The Cyber Show Debunks the Alleged Intelligence in Slop
The Cyber Show has a new episode[1], some new thoughts about slop[2] (or control maniacs trying to control what we say/write/produce), and a new article regarding The Fermi Paradox of "AI" (slop).
From the article:
If "AI" is so great, why can't my normie friends set up their own mail-servers in 30 seconds? Why can't they trivially encrypt an email in 2026 just like they haven't been able to do since 1990? Why is there no publicly-owned distributed collective search engine that makes Google obsolete? Why can I not install a privacy focussed, local filter on my or my kids phone to block advertisers, spies and disgusting content?Oh such promise "AI". Such promise.
But none of this artifice is intelligent enough to break the status-quo.
The fact is, "AI" has not delivered. Chat-bots are toys for bored and lonely fools. The clock is ticking on the hype machine. If "AI" is so disruptive, why are heaps of crap like Google and Facebook not already dead?
This is a Fermi Paradox. It itches that corner of my mind that says something is wrong. Something is too good to be true. Something does not add up.
I am staring out into a massive, galactic problem-space of a dying Internet, waiting for a signal, hoping for a message. But there is just silence.
Alex Oliva similarly dismisses "AI" as stupidity.
Read Andy's article. It's shorter than usual. █
- A new episode, Systemantics 1, has been released:
Joh Gall's systemantics was published in 1975. It remains one of the most important and profound texts on why things don't work as they should. As "AI" accelerates all of the problems outlined in this book it becomes ever more important to consider why building "systems" is doomed compared to allowing human limitations to act as a necessary safety valve and brake on over-reaching ambition.
- Seems to have been partly inspired by Cory Doctorow, based on passing thoughts in the front page:
FFS just say it Cory!
I love our techno-critical laureate Mr. Doctorow as much as you do, but sometimes he is most infuriating in his ability to talk around a subject in insightful, intricate technical detail without naming the damn keyword, the plain human factor, right at the heart of it all.
No doubt it grates because I do that too, while I'm still working through an idea. looking for the "nub of it" as it were.
On "Enshitification", he said ten thousand words, and he said ten thousand more, and after we were marched up to the top of the hill and back down again, who was any wiser that with enshitification all along we were talking about treachery? Plain simple calculated deceit?
Today, again Cory picks a spot-on topic, one that we've all been thinking and writing about forever… what is the damn obsession with caring about how (technically) something is achieved rather than the end result? It turns into a great comment on Taylorism and the fundamental insecurity and incompetence of "professional management" that Jay Little spoke with me about last week. But I searched Cory's text and nowhere do any of the following words appear: {Neurotic, Control, Freak}
The entire article is about neurotic control freaks. They're neurotic. They want to control everything. And they're just damn freaks!