I have some similar feelings to AI here. The advantages of self-checkout are only present because we've made existing systems worse to the point where something not-great is now a better option.
In the 1980s, a grocery lane would have a check-out clerk and a bagger. Sometimes two baggers. You would put your items on the belt and they'd be scanned and bagged (well, so that eggs weren't crushed, freezer items were together, etc) about as fast as you took them out of the cart.
By lowering wages and reducing staff, this got worse. Now the check-out clerk is poorly-trained and probably quitting/being laid off soon and the bagger has been laid off. Mysteriously, the human-checkout line is now kind of slow and frustrating!
Having individual customers do the check-out themselves is even worse (so frequently, someone gets the machine stuck yelling about putting items in the bagging area, or just stares vacantly at the screen), but by parallelizing the process it comes out to usually slightly faster.
The problem is that they can't just talk about climate problems they need to take action. And since the Democratic party isn't going to support mass-executions of industry executives and billionaires, they'd have to talk about incremental changes. I'm not sure how they sell something like "we forecast that these new regulations will result in a 1 degree average temperature reduction over the next 4 years" (which would be huge). And that's imagining that the party as a whole is able to agree on something hard enough to shove it past the Republicans.
I think what you're saying here is that by "it's not possible" you meant "it's not possible to hold companies liable for their chat-bots' words and still have those companies producing chat-bots." I agree. I think that would be the correct outcome.
There would be some very narrow spaces where LLMs would be usable, but mostly they would cease to pollute everything. Unrelated to AI, I'd like to see lots of regulation that blocks externalizing costs. For example, maybe it's also "impossible" for Walmart to operate in the US if they don't have all their employees getting state assistance. That would also be good. Maybe it's "impossible" to have a beef industry without massive pollution and deforestation. Also good. Et cetera.
How would that be technically impossible? Or difficult? Companies are currently liable for the actions of the human agents, and I don't think the implementation needs to be different.
Maybe you mean socially impossible? Like, the major providers have a lot of money behind them and so why would they allow themselves to be liable for anything?
Sure. But if you read the original post, it's about someone saying that jews are not safe in Canada. And this is then contrasted with how bicyclists are being killed in Canada but jews are not being killed. Directly contradicting the presented narrative.
So then you might wonder: why did someone feel that Canada was unsafe? And you'll find that the answer was "because they heard a few people criticize Israel."
In my own experience, the people saying "jews aren't safe" or "this is antisemitism" often aren't jewish or representing any jewish people; they're just pro-evil.
Yeah it really got the Batman atmosphere well. I wonder if it's because Batman was such a cultural icon that even if you "didn't read comics" you till knew who Batman was and what he was about?
We've got a capture-group for the numbers (the () means we're saving that part for later). Are we planning to do something with the mlg numbers? Why don't we care about the mmmberry numbers?
The capture is one or more numbers, but then it's an optional group. Write ([0-9]*) instead
We match mlg and mlg1 but not mlga because we anchor to the end ($). But not on mmmberry--that one will match "mmmberry5" (but we don't track the number!) but also "mmmberry_is_the_worst" so the enemy of my enemy is also my enemy because they share a prefix
Maybe mlg has sock-puppet accounts mlg1, mlg2, but never MLG?
When people say "AI" these days, they mean the LLM-derived generative AI such as ChatGPT, Google Gemini, Anthropic Claude, and Grok.
These AI systems are not capable of finding authoritative search results. They are good at generating fluent, plausible, context-appropriate text. In legal and medical situations, that's the opposite of what you'd want.
Do you know how often doctors will take a patients history, step outside the exam room, and then google shit?
Think about how often the doctors land on some pseudo-science result. Now imagine that instead of a doctor it's a patient and instead of asking "could these be related" the patient is told "these are related".
a big ol disclaimer that it’s NOT to be taken seriously
This has worked very well for Fox News, which is not a news agency and is for entertainment purpose only. Also for dietary supplements, which are not medicine.
I played around for a few minutes and I'm somewhat surprised that I like it (because on page-load it looks the same as Excalidraw or Miro or the others).
Small number of shapes is good. I like that "database" and "server" are there, because I'd be using this for software architecture diagrams and I don't want an overwhelming number of shapes.
The map in the lower left works quite well. I should try it on something big enough to need it.
The note is just basic text. All the other apps I've used make the text scale to fill the note and I hate that.
Some things are sticky (arrows, freehand) while others are not (shapes). This is surprising and I'm not sure how I feel about it, but it may be the correct choice.
The AI isn't popping up in my god-damn face. I really don't want "help" with drawing.
Export as Mermaid is very interesting-looking.
The sticky/nonsticky buttons are the only maybe-criticism I've got after a quick peek, but I liked it quite a bit and will try using it for real. The export options are important because they make me feel like I won't lose my work if you get bored or forget to pay a bill. :-)
It's quite good for any problem that nobody cares about. For example, if you have a boss who wants hourly status-updates but does not actually read the updates. Or if you need to fill out security forms, but you were going to lie on all the forms and trust that nobody reads them. Or if you get a bonus for writing >100k lines of code, but the code doesn't need to do anything that people want. Or if you need to have someone answer customer-support questions, but it doesn't matter if the customers get helped or are happy.
Yeah, not federating reports is a bug-level missing feature.
But having some kind of probation period also seems like an obvious feature to me (that should be optional, not mandatory). It was not uncommon in the past (on BBSes and old forums) to have new members' posts require approval before anyone could see them. I suspect it partially went away because big platforms needed to "growth hack" and anything that slows down the influx of new users is bad.
Yeah, that's a smarter play. Though, I don't know how you use Venmo or any Pizza-ordering app/site to spend money without it asking for a PIN. I guess we're relying on the "drunk" part to do a lot of the lifting.
The moral isn't the opposite. Toad becomes stressed about all the work that needs to be done tomorrow. He instead gets all his work done pretty quickly, takes the rest of the day off, and resolves to do nothing the next day now that he's more relaxed.
I have some similar feelings to AI here. The advantages of self-checkout are only present because we've made existing systems worse to the point where something not-great is now a better option.
In the 1980s, a grocery lane would have a check-out clerk and a bagger. Sometimes two baggers. You would put your items on the belt and they'd be scanned and bagged (well, so that eggs weren't crushed, freezer items were together, etc) about as fast as you took them out of the cart.
By lowering wages and reducing staff, this got worse. Now the check-out clerk is poorly-trained and probably quitting/being laid off soon and the bagger has been laid off. Mysteriously, the human-checkout line is now kind of slow and frustrating!
Having individual customers do the check-out themselves is even worse (so frequently, someone gets the machine stuck yelling about putting items in the bagging area, or just stares vacantly at the screen), but by parallelizing the process it comes out to usually slightly faster.
This doesn't pass a quick reasoning check:
So the stores must be getting better margins at self-checkout than at human-checkout, or they wouldn't introduce it.
The problem is that they can't just talk about climate problems they need to take action. And since the Democratic party isn't going to support mass-executions of industry executives and billionaires, they'd have to talk about incremental changes. I'm not sure how they sell something like "we forecast that these new regulations will result in a 1 degree average temperature reduction over the next 4 years" (which would be huge). And that's imagining that the party as a whole is able to agree on something hard enough to shove it past the Republicans.
I think what you're saying here is that by "it's not possible" you meant "it's not possible to hold companies liable for their chat-bots' words and still have those companies producing chat-bots." I agree. I think that would be the correct outcome.
There would be some very narrow spaces where LLMs would be usable, but mostly they would cease to pollute everything. Unrelated to AI, I'd like to see lots of regulation that blocks externalizing costs. For example, maybe it's also "impossible" for Walmart to operate in the US if they don't have all their employees getting state assistance. That would also be good. Maybe it's "impossible" to have a beef industry without massive pollution and deforestation. Also good. Et cetera.
How would that be technically impossible? Or difficult? Companies are currently liable for the actions of the human agents, and I don't think the implementation needs to be different.
Maybe you mean socially impossible? Like, the major providers have a lot of money behind them and so why would they allow themselves to be liable for anything?
Companies should be liable for what their LLM says.
Sure. But if you read the original post, it's about someone saying that jews are not safe in Canada. And this is then contrasted with how bicyclists are being killed in Canada but jews are not being killed. Directly contradicting the presented narrative.
So then you might wonder: why did someone feel that Canada was unsafe? And you'll find that the answer was "because they heard a few people criticize Israel."
In my own experience, the people saying "jews aren't safe" or "this is antisemitism" often aren't jewish or representing any jewish people; they're just pro-evil.
Yeah it really got the Batman atmosphere well. I wonder if it's because Batman was such a cultural icon that even if you "didn't read comics" you till knew who Batman was and what he was about?
Who wrote these regex? They are terrible:
()means we're saving that part for later). Are we planning to do something with the mlg numbers? Why don't we care about the mmmberry numbers?([0-9]*)insteadmlgandmlg1but notmlgabecause we anchor to the end ($). But not on mmmberry--that one will match "mmmberry5" (but we don't track the number!) but also "mmmberry_is_the_worst" so the enemy of my enemy is also my enemy because they share a prefixMaybe mlg has sock-puppet accounts mlg1, mlg2, but never MLG?
In that we aren't regulating any of it?
When people say "AI" these days, they mean the LLM-derived generative AI such as ChatGPT, Google Gemini, Anthropic Claude, and Grok.
These AI systems are not capable of finding authoritative search results. They are good at generating fluent, plausible, context-appropriate text. In legal and medical situations, that's the opposite of what you'd want.
Think about how often the doctors land on some pseudo-science result. Now imagine that instead of a doctor it's a patient and instead of asking "could these be related" the patient is told "these are related".
This has worked very well for Fox News, which is not a news agency and is for entertainment purpose only. Also for dietary supplements, which are not medicine.
That looks like backspace, reaching from the top of the keyboard down. Which is how I post also, so it makes sense.
It's a disservice to pitch this as "easy-peasy, win-win, 10 seconds of work and you save in the end!"
More realistic to say:
For that cost, you get some benefits:
And most of all
I played around for a few minutes and I'm somewhat surprised that I like it (because on page-load it looks the same as Excalidraw or Miro or the others).
The sticky/nonsticky buttons are the only maybe-criticism I've got after a quick peek, but I liked it quite a bit and will try using it for real. The export options are important because they make me feel like I won't lose my work if you get bored or forget to pay a bill. :-)
Here's Anthropic claiming that Alibaba created 25k free accounts to crawl them: https://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2026/06/anthropic-claims-alibaba-defied-trump-to-attack-claude-and-steal-capabilities/
Using that pattern isn't bad, but look at that text: it's totally over-used and the entire post has less substance than timeghost's mockery.
It's quite good for any problem that nobody cares about. For example, if you have a boss who wants hourly status-updates but does not actually read the updates. Or if you need to fill out security forms, but you were going to lie on all the forms and trust that nobody reads them. Or if you get a bonus for writing >100k lines of code, but the code doesn't need to do anything that people want. Or if you need to have someone answer customer-support questions, but it doesn't matter if the customers get helped or are happy.
Yeah, not federating reports is a bug-level missing feature.
But having some kind of probation period also seems like an obvious feature to me (that should be optional, not mandatory). It was not uncommon in the past (on BBSes and old forums) to have new members' posts require approval before anyone could see them. I suspect it partially went away because big platforms needed to "growth hack" and anything that slows down the influx of new users is bad.
Yeah, that's a smarter play. Though, I don't know how you use Venmo or any Pizza-ordering app/site to spend money without it asking for a PIN. I guess we're relying on the "drunk" part to do a lot of the lifting.
The moral isn't the opposite. Toad becomes stressed about all the work that needs to be done tomorrow. He instead gets all his work done pretty quickly, takes the rest of the day off, and resolves to do nothing the next day now that he's more relaxed.