companies and actual AI companies scraping. The AI companies seem to see value in walled garden sources like Reddit, Stack Overflow, etc. However, I don't think there has been any major instance of a major American AI company doing aggressive online website scraping and not respecting robot.txt.

dspillett4• 3 months ago

there is enough content to train on already, that is not poisoned

This is true. Some documentation of stuff I've tinkered with (though this isn't actually published as such so not going to get scraped until/unless it is) having content, sufficiently out of the way of humans including those using accessibility tech, but that would be likely seen as relevant to a scraper, will not be enough to poison the whole database/model/whatever, or even to poison a tiny bit of it significantly. But it might change any net gain of ignoring my “please don't bombard this with scraper requests” signals to a big fat zero or maybe a tiny little negative. If not, then at least it was a fun little game to implement :)

To those trying to poison with some automation: random words/characters isn't going to do it, there are filtering techniques that easily identify and remove that sort of thing. Juggled content from the current page and others topologically local to it, maybe mixed with extra morsels (I like the “the episode where” example, but for that to work you need a fair number of examples like that in the training pool), on the other hand could weaken links between tokens as much as your “real” text enforces them.

One thing to note is that many scrapers filter obvious profanity, sometimes rejecting whole pages that contain it, so sprinkling a few offensive sequences (f×××, c×××, n×××××, r×××××, farage, joojooflop, belgium, …) where the bots will see them might have an effect on some.

Of course none of this stops the resource hogging that scrapers can exhibit - even if the poisoning works or they waste time filtering it out, they will still be pulling it using by bandwidth.

xmichael9092• 3 months ago

Like the other commentor already pointed out, almost every AI bot out there thinks Fortnite is real, yet it is completely made up poison.

MisterTea2• 3 months ago

My take on AI is that it's a corporate tool used to extract more work from employees while tricking them into thinking they are turbo-charged devs.

These days the tech industry is more moneyed circus than serious effort to improve humanity.

paganel• 3 months ago

into thinking they are turbo-charged devs

Fortunately no-one sane enough among us, computer programmers, believes in that bs, we all see this masquerade for what it mostly is, basically a money grab.

alyxya2• 3 months ago

This seems like a wasted effort when AI will primarily learn the majority consensus view and not one-off misinformation. AI tries to learn pattern matching for generalization, so garbage data doesn't make AI learn the wrong patterns, at best just slows down learning the actual patterns. When most compute for training is spent on curated data and RL rather than random web-scraped data, the impact is likely negligible.

righthand4• 3 months ago

What is the pattern for truth if I flood your data with lies?

Jtarii3• 3 months ago

The same way humans deal with it, check it against multiple reputable sources.

alfiedotwtf• 3 months ago

In the pre-AI-collapse era, we called this PageRank ;)

Mordisquitos3• 3 months ago

This seems like a wasted effort when AI will primarily learn the majority consensus view and not one-off misinformation.

We have evidence to the contrary. Two blog articles and two preprints of fake academic articles [0] were able to convince CoPilot, Gemini, ChatGPT and Perplexity AI of the existence of a fake disease, against all majority consensus. And even though the falsity of this information was made public by the author of the experiment and the results of their actions were widely published, it took a while before the models started to get wind of it and stopped treating the fake disease as real. Imagine what you can do if you publish false information and have absolutely no reason to later reveal that you did so in the first place.

[0] https://www.nature.com/articles/d41586-026-01100-y

gwern2• 3 months ago

Two blog articles and two preprints of fake academic articles [0] were able to convince CoPilot, Gemini, ChatGPT and Perplexity AI of the existence of a fake disease, against all majority consensus

Wrong. There are no 'majority consensus' against 'bixonimania' because they made it up, that was the point. It's unsurprisingly easy to get LLMs to repeat the only source on a term never before seen. This usually works; made-up neologisms are the fruitfly of data poisoning because it is so easy to do and so unambiguous where the information came from. (And retrieval-based poisoning is the very easiest and laziest and most meaningless kind of poisoning, tantamount to just copying the poison into the prompt and asking a question about it.) But the problem with them is that also by definition, it is hard for them to matter; why would anyone be searching or asking about a made-up neologism? And if it gets any criticism, the LLMs will pick that up, as your link discusses. (In contrast, the more sources are affected, the harder it is to assign blame; some papermills picked up 'bixonimania'? Well, they might've gotten it from the poisoned LLMs... or they might've gotten it from the same place the LLMs did which poisoned their retrievals, Medium et al.)

alyxya2• 3 months ago

All the examples you gave are chatbots with web search integrated. Are you sure those chatbots didn't just reference false information it found in web searches? That's fundamentally different than poisoning the training of AI models.

The problem was that the experiment worked too well. Within weeks of her uploading information about the condition, attributed to a fictional author, major artificial-intelligence systems began repeating the invented condition as if it were real.

This seems to imply the poisoning affected the web search results, not the actual model itself, because it takes months for data to make it into a trained base model.

zoogeny4• 3 months ago

I often question my own bias on this because in my interactions with local non-tech people, the adoption of AI has pretty much affected everyone I know and it is by my estimation a majority positive reaction. I live in a fairly rural part of the PNW.

So when I read "People hate what AI is doing to our world." it honestly feels like either I am completely deluded or the author is. It feels like a high school bully saying "No one here likes you" to try to gaslight his victim.

I mean, obviously there are many vocal opponents to AI, I see them on social media including here on HN. And I hear some trepidation in person as well. But almost everyone I know, from trades-people to teachers, are adopting AI in some capacity and report positive uses and interactions.

alfalfasprout• 3 months ago

Fascinating, because I've seen the exact opposite across the PNW.

zoogeny4• 3 months ago

That is why I question my own bias. One possible explanation is that I am AI positive. So when people test out "What do you think about AI?" my own responses are generally positive. That probably filters out people who don't want to argue or contradict.

This kind of effect would work both ways. People who are non-confrontational in general will choose to keep quiet if their opinions differ. In this view, both pro-AI and anti-AI sides might find themselves having their bias confirmed due to opposing views self-silencing to avoid conflict.

jolt422• 3 months ago

Anecdotally, I was just there and ran into a couple of anti-AI people and it's not like I was bringing it up. All I got was they were worried about the water and the heat produced. I wonder if someone has done an analysis of old-search vs AI-search, I most definitely get the info quicker that I want with AI, does that make up for the LLM cost, I have no idea.

xg157• 3 months ago

teachers

Given all the borderline apocalyptic articles how students are using it to cheat and teachers have no way to stop them, I'd be honestly surprised by that.

zoogeny4• 3 months ago

All I can offer is my anecdotal experience. One teacher was describing his usage to generate quizzes on material. He gets course material in the form of pdfs, uploads it to the AI and gets it to generate questions.

On the flip side, one of my other teacher friends has instituted a no phone policy in his classroom.

aksss2• 3 months ago

There was an article about a year ago concerning the students' using AI to complete work, and teachers using AI tools to detect if AI tools were being used to complete the work, so (even a year ago) you found this absurd scenario where it was just robots checking the work of other robots. Did a quick search for said article but couldn't find it. Anyway, humorous. Coupled with the WaPo article today about people "speed-running" their degrees, it's wacky, wacky world for "education". https://archive.is/bPi82

rmdashrfv• 3 months ago

I'd say that the molotov cocktails being thrown at the house of an AI company CEO being met with mostly praise and a little bit of apathy is a good hint you might actually be in a bubble

zoogeny4• 3 months ago

I don't agree, in fact I would say if I was surrounded by people glorifying violence that would suggest I was in an extreme minority.

It reminds me of similar late-stage-capitalism like activity, from the assassination of the insurance company CEO, the fire-bombing of Tesla's, etc. It is hard to disentangle hate that is based on economic inequality or power imbalance from hate directed explicitly at AI. That is especially true since one narrative suggests that both types of inequality (economic and power) may be accelerated by an unequal distribution of access to AI.

So we might end up in an argument over whether the hate that drives the violence is towards AI at all, or if that is merely a symptom of existing anti-capitalist sentiment that is on the rise.

BeetleB3• 3 months ago

The bulk of the anti-AI sentiment I see is from people who spend a huge amount of time online (or on HN). Not regular folks.

Most people don't care if something is written by an AI as long as it is reasonable, and reflects the intent of the human who prompted the AI.

If consuming material online (videos, web sites, online forums) is not something you do a lot of, you're relatively unimpacted by LLMs (well, except the whole jobs situation...).

jolt422• 3 months ago

It's easy to chalk it up to "fear of the unknown", when in reality it's both good and bad depending on who's wielding it. It can be used to tear down or build up, solve problem or create problems just like every advance before it. So while I'm generally excited with where it can go, I guess I don't mind being reminded there can be downsides.

simianwords8• 3 months ago

Is this just Luddism in 21st century? I kind of feel bad for the pathetic (mental) state one must be in to take this kind of activism seriously

platevoltage2• 3 months ago

I still maintain that the biggest proponents for this tech are unable to set up a wifi router without help.

simianwords8• 3 months ago

I don't think it is because the biggest proponents are at the top - either in Science / Academia / Professional software development. But even if the people who are the weakest advocate for the tech, whats the issue?

orbital-decay2• 3 months ago

Luddites were opposing the owners, not the tech.

simianwords8• 3 months ago

Who is this author opposing, pray tell me

Jtarii3• 3 months ago

I think AI is super cool and use it everyday, I also think its likely to cause extreme human suffering.

If AGI is let loose on the world I am confident millions of people are going to die.

simianwords8• 3 months ago

I also think its likely to cause extreme human suffering

yeah no. thinking this way is hyperbolic and just plain wrong

hnav• 3 months ago

it doesn't need to be AGI, the way it's being let loose on the world it is already poised to hurt millions.

roschdal• 3 months ago

I resist AI.

pj_mukh• 3 months ago

Fortunately, the slop you visibly see online is just the tip of the iceberg. I would guess 80% of AI's real usage hides beneath the surface in back-office documentation consumption, software development, process optimization and automation, investments in new endeavors companies would've never thought possible/financially feasible etc. All of that usage is hidden from this resistance, and possible now with current models (so all this new poisoning is irrelevant). The valuations could go away tomorrow, and it would've still fundamentally changed the nature of the economy.

It doesn't matter that you don't like the slop on the LinkedIn post, ban it. I think the visible slop on our various feeds that is driving people mad is a rounding error for the AI companies. Moreover, it's more a function of the attention economy than the AI economy and it should've been regulated to all holy hell back in 2015 when the enshittification began.

Now is as good as time as any.

lpcvoid2• 3 months ago

Good, every little bit counts. Poison them data wells.

jmmcd• 3 months ago

Since these companies can’t improve their AI models without fresh data created by human beings

Totally wrong. Self-play dates back to Arthur Samuel in the 1950s and RL with verifiable rewards is a key part of training the most advanced models today.

cubefox• 3 months ago

Current models don't yet use RLVR with self-play though, at least as far as we know. They use RLVR with large numbers of manually created RL environments.

But they will probably use self-play soon. See https://www.amplifypartners.com/blog-posts/self-play-and-aut...

rdedev• 3 months ago

Not totally wrong. Self play works well with if your problem can be easily simulated in an RL environment where the model can easily explore different states. RLHF or similar techniques is not that since we don't have exactly have a simulation environment for language modelling

Right now there are companies which hire software devs or data scientists to just solve a bunch of random problems so that they can generate training data for an LLM model. Why would they be in business if self play can work out so well?

vidarh9• 3 months ago

Why would they be in business if self play can work out so well?

Because it is still cheaper.

notpachet• 3 months ago

Right now there are companies which hire software devs or data scientists to just solve a bunch of random problems so that they can generate training data for an LLM model.

Sounds like Macrodata Refinement.

morning-coffee• 3 months ago

This is (yet another reason) why we can't have nice things on the Internet anymore. Sigh.

lolcatzlulz• 3 months ago

The easiest way to grow AI resistance is to get Dario Amodei and Sam Altman on TV and let them talk.

FeteCommuniste• 3 months ago

Get Alex Karp out there promoting autonomous weapons, too, if you want the ultimate trifecta.

xpe8• 3 months ago

The easiest way to grow AI resistance is to get Dario Amodei and Sam Altman on TV and let them talk.

Tell me more? I'm guessing you might say: neither connects with everyday people, they have misaligned incentives*, they (like most corporate leaders) don't speak directly, they have more power than almost any elected leader in the world, ... Did I miss anything?

My take: when it comes to character and goals and therefore predicting what they will do: please don't lump Amodei with Altman. In brief: Altman is polished, effective, and therefore rather unsettling. In short, Altman feels amoral. It feels like people follow him rather than his ideas. Amodei is different. He inspires by his character and ideals. Amodei is a well-meaning geek, and I sometimes marvel (in a good way) how he leads a top AI lab. His media chops are middling and awkward, but frankly, I'm ok with it. I get the sense he is communicating (more-or-less) as himself.

Let me know if anyone here has evidence to suggest any claim I'm making is off-base. I'm no oracle.

I could easily pile on more criticisms of both. Here's a few: to my eye, Dario doesn't go far enough with his concerns about AI futures, but I can't tell how much of this is his PR stance as head of A\ versus his core beliefs. Altman is a harder nut to crack: my first approximation of him is "brilliant, capable, and manipulative". As much as I worry about OpenAI and dislike Altman's power-grab, I probably grant that he's, like most people, fundamentally trying to do the right thing. I don't think he's quite as deranged as say Thiel. But I could be wrong. If I had that kind of money, intellect, and network, maybe I would also be using it aggressively and in ways that could come across as cunning. Maybe Altman and Thiel have good intentions and decent plans -- but the fact remains the concentration of power is corrupting, and they seem to have limited guardrails given their immense influence.

* Here's my claim, and I invite serious debate on it: Dario, more than any corporate leader, takes alignment seriously. He actually funds work on it. He knows how it works. He cares. He actually does some of the work, or at least used to. How many CEOs of the companies they run actually have the skills to DO the rank-and-file work? Even the most pessimistic people probably probably can grant this.

phainopepla23• 3 months ago

You're overthinking the parent comment, I think. When Dario goes on TV he says things like "AI is going to put 50% of white collar workers out of a job in a few years". The average TV viewer who hears that doesn't know what AI alignment means, they just hear that this guy, whatever his intentions, is threatening their ability to survive in this economy.

hollerith• 3 months ago

Yudkowsky disagrees with your claim that Amodei is any better than Altman (although he does think that Anthropic as a whole is better than OpenAI):

https://x.com/allTheYud/status/2042716955145310421

Yudkowsky's main focus is on AI extinction risk, and that is the standard by which he is evaluating these people (and companies).

cesarvarela• 3 months ago

I wonder if this will have the opposite effect and produce something similar to antibiotic resistance, making Ais better at handling "poison."

miltonlost• 3 months ago

Conflating “kicking over ai delivery bots” and “throwing a Molotov cocktail at Altman’s house” as being both condemnable hasn’t actually been forced off the sidewalk by one of these delivery bots. These are dangerous and anti-human ADA nightmares. They shouldn’t be allowed on sidewalks, emphasis on walk

cortesoft2• 3 months ago

I am hoping at some point we can move towards having more nuanced conversations about AI and the role it should play in our world. It seems like currently the only two camps are at either extreme.

Isn't there somewhere between removing AI from the world entirely and just sitting back and letting it take over everything? I want to talk about responsible AI use, and how to mitigate the effects on society, and to account for energy consumption, etc.

sidrag22• 3 months ago

kinda surprised to see this type of take out of someone who participates on this website. I feel like this is the place where I have seen that middle ground surface the most. Just the overall shift in the past year from semi handwaving to feeling like it must be embraced, and identifying the problems it creates and how to address them. I feel this is all exactly what you are mentioning.

I think AI as a proper utilized tool, is amazing, I think our lack of restraint when just throwing it into everyone's hands without understanding of the tools they are using, is horrifying. I'd imagine a lot of the community here echos that same sentiment, but maybe not, and i am just making assumptions.

cortesoft2• 3 months ago

The overall sentiment on here might be in the middle, but I feel like that is more because half the posts and comments are railing against AI slop and half are about exciting new AI models or tools.

sesm• 3 months ago

Venture capital bet on AI taking over the world, so any conservative usage of LLMs will not get funding in the near future. The subtle reason is that betting on conservative usage of LLMs sends a signal that de-values their primary investments.

skyberrys• 3 months ago

This is my take too. When we were imagining AI what were the use cases we had in mind back then? They are these grand visions of AI will take care of major problems. We should be pushing for responsible AI deployment, starting on low risk areas and moving up to more serious uses once we know the tools work for less catastrophic situations.

justaregulanerd• 3 months ago

I think this is where I sit - I'm personally of the opinion that AI crawlers and thus companies should respect robots.txt, and they shouldn't be trying to scale up to the point of adversely affecting the environment (both natural and supply chain).

I do find value in mindfully using models - perhaps I've got a weird thing to troubleshoot on my Linux server and I just don't want to spend the time or mental effort in tracing it back.

Because I do tend to use AI mindfully, I strongly dislike Microsoft's strategy in constantly pushing their AI solution Copilot. I would rather use it when I feel its right rather than always be reminded its a thing I can use to save time and increase my efficiency around every corner.

haberman4• 3 months ago

I'm old enough to remember a time when the primary hacker cause was DRM, the DMCA, patent trolls, export controls for PGP, etc. All things that made it difficult to use information when you want to. "Information wants to be free."

It's wild to see the about face. Now it's:

If [companies] can’t source training data ethically, then I see absolutely no reason why any website operator should make it easy for them to steal it.

It would have been very difficult to predict this shift 25 years ago.

noosphr• 3 months ago

This is what happens when a culture doesn't have robust exclusionary mechanisms for people who want to burn it down.

We welcomed the vampires in and wonder why our necks hurt.

ryandrake2• 3 months ago

This is like saying Winner Take All Capitalism doesn't have an exclusionary mechanism for the rich. The system exists for the sole purpose of serving the already-rich. The vampires are an inevitability baked into the system from the start.

underlipton2• 3 months ago

It becomes a bit easier to see when you finish the sentence. "Information wants to be free (from ______)." If you filled that blank in with "rent-seeking Capitalists and corporations," you likely have everything you need to understand why they don't see it as a turn.

I say this as someone whose notions exist orthogonal to the debate; I use AI freely but also don't have any qualms about encouraging people to upend the current paradigm and pop the bubble.

lxgr16• 3 months ago

Sure, with enough effort, you can find a seemingly clever way to turn almost every mantra into its semantic opposite.

GaryBluto4• 3 months ago

"Information wants to be free, but only be used by people I wholly endorse." is the motto. You'll see young people singing the praises of piracy but then use "piracy" as an excuse for hating LLMs.

ginko• 3 months ago

Corporations are not people.

jordanb6• 3 months ago

Those people where trying to build a sharing/gift economy. They weren't able to keep bad actors out of their sharing economy. They are bitter that their utopian dreams got hijacked by self-dealers. Why is that wild?

aksss2• 3 months ago

utopian dreams got hijacked by self-dealers

Such is the fate of all utopian dreams.

lxgr16• 3 months ago

It's highly debatable whether, in case of an information sharing/gift economy, the concept of "bad actors coming in and ruining it for everybody by taking without giving back" even makes sense.

The information is still there, as is the community that you've built, the joy that you get out of sharing the information, everything you've learned...

Why is any of that diminished, just because some people or entities that you dislike also got something out of it?

lxgr16• 3 months ago

Hackers are not one big homogeneous group (although there definitely are larger trends, and maybe you have a point there).

Still, people were saying all kinds of inane stuff 25 years ago too.

belorn2• 3 months ago

This claim of contradiction has never worked for me.

Let say person A wants everyone to be rich.

Person B plots a plan to make themself rich and everyone else poorer.

One can make an argument that any action by A is now a contradiction. If they work with B, it makes a lot of people poorer and not richer. If they work against B, B do not get rich.

However this is not a contradiction. If a company use training data in ways that reduce and harm other peoples ability to access information, like hiding attribution or misrepresenting the data and sources, people who advocate for free information can have a consistent view and also work against such use. It is not a shift. It is only a shift if we believe that copyright will be removed, works will be given to the public for free, and companies will no longer try to hide and protect creative works and information.

haberman4• 3 months ago

You can certainly argue second-order effects (ie. we have to restrict information to save information), but the movie studios were making that same argument at the time:

If copyright can no longer protect the distribution of the work they produce, who will invest immense sums to create films or any other creative material of the kind we now take for granted? Do the thieves really expect new music and movies to continue pouring forth if the artists and companies behind them are not paid for their work?

--Jack Valenti, Motion Picture Association of America, 2000 (https://archive.is/PBy7C)

It sounds remarkably similar to what people concerned about AI say today. How do we make sure that artists get paid?

I don't think many hackers found the argument compelling at the time.

Legend24406• 3 months ago

Politics will make more sense once you realize no one is trying to have consistent principles.

People are in general for whatever they think will benefit them, and against what they think will harm them.

So piracy is ok when it benefits the little guy and not ok when it benefits the big guy. Unions are good when they stand up against employers, and bad when they discriminate against non-union workers. There's no contradiction there.

solaire_oa2• 3 months ago

If you're implying that it's a violation of the original hacker ethos, I disagree.

"Information wants to be free" is a small part of the hacker ethos venn diagram. There are many hacker ethos traits that aren't about cracking, specifically.

Also, the server "information" isn't free (as in beer) to begin with, it costs server availability. Coming up ways to penalize greedy actors is not only well within the server operator's perogative, it's an interesting tit-for-tat problem that could pique any hacker's interests.

A bonus hacker trait is that these poisoning responses are individualistic, i.e. the government doesn't get involved, where certainly more aggressive anti-AI sentiments could (wrongly) call for that.

So I'd say this type of LLM-resistance falls squarely in the original hacker ethos, even though it incidentally counteracts one minor aspect of "information availability". Though I'd certainly agree that the picture today is a lot different than it was. Ironic even.

TwoNineFive• 3 months ago

THEN: "You can't violate our copyright because it's ours and belongs to us."

NOW: "We can violate your copyright because we want to."

YOU: "Where's mine, and how do I make more people click on these ads?"

subjectsigma• 3 months ago

Those people were always lying, it was always about power dynamics. People hated DRM and surveillance because they saw it as punching down. People now hate AI wielded by corpos because they see it as punching down. Extremely few (if any) people ever bought into the “cyber-utopia” thing and now the mask has completely come off, everyone knows the Internet is a tool for subjugation

rpdillon2• 3 months ago

For what it's worth, I've generally sort of been on the "information, wants to be free" side of things, and I still am. I don't really understand the folks that released their software under open source license and are now upset that LLMs are training on it -- those folks were pretty quiet when their source code was being indexed by Google. But I suppose that's because Google was sending traffic their way with they could then monetize. So this is much less about any kind of philosophical argument and much more about who's getting money, which I don't really care about. I view one of the core values of open source software as being something that we can learn from, whether that's through AI or otherwise.

DamnInteresting• 3 months ago

I don't really understand the folks that released their software under open source license and are now upset that LLMs are training on it

The key word there is "license." Open source often has strings attached--an obligation to credit the source, an obligation to release derivative code under the same license, etc. LLMs seldom respect the license, they just quietly and extensively plagiarize everything.

array_key_first• 3 months ago

The common string between both of those advocacies is that they heavily favor huge corporations instead of the little guy.

Basically, DMCA and DRM makes you a criminal while protecting NBC and Disney and such. And AI steals your work and allows soulless mega corps to basically take your job.

Personally I'd argue AI is very likely to be worse for the average person, depending on their career.

Some people don't care or maybe don't realize. And then I think some people are just naive, and are assuming everyone else will be fucked, but they won't be. And then some other people are self-destructive, and they know it will make their life harder - but they advocate for it anyway, because they feel they deserve the suffering, and maybe hold some misguided belief that suffering is the fuel of victory.

eudamoniac2• 3 months ago

It was never about some "information wants to be free" philosophy for most people. It was about, "I want information to be free for me to access, and btw fuck big corporations." No real shift happened.

karmickoala• 3 months ago

There's a big asymmetry of power here and "information wants to be free" was about empowering the people. Currently, corporations are bad faith actors that corrupted the idea, making it free only for themselves. Can't you see the asymmetry here? For instance, they should release the weights of the models they trained on everyone else work, but we're not seeing that except for Meta and some other groups.

caesil• 3 months ago

The only thing more cringe than the seething anger in this blog is the technical illiteracy revealed by an earnest belief that any of these attempts at "poisoning" will have any negative impact whatsoever on model training.

i_love_retros5• 3 months ago

Lol I find the opposite to be cringe to be honest: people using chatgpt to write messages, emails, resumes for them, professional software developers vibe coding entire apps, talking about AGI coming from LLMs. Please. That is the cringe.

sombragris• 3 months ago

I wish I could have 1K upvotes for this.

BeetleB3• 3 months ago

What is tragic is that LLMs are learning how to use the word "cringe" improperly.

If we're going to have AI overlords, it'd be great if they spoke with proper grammar.

goosejuice6• 3 months ago

Let's say an NGO has done the work to formally specify a software product that would improve outcomes or people reached by I dunno 30%. They send out RFPs to a number of consultancies who provide a quote and guaranteed delivery meeting their specifications by the desired date. Only one fits in the budget, and by quite a margin. It's a consultancy that openly "vibe codes".

Should they hire them?

Yes the specification is holding a lot of weight here. Assume it's comprehensive and all consultancies offer the same aftercare support. Otherwise we're just handwaving and bike shedding over something that's not measurable.

lxgr16• 3 months ago

Who could have thought: There's more than one way to be cringe!

kevinbojarski• 3 months ago

I wouldn't be so confident that poisoning won't work. https://www.reddit.com/r/BrandNewSentence/comments/1so9wf1/c...

phainopepla23• 3 months ago

LLM poisoning is about getting bad data into the training set. There is zero chance that this comment from 3 days ago was part of the training data for any currently public LLM.

Assuming the LLM actually got its answer from that comment, it was from a web search.

Legend24406• 3 months ago

Whatever's happening here, it's not training data poisoning.

Models are retrained only every few months at best; it is not possible for a comment made a few hours earlier to be in the training data yet.

xpe8• 3 months ago

Does the above commenter find the expression of anger itself cringe-worthy? I hope not.

Categorically dismissing anger as "cringe" seems like a path to disconnecting from reality and morality.

cdelsolar• 3 months ago

pretty lame, Milhouse

p0w3n3d2• 3 months ago

  Resistance is futile

But to be honest, I totally agree that AI is indeed destroying communities. We can already see YouTube redirecting all the reporting to AI which can allow some malicious agent claim your original video and demonetize it (i.e. steal your money). It happened to great YouTube people like Davie504. There is no way to appeal as the appeal is also treated by a robot

Legend24406• 3 months ago

YouTube has been like that since long before LLMs. Their copyright strike system is broken and always has been.

You're just picking random problems with tech and blaming them on AI.

xpe8• 3 months ago

You're just picking random problems with tech and blaming them on AI.

This comment is uncharitable, uncurious, and dismissive.

Reality is multifaceted. It is worth trying to synthesize and reconcile different views first. To do that, it really helps to ask some questions first. Genuine questions, not gotchas. Even better is to say e.g. "Ok, but I prefer this model instead [...]: how does it compare to yours?".

p0w3n3d2• 3 months ago

From what I heard in the times before AI you could argue and contact a human being eventually. Now there's probably no human in the process... No "call the manager" button

KronisLV• 3 months ago

I bet it's easy to be against AI, instead of those who use it in inhumane ways (and hold considerably more power). To them, AI is just a tool. If it wasn't AI, it would be buildings full of people and automated devices posting misinformation, outsourcing jobs and pushing for gig economy instead of respectable employment, having understaffed call centres and bad phone trees or knowledgebases that basically tell you to f off, lobbying against workers' rights and regulatory capture and any number of other misaligned motivations.

amelius• 3 months ago

This robot chasing wild boars is a preview of what is coming for us:

https://www.youtube.com/shorts/6E2AH43ad7w

OutOfHere• 3 months ago

These people are dinosaurs and you know what happens to Dinosaurs. Until they meet their conclusion, they are for the moment at risk of becoming terrorists.

julienreszka• 3 months ago

i always hated luddites, just one more reason to hate them

overgard• 3 months ago

Honestly, it's no wonder there's a lot of pushback. We have these irresponsible CEO's talking non stop about taking peoples jobs at a time when people are struggling to make ends meet, all while taking in insane cash infusions. Why wouldn't people loathe AI at this point when the marketing is "we're going to fuck you over and there's nothing you can do about it".

pesus• 3 months ago

Billboard company puts up billboards saying "don't hire humans".

HN comments: "I just don't understand why people hate AI".

Traster• 3 months ago

This is slacktivism. I can kind of understand someone coming to the conclusion that we're replacing working class jobs with compute (caveat, I use working class more broadly than you), and that compute is pure capital. So essentially the capital class are wringing the neck of the working class. I think that, at the very least, is what the capital class is hoping for. If that's what you believe though, slightly poisoning a model is not even close to grappling with what is going on.

lxgr16• 3 months ago

This isn’t exactly the modern equivalent of angry textile workers destroying power looms, but (if you’ll forgive the pun) it’s cut from the same cloth.

And how did that work out for the textile workers?

The difference here (I hope) is that if enough of us pollute public spaces with misinformation intended for bots, it might be enough to compel AI companies to rethink the way they source training data.

This... seems like an absurd asymmetry in effort on the side of the attacker? At least destroying a power loom is much easier than building one.

Filtering out obvious garbage seems like a completely solved problem even with weak, cheap LLMs, and it's orders of magnitudes more efficient than humans coming up with artisanal garbage.

graphememes2• 3 months ago

They do realize, they filter out this stuff right? You're just making someone elses job more lucrative.

IAmGraydon2• 3 months ago

No, because if properly implemented, it's extremely difficult or impossible to discern as poison.

jumploops2• 3 months ago

I've noticed this trend most heavily on Reddit.

Some communities are very pro-AI, adding AI summary comments to each thread, encouraging AI-written posts, etc.[0]

Many subreddits are AI cautious[1][2], and a subset of those are fully anti-AI[3].

Apart from these "AI-focused" communities, it seems each "traditional" subreddit sits somewhere on the spectrum (photographers dealing with AI skepticism of their work[4], programmers mostly like it but still skeptical[5]).

[0]https://www.reddit.com/r/vibecoding/

[1]https://www.reddit.com/r/isthisAI/

[2]https://www.reddit.com/r/aiwars/

[3]https://www.reddit.com/r/antiai/

[4]https://www.reddit.com/r/photography/comments/1q4iv0k/what_d...

[5]https://www.reddit.com/r/webdev/comments/1s6mtt7/ai_has_suck...

lxgr16• 3 months ago

Reddit (and more generally, human) groupthing in a nutshell. "Quick, clearly position yourself on this one-dimensional line (or maybe even better sort yourself into one of these two sets) so we don't have to engage in that pesky nuance thing!"

jumploops2• 3 months ago

Yes, groupthink certainly seems to be pushing each community into the false dichotomy of AI good/bad, even if it's still early days.

Another example from `r/bayarea` where the author is OK with AI but the top comments are increasingly wary of its potential for harm[0]

[0]https://www.reddit.com/r/bayarea/comments/1sp8wvz/is_it_just...

jadar• 3 months ago

Hasn’t griefing and trolling been a thing on the internet for a while? What makes this unique just because it’s AI instead of whatever else?

lxgr16• 3 months ago

What makes this unique just because it’s AI instead of whatever else?

I'd say the notion that expensive acts of sabotage (that can be cheaply neutralized) are a worthwhile pastime and anything other than virtue signaling is somewhat perplexing. (Not in a good way.)

SwellJoe• 3 months ago

Any human scale "attack", e.g. the made up Everybody Loves Raymond episode isn't doing anything to hurt LLM training data. Might even help them detect exaggeration, satire, etc. when read in context and with other knowledge they have from other sources (like scraping IMDB or whatever, and already knowing the cast and plot summary of every episode of Everybody Loves Raymond).

If there is an effective way to poison them, it'll be automated. And, it'll probably rely on an LLM to produce the poison, since it has to look legit enough to pass the quality filtering and classification stage of the data ingestion process, which is also probably driven by an LLM.

One reason small models are getting better is because the training data being used is not just getting bigger, it's getting cleaner and classified more correctly/precisely. "Model collapse" hasn't happened, yet, even though something like half the web is AI slop, because as the models get smarter for human use in a variety of contexts, they also get smarter for use in preparing data for training the next model. There may very well still be risks of a mad cow disease like problem for LLMs, but I doubt a Markov chain website is going to contribute. The models still can't always tell fact from fiction, but they're not being hoodwinked by a nonsense generator.

sn0n• 3 months ago

Let’s just break trust more. Makes sense amirite? LoL, in what reality does this even make sense??? it’s literally just spreading misinformation to people who can’t read between the lines because the tism stick got em before they were born.

atleastoptimal• 3 months ago

I have a perhaps unique viewpoint among people in tech, at least among the sample I see on HN

I simultaneously think

1. AI will be a massively impactful technology on the scale of the industrial revolution or greater

2. The potential upside of AI is enormous, but potential downside is just as big (utopia or certain ruin)

3. Most current AI companies are acting somewhat reasonably in a game-theory sense with respect to the deployment of their tech, and aren't especially evil or dastardly compared to Google in the 2000s, social media in the 2010s

4. AI safety is an under-appreciated concern and many who are spending time nitpicking the details are missing the bigger picture of what ASI and complete human obsolescence look like.

5. No amount of whiny protest, data sabotaging, or small-scale angst or claiming that AI is "fake" or hoping for the bubble to pop is going to have even a marginal effect on the development of AI. It is too powerful and the rewards are too great. If anything it will have an overall negative effect because it will convince labs that their potential role as a utopian, public benefactor will not be appreciated, so will instead align themselves with the military industrial complex for goodwill.

munksbeer3• 3 months ago

My viewpoint is similar.

There is way too much to gain if anything approaching ASI is possible, and too much to risk if a rival super power gains supremacy first. AI is not going away, the bubble is not going to pop. Maybe some valuations will crash but ultimately the technology will continue onward.

I am mostly an optimist because I find it a more comfortable way to live. My hope, and also my expectation is that AI will progress incrementally and over the medium or long term will do the same as most other technology progress, and make the median person alive better off in the future.

I reject the claims that dystopia is more likely.

_-_-__-_-_-• 3 months ago

https://theonlyblogever.com/blog/2026/onlyhuman.html, my commentary.

periodjet• 3 months ago

people seem to loathe AI, and are actively resisting it

Maybe this person doesn’t care, but this observation they’ve made is almost certainly informed by an extremely narrow set of personal experiences, and is unlikely to reflect the wider truth.

Lockal2• 3 months ago

Here is a bit of meta humor. When I open https://stephvee.ca I see:

  Sorry, you have been blocked. This website is using a security service to protect itself from online attacks. The action you just performed triggered the security solution. There are several actions that could trigger this block including submitting a certain word or phrase, a SQL command or malformed data.

Did I ever open this website? I guess no. Did I ever attack this website (or did any AI crawling)? Also no. Implying the allegation is criminal, Cloudflare falsely accused me, should I seek legal counsel?

I still was able to access the article via webarchive. And what I want to say, from my POV, I've done nothing wrong, website owners attack me. I don't see it every day, but I think it is more often than cases when people are kicking AI-powered food delivery robots.

st3phvee4• 3 months ago

That is a standard Cloudflare response when a URL is blocked. It was a temporary block affecting ALL traffic to the URL while I updated the post, not a block targeted at anyone in particular.

Lockal2• 3 months ago

No, I am still blocked (for every page on https://stephvee.ca/). "Cloudflare Ray ID: 9efd477aef431473", if it helps somehow. My IP is not in any common blocklist, I experience no errors with other Cloudflare protected websites (using standard Chrome on Linux). It is very likely that stephvee.ca is configured excessively strict (rejecting by OS, or by large IP ranges, or idk)

ares623• 3 months ago

I don't really understand all the comments here downplaying or ridiculing those who are worried about the impact of these tools.

The way I see it, the existence of these tools have negative impact on some people and they are reacting to that. Are they not allowed to fight back in the way they think is appropriate?

munksbeer3• 3 months ago

We see what we want to see. I mostly see anti-AI comments littered on hn. Maybe it is because my brain is picking them out, or maybe it is because they're much stronger than the "I'm ok with AI" comments.

shantnutiwari2• 3 months ago

Surprised to see the negative reaction this post is getting... seems a lot of ai bros are being triggered :)

Edit/update: I can't even read the article because evidently I have been "blocked", no reason given. Great, maybe the negative posts here have a point.

st3phvee4• 3 months ago

Sorry, I am the author: that block was just temporary and affected ALL traffic to that URL while I updated the post. The block was not targeted at anyone in particular. I never intended for that post to reach as many people as it did. :/ I have a very small audience of people who follow my writing, so it was kind of devastating to see comments here likening me and people like me to "a group that goes around burning libraries." Cheers to everyone who kept it civil.

shantnutiwari2• 3 months ago

no probs, site is back up again :)

neop1x• 3 months ago

Funny, I can't even access his site:

" Sorry, you have been blocked You are unable to access stephvee.ca "

- CloudFlare

Anti-AI but pro-MITM and pro-centralisation, limiting human visitors to his site...

emil-lp• 3 months ago

Same here.

Wayback Machine

https://web.archive.org/web/20260420203809/https://stephvee....

rikkert• 3 months ago

ctrl-f mirror here

CaptainFever2• 3 months ago

Website-crawling services tend to have better luck accessing these websites due to their experience solving CloudFlare's challenges. Might want to try those.

1vuio0pswjnm7• 3 months ago

Based on observations of other people using it, "AI" is already "poisoned" with too much low quality training material I'm not interested in searching

The idea of intentionally "poisioning" an "AI" model seems to be the logical evolution of so-called "user-generated content" (UGC). It makes sense that non-cooperation is the eventual outcome of exploiting internet subscribers through coerced intermediation. For years now companies in Silicon Valley and Redmond, and other so-called "tech" companies elsewhere, have been generating revenue by using free information and UGC as bait for surveillance ad targets but without the licensing or production costs

mdrzn• 3 months ago

Post has been edited out and an author note has replaced it.

eudamoniac2• 3 months ago

This person is so fragile that she removed the entire post because some people were critical of it on an entirely other website (here, I assume). I cannot imagine that her thoughts on resistance were very worth reading?

AI Resistance: some recent anti-AI stuff that’s worth discussing

Related Stories