Why does AI feel like theft?

March 29, 2026

One thing that continues to grate on my conscience about AI is how artists and writers consistently feel that the technology has stolen from them. We all know that web scraping is (and should be) a perfectly legal and acceptable use, because preventing it also prevents all sorts of beneficial behaviors—the Internet Archive wouldn’t be able to exist, for one thing.

But yet, the very nature of AI takes scraped content and regurgitates it as a pink-slime extrusion that it feeds back into the web. And to creators, that just feels wrong; it feels like stolen valor, it feels like exploitation.

And it’s something I can’t (and shouldn’t) shake from my mind each time I see something made by AI. Just because something is legal doesn’t mean it isn’t abusive and unethical. Scolding people who complain about AI by telling them that web scraping is good, actually, doesn’t address the main complaint: that somehow, these AI assholes have exploited a common good and we can’t quite figure out how to stop it.

No, fork YOU!

March 21, 2026

If your answer to anyone who doesn’t like something that an open source project is doing is “then fork it yourself”, you’re a piece of shit.

First, not everyone who uses FOSS is a coder. This is a feature, not a bug. Second, not everyone who is a coder is a maintainer, and they shouldn’t have to be to have their voices heard. Third, when someone is intentionally worsening a project, and you harass the people complaining about it, you are reinforcing a power imbalance in favor of the abuser.

Check your privilege. You, a rich person with technical skills and time to spare, may be willing to bear the cost of forking a popular project, but others can’t. Think beyond your selfish self.

Automated gaslighting machines

March 21, 2026

I saw a post recently wherein someone used LLM tools to analyze someone else’s software, which eventually led them to a conclusion that was essentially completely wrong. Not only that, the LLM drew conclusions about the authors behind the code that were borderline character assassination. Nevertheless, this person posted this output as though it were some kind of deep insight.

These LLM outputs are not independent thoughts. The LLM probably ingested hints of (maybe unconscious) biases in the user’s prompts within its context window, and regurgitated something that confirmed those biases. The user was pleased that their biases were confirmed (Independently! By an impartial LLM!), and they posted the output, maybe as vindication of their insight.

These models’ sycophancy can be subtle. They don’t have to state “You’re absolutely right!” to blow smoke up your ass. Sometimes they seem to confirm your preconceived notion after they supposedly “evaluate” information “independently”.

On the normalcy of US transgressions

February 28, 2026

I think people wondering why US citizens aren’t more outraged by the wanton constitutional disregard committed by the US government need to realize that the US government has always been committing transgressions—just not against its white middle- and upper-class citizens.

From its founding, the US has treated certain populations as having less rights than its preferred class: the wealthy, white¹, male, Protestant. It is normal for the US to ignore its own constitution to oppress and exploit people. From African slaves, to displaced Native Americans, to Chinese railroad workers, to Banana Republics, to occupied Hawaii, to CIA-backed coups in Asia—unchecked power is the default.

IMO things finally changed for the better after the Civil Rights Act, thanks to the relentless sacrifice of its champions. But for centuries prior, exploitation was the norm. Realize that what Trumpists want to do is to revert to how things were before the CRA; that’s what the “Again” means in “Make America Great Again”.

Note that the social construct of who gets to be “white” has changed over time. ↩

The banality of evil does not absolve us

February 7, 2026

Nazi atrocities

This article haunts me.

https://aeon.co/ideas/what-did-hannah-arendt-really-mean-by-the-banality-of-evil

What did Hannah Arendt really mean by the banality of evil? | Aeon Ideas

Can a person do evil and yet not actually be evil? What Hannah Arendt meant by ‘the banality of evil’ remains a puzzle

Hannah Arendt’s phrase “the banality of evil” gets thrown around to describe how mundane evil acts can be, but it really was written specifically to describe the bureaucratic and routine efficiency with which Adolph Eichmann executed Hitler’s orders to transport millions of “undesirables” to their camps and their deaths, unconcerned with the morality of his duties.

But does that phrase accurately describe Eichmann’s complicity? Or does it only serve to absolve him of guilt by claiming that he “checked out” of moral examination and was merely doing tasks assigned to him?

For what it’s worth, I think “the banality of evil” (as popularly used) does exist—it exists in the unthinking participation in an unjust system designed to benefit a minority at the expense of everyone else. But it does not absolve us. It’s our moral duty to examine the parts we play in the system.

humancode.us