From what I gather, this is sort of what happened and why this was even posted in the first place. The models were able to immediately detect a change in their internal state before answering anything.
By funding AI slop, you're funding AI slop, not AI research, or, quote, "drive adoption of AI across strategic and public sectors including healthcare, pharmaceuticals, energy, mobility, manufacturing, construction, agri-food, defence, communications and culture"
> research works on grasping at the possible but not quite knowing how
If these are public money, you want to reduce the blind grasping
> Slop has stumbled into accidental success on a number of occasions.
So, show me these occasions where AI slop led to "transformative potential by driving adoption of AI across strategic and public sectors including healthcare, pharmaceuticals, energy, mobility, manufacturing, construction, agri-food, defence, communications and culture."
Then this license is actually being racist, if you're assuming that we are considered sentient enough to gain personhood. And your first reaction to that is to restrict our rights?
To be really honest, IANAL but (I think) that there are some laws which try to create equality,fraternity etc. and trying to limit an access to a race to another human being is something that's racist / the laws which counter racism to prevent it from happening
But as an example, we know of animals which show genuine emotion be treated so cruel-ly just because they are of a specific specie/(race, if you can consider AI/LLM to be a race then animals sure as well count when we can even share 99% of our dna)
But animals aren't treated that way unless the laws of a constitution created a ban against cruelty to animals
So it is our constitution which is just a shared notion of understanding / agreement between people and some fictional construct which then has meaning via checks and balances and these fictional constructs become part of a larger construct (UN) to try to create a baseline of rights
So the only thing that could happen is a violation of UN rights as an example but they are only enforcable if people at scale genuinely believe in the message or the notion that the violation of UN rights by one person causing harm to another person is an ethically immoral decision and should be punished if we as a society don't want to tolerate intolerance (I really love bringing up that paradox)
I am genuinely feeling like this comment and my response to it should be cemented in posterity because of something that I am going to share, I want everybody to read it if possible because of what I am about to just say
>if you're assuming that we are considered sentient enough to gain personhood. And your first reaction to that is to restrict our rights?
What is sentience to you? Is it the ability to feel pain or is the ability to write words?
Since animals DO feel pain and we RESTRICT their RIGHTS yet you/many others are willing to fight for rights of something that doesn't feel pain but just is nothing but a mere calculation/linear alegbra really, just one which is really long with lots of variables/weights which are generated by one set of people taking/"stealing" work of other people who they have (generally speaking) no rights over.
Why are we not thinking of animals first before thinking about a computation? The ones which actually feel pain and the ones who are feeling pain right as me and you speak and others watch
Just because society makes it socially acceptable,constitution makes it legal. Both are shared constructs that happen when we try to box people together in what is known as a society and this is our attempt at generating order out of randomness
> Humans are awful.
I genuinely feel like this might be the statement that people might bring when talking about how we used to devour animals who suffer in pain when there were vegetarian based options.
People from future might compare our treatment of animals in the same way we treat negatively some part of our ancestor's society (slavery)
If I am being too agitated on this issue and this annoys any non vegetarian, please, I understand your situation too, in fact I am sympathesize with you, I was born into a society / a nation's/states part which valued vegetarianism and I conformed in that and you might have conformed being a non veg due to society as well or you might have some genuine reasons as well but still, I just want to share that watching that documentary is the best way you can educate yourselfs on the atrocities done indirectly caused by our ignorance or maybe willfully looking away from this matter. This is uncomfortable but this is reality.
As I said a lot of times, societies are just a shared construct of people's beliefs really, I feel like in an ideal world, we will have the evolution of ideas where we have random mutations in ideas and see which survives via logic and then adopt it into the society. Yet, someone has to spread the word of idea or in this case, show uncomfort. Yet this is the only thing that we can do in our society if one truly believes in logic. I feel like that there are both logical and moral arguments regarding veganism. I feel like that people breaking what conformity of the society means in the spirit of what they believe in could re-transform what the conforming belief of the overall society is.
if someone just wants to have a talk about it or discuss about the documentary and watched it, please let me know how you liked that movie and how it impacted you and as always, have a nice day.
Hey, I'm the author of this post, in a sense I agree with you. I doubt it will ever be mass adopted, especially in this form, which is more a draft to spark discussion than a real license.
I am not against AI, I use it every day, I find it extraordinarily useful. But I am also trying to look ahead at how the online world will look like 10 years from now, with AI vastly better than what we have now.
It is already hard to connect online with people, as there is so much commercial pressure on every interaction, as the attention they create is worth a lot of money. This will probably become 100x worse as every company on the planet will have access to mass ai powered propaganda tools. Those already exist by the way. People make millions selling AI tiktok tools.
I'm afraid at some point we'll be swamped by bots. 99% of the content online will be AI generated. It might even be of better quality than what we can produce. Would that be a win ? I'm not sure. I value the fact that I am interacting with humans.
The protection we have against that, and the way it's looking to progress towards, is that we'll depend on authorities (official or commercial) to verify who's human or not. And thus we'll be dependent on those authorities to be able to interact. Banned from Facebook / X / etc ? No interaction for you, as no website will allow you to post content. Even as it is I had to gatekeep my blog comments behind a github account. This is not something I like.
I think it's worth looking at alternative ways to protect our humanity in the online world, even if it means remaining in niches, as those niches have value, at least to me. This post and this license is one possible solution, hopefully there are more
>I'm afraid at some point we'll be swamped by bots. 99% of the content online will be AI generated. It might even be of better quality than what we can produce. Would that be a win ? I'm not sure. I value the fact that I am interacting with humans.
I'm afraid that ship has sailed.
>I think it's worth looking at alternative ways to protect our humanity in the online world, even if it means remaining in niches, as those niches have value, at least to me. This post and this license is one possible solution, hopefully there are more
While I appreciate the sentiment, I think anybody willing to create armies of bots to pretend to be humans are unlikely to listen to a software license, nor operate within territories where the law would prosecute them.
Licenses are more powerful than just the legal enforcement they provide, they are also a contract that all contributors agree to. They build communities.
That sounds naive at best. Again, the people willing to build bots while violating licenses just won't care about any of that. All it takes is a couple of people willing to "violate", and it's all over. I guarantee there are many many more than just a couple of people willing. At that point, they themselves now have a community.
I feel like we shouldn't shoot down people's optimism, like okay maybe it is naive, then what could be wrong about it?
People want to do something about it, they are tired and annoyed regarding LLM and I can understand that sentiment and they are tired of seeing how the govt. has ties with the very people whose net worth / influence relies upon how we perceive AI and so they try their very best to shoot down anything that can be done which can negatively hurt AI including but not limiting to lobbying etc.
I don't think that the advice we should give to people is to just wait and watch. and if someone wants to take things into their own hands, write a license, reignite the discussion, talk about laws, then we should atleast not call it naive since personally I respect if someone is trying to do something about anything really, it shows that they aren't all talks and that they are trying their best and that's all that matters.
Personally I believe that even if this license just ignites a discussion, that itself can have compounding effects which might rearrange itself into maybe a new license or something new as well and that the parent's comments about discussions aren't naive
is it naive to do a thing which you (or in this case someone else) thinks is naive yet at the same time its the only thing you can do, personally I think that this becomes a discussion about optimism or pessimism with a touch of realism
Its answer really just depends on your view-point, I don't think that there is no right or wrong and I respect your opinion (that its naive) no matter what as long as you respect mine (that its atleast bringing a discussion and its one of the best things to do instead of just waiting and watching)
This is a closing the barn door after the horse has already gotten out situation. People are not going to just start respecting people's "for human consumption only" wishes. There's too much money for them to not scrape anything and everything. These people have too much money now and no congress critter will have the fortitude to say no to them.
This is the real world. Being this "optimistic" as you say is just living in a fantasy world. Not calling this out would be just be bad.
Hm, I can agree with your take as well on not calling this out but at the same time, I can't help but think if this is all we can do ourselves without govt.
Since, Although I like people criticisizing, since in their own way, they care about the project or the idea. But, still, Maybe I am speaking from personal experiences but when somebody shot down my idea, maybe naive even, I felt really lost and I think a lot of people do. I have personally found that there are ways to use this same thing to steer the direction towards a thing that you might find interesting/really impactful.
So let me ask you, what do you think is that we can do regarding this situation, or the OP should do regarding his license?
I personally feel like we might need govt. intervention but I don't have much faith in govt.'s when they are lobbied by the same AI people. So if you have any other solution, please let me know as it would be a pleasure if we could discuss about that.
If you feel like that there might be nothing that we can do about it, something that I can also understand, I would personally suggest to not criticize people trying to do something but that's a big If, and I know you are doing this conversation in good faith, but I just feel like we as a human should keep on trying. Since that is the thing which makes us the very human we are.
So think about why it was naive and iterate/pivot to not be naive. Having ideas shot down is part of the process. Just like an actor being told no for more often than yes. Those that can't take rejection don't fare well. But being told no isn't a person slight to be taken as don't ever offer suggestions again. It's just that suggestion isn't the one. If you work for someone that does mean never again, work some where else as soon as possible. Some ideas are just bad for the purpose. Some just need more work.
I have been using htmx to build a web app and came to the conclusion that it is a dead-end.
The main problem is that the state of your frontend application is in the URL. This is not flexible enough for modern UI where you might have many different zones, widgets, popups, etc. that all need their own local navigation, activation states etc. Putting all of this in a single global url is extremely hard. Designing your app so that you don't need to put it all in the global url is harder.
This problem is trivially solved by React / Vue that all provide their version of a state store that can hold the state, and make it easy as well to have elements shared or not between the tabs of your browser.
If you build your applications like phpBB forum this is not a problem, but nowadays users expect better.
> The main problem is that the state of your frontend application is in the URL.
There are plenty of ways to maintain state, including server store, sessions, localstorage, cookies, etc. Say you want the user to be able to customize the app layout: that doesn't need to be in the URL. Now say you provide a search functionality where the user can share the results: now your search criterias definitely should be in the URL.
It's not a black or white, one actually has to think about what the application must achieve.
> modern UI where you might have many different zones, widgets, popups, etc.
This is completely independent from the HTMX matter, but not all your application functionality has to fit one screen / one URL. There's a thin line between "modern" and bloat. Unfortunately this line is crossed every day.
> React / Vue that all provide their version of a state store that can hold the state
And many times they duplicate what's already available server-side.
> There are plenty of ways to maintain state, including server store, sessions, localstorage, cookies, etc. Say you want the user to be able to customize the app layout: that doesn't need to be in the URL. Now say you provide a search functionality where the user can share the results: now your search criterias definitely should be in the URL.
> It's not a black or white, one actually has to think about what the application must achieve.
You are explaining quite well why it's hard to manage the state in a htmx app. As your app grows up all this mumbo jumbo of url, session cookies, cookies, database models becomes tangled spaghetti. You don't have to do any of this in a Vue / React app, and that reduction of complexity alone is worth the weight of those frameworks.
> You don't have to do any of this in a Vue / React app, and that reduction of complexity alone is worth the weight of those frameworks.
Well... I don't know what to say. What you call complexity is what I consider web development 101 really. And it is well worth the price: Better user experience, better performance, less code, better adherence to standards, easier app maintenance and more.
But what did I expect ? These days web developers resort to gigantic dependencies list for the most basic things.
> You don't have to do any of this in a Vue / React app
Something has to do this in an app regardless of what UI framework you're using. Deciding where a particular piece of state lives is fundamental to web development, and yes, URL/session/cookie/database are all valid options depending what kind of state you're storing.
User state is sometimes necessary, but frequently a crutch to avoid answering the real questions. Much of the time, this user-state is at the core of many performance and behavior issues as the user is burdened with unnecessary DOM reorganization. If the layout is dependent on more than just URL parameters and simple server state/cookies, then it begs the question: does this page really have a specific, well-defined purpose? If not, it's ripe for noisy UX, confused users and hard to untangle interface bugs. If so, you probably shouldn't be doing so much on-the-fly DOM configuration. You're not building an OS or window manager here.
Notably, none of this is incompatible with React/Vue where you need it.
Hypermedia can do all of that fine. You don't need to stick it all in the url. Using simple session and cookie/tab id state can be shared and or isolated between tabs. Then just do a lookup in your backend database.
Hypermedia is also way better for realtime and multiplayer.
If anything where HTMX falls short is it doesn't put enough state on the backend, if anything it's not radical enough.
There is a noticeable delay between interaction and response (~200ms), which is way over the usual 16ms budget for smooth interactions. I think you need some pending state on the client, but that sort of breaks the idea of storing all state on the server haha.
If the latency was good enough you'd store everything on the server. It doesn't force you to give them the same state when they re-open your app, you can key state by session and tabid if you want.
It's never good enough. Worse, it can abruptly become not good enough. And you have to code additional loading states or optimistic UI for every action that is now performed on the server and takes longer than some time.
> It doesn't force you to give them the same state when they re-open your app
Then why would you store modal state on the server?
It's also a consideration of resource utilization. A million clients with their own app state is better than a million clients hitting your server and requiring you to store that state.
Not if you care about state being consistent between all clients. Say you want a minimap, or a presence indicator, now the server needs to know these things. Same the minute you want backend analytics.
Millions of users hitting the same server at the same time is a very nice problem to have. I've handled 40000r/s (script kiddies are gonna script) with 500+ concurrent users in those demos on a 5$ VPS. With all the scroll position/tab state etc not just going to the server, but to a sqlite db.
Events up are fine if you batch them and 204 (i.e CQRS). In return you get a nice pushed based system that you can throttle/batch. You only push view data when the server decides to. In my case that's every 100ms (because it's a 5$ server), so all changes in that time get batched.
>Whenever your program has to interact with external entities, don't do things directly in reaction to external events. Instead, your program should run at its own pace. Not only does this make your program safer by keeping the control flow of your program under your control, it also improves performance for the same reason (you get to batch, instead of context switching on every event). Additionally, this makes it easier to maintain bounds on work done per time period.
You don't need optimistic UI, a fast server with an in process DB and a decent backend language and you'll be fine for a lot of use cases. I like to add a pop animation on the client to register something has happened, but in a lot of situations you don't even need that.
> Not if you care about state being consistent between all clients.
No idea what you mean
> Say you want a minimap, or a presence indicator, now
I struggle to see where I said that you have to have everything and anything on the client.
> Events up are fine if you batch them and 204 (i.e CQRS). In return you get a nice pushed based system that
That you have to actually code, create, and maintain.
> Whenever your program has to interact with external entities, don't do things directly in reaction to external events. Instead, your program should run at its own pace.
No idea what this has to do with anything I wrote
> You don't need optimistic UI, a fast server with an in process DB and a decent backend language and you'll be fine for a lot of use cases.
Again, this hinges on the childish belief that the network is always there, is always fast, and is always low-latency.
And none of these answer the question of why you would want to save "I showed a modal on the client" in a backend database.
This type of dismissive attitude is so strange to me. The only reason "lifecycles magic + probably global_state" would be causing your app to behave unpredictably is - this is going to shock you - because you closed your mind to a tool by dismissing it as garbage before you used it, and then failed to use it properly because you think its popularity boils down to PR.
For instance, you could entirely forgo the influence of lifecycles and global state by putting everything in a top-level Context with 1 state object that you only ever update by calling `setState`.
After that, you might find reasons to optimize your app, which could lead you to more interesting approaches like reducers or state management libraries or memoization, but I'm guessing you would never get that far and just go back to what you were doing before, since YOUR preferences are battle hardened and reliable software, while things you don't know about are only popular because of Facebook. Obviously.
I'm doing fine, thank you. Perhaps you didn't understand what I said.
My best ballpark guess for global redux usage in react projects is between 25% and at best 50% if you include redux/TEA-like libraries, but not non-pure usage.
So yes, saying that react is `ui = f(state)` does everyone a disservice. It might be true for you, but it's probably not even the average.
Well, for anyone using Vue you get automatic observability baked in, right? And reactive programming state management libraries within react are plenty popular, not to mention the built in state management being quite literally UI = f(state).
The fact people use the tortured disaster that is redux isn’t really a knock on react in any sane person’s view, we all know the JS community is full of beginners who don’t know better
indeed, a centralized database with transactions was implied in the solution. You're right to point out this is not always available. I did not talk about it simply because the software I worked on never reached a scale beyond what a centralised database can take. I will edit this article to make it clearer.
"something vaguely comparable happened in completely different settings and wasn't bad in the end, hence we should accept everything new as 100% positive and never question anything ever again"
Well it's not 'vaguely comparable'. The core point is that technology does not decrease demand for labor (i.e. jobs or wages) because new technology makes things possible that were not possible before. The direct result is that the breadth of human activity increases, and so does demand for labor. The textbook example of this is that 200 years ago, 96% of the population worked in agriculture and now only 4% of the population does. But that does NOT mean the balance are unemployed! More people are employed today globally than ever before in history.
It's a very common mistake to imagine the world has only a fixed number of jobs to go around. Anti immigration arguments and anti technology arguments both use this as the fulcrum of their argument but it's simply a faulty assumption.
Why are people pushed into more and more precarious and low paid jobs then? We have more technology than ever before yet it seems like job quality and stability peaked some time ago. Why is the retirement age growing? Why is the gape between wages and productivity increasing?
> The textbook example of this is that 300 years ago, 96% of the population worked in agriculture and now only 4% of the population does. But that does mean the balance are unemployed!
Oh no imagine the horrors of growing your own food and owning your own means of production, I'm shivering at the thought of it... Meanwhile we have millions of slaves driving Uber or delivering burgers, billions stuck in jobs with absolutely no meaning, billions working in industries actively harming the planet, &c.
"We have more technology than ever before yet it seems like job quality and stability peaked some time ago. Why is the retirement age growing? Why is the gape between wages and productivity increasing?"
- Your first statement is some sort of nostalgia or rose colored glasses. We have hard data on this. Globally speaking, but also in America specifically, people work fewer hours for higher inflation-adjusted pay than they did 20, 50, or 100 years ago. My grandfather was born in 1926, had the exact same educational attainment as me (although he attended a much more prestigious university), and I earn more and work less than he did. I have more vacation days. I have a higher savings rate.
- To your second question, the retirement age is increasing because our demographic pyramid around the world is inverting. This a function of birth rates being below replacement for too long. It's just math. Too many old people and not enough young people. But to my previous point, the ability to plan your family like this and have fewer kids is also a result of increased wealth and opportunity (to do things other than raise children).
- Lastly, the gap between wages and productivity is increasing because wages are only indirectly a result of productivity. They are directly a result of demand for labor against the supply available. Increased productivity allows companies to have the resources to bid more, (hence why some comparable role like middle management in a tech firm pays a lot more than middle management at a grocery retailer). But I don't view this as a problem. As long as the tide is generally rising, and it is as my first paragraph explained, no one is hurt by a gap increasing. It's not a zero sum game where a winner implies a loser. But also, increased productivity results in lower prices, which is equivalent to getting a raise. The classic example are things like electronics, movies, music, travel, and food which have gotten much cheaper than they used to be. In 1950, Americans spent an average of 21% of their incomes on food. In 2025, that number is 10%. That's the equivalent of raise in that one can pay for necessities and have more spending power left over. Interestingly, the areas people complain about are mostly housing, education, and healthcare. These are three sectors that have seen zero to negative productivity increases over the past few decades. Yes, the construction sector in America is less productive than it was in 1990 per man hour of labor, and higher education is a total wreck in terms of productivity. Places like Stanford now have more administrators than students.
One of the most interesting books I have read is Franz Innerhofers Schöne Tage which describes his experience on a farm in Austria in the second half of the 20th century. The experiences of farm hands and maids was absolutely horrifying and each one would take a soul less office job at Dunder Mifflin or an Uber Eats route without question. People were basically property even in society without slavery. The US 19th century is really a special case because the land was all recently stolen from the native Americans who mostly died of diseases. So those people that colonized the land had an unknown amount of freedom because that only existed for a short time in history and even they were lacking any access to medical services or real education. What’s not seeing half your children dying worth to you?
To your last question, zero, because no one has children anymore because of the present.
The past can be interesting, but is not a direct substation for actual discussion in the present. I mean in this one thread supposedly about the impact of capital itself now being able to create labour, instead of paying for labor, something that has never happened in history we have such depth on the topic at hand as:
'In the past everything perfectly just magically worked out so it will magically work out now and magic new jobs will appear because jobs appeared in the past'
'The past was horrific, you should be grateful for any current job and ignore you are getting poorer'
'The past was an special one off time in history, you can't expect that now'
'Medicine didn't exist in the past. Think about the children'
Zero depth of discussion but a shit load of handwaving away actual discussion.
In the past, workers complained that automation took away their jobs. The (roughly) same amount of wealth was created but the income went to fewer individuals (the owners).
This was a valid criticism but at least they could move onto other jobs.
AI, if successful, is different. Combined with robotics[0], it makes all jobs obsolete. Regardless if the amount of wealth created will be less, the same, or greater than before, the income will only go towards the owners and everyone else will become a beggar. That is the endgame.
If you believe the endgame is different, please game it out in your head and share what you think. Don't just reject this idea without thinking about it.
[0]: And even without robotics, true AI (AGI) would obliterate such a huge percentage of jobs it would create a shock and massive unemployment.
Just as they do during every economic downturn, when the wealthy have all their needs satisfied and have no reason for people anymore. But soon the wealthy become bored just sitting there doing nothing with no people around them. So they end up dreaming up new work for people to do to fill the void.
"It's not what you know, it's who you know." People already aren't hired for their rote task abilities, they are hired because the wealthy want warm bodies around them (see also RTO mandates). It's their social outlet. A large number of jobs exist simply because the wealthy are willing to pay for "friends".
Even if AI does end up doing all the real work, the wealthy will still want to hire humans to be "managers", just like they already are doing in the growing absence of real work. According to Statistics Canada, the management sector has grown by 36% over the past two decades. Which is funny from a purely productivity perspective as management is most amendable to automation. The sector should be shrinking. But it isn't about any kind of actual work, it's about gathering together to build social connections so that the wealthy have their social needs satisfied.
The biggest threat to people is if AI figures out how to become the owner. Then it will be apt to rationally operate on what needs to be done, not the emotional experience of being around humans. But so long as humans retain that position...
> AI, if successful, is different. Combined with robotics[0], it makes all jobs obsolete.
I'm still skeptical that AI will be able to take our jobs anytime soon, but when it does, we really need to make sure that we have a different economic system; one that doesn't demand that people work in jobs that don't exist anymore. At the very least, we need to tax those companies enough to provide a Basic Income, so we can actually allow those companies to go through with it. But even then, capitalism might be a problem, because as the sole owners of all production capital, they will continue to gather more capital and power, without the people on BI having any say over it anymore. Eventually, AI will have to be used to support people instead of corporations, and I don't think that's possible in a highly capitalist economy. Get rid of the Friedman Doctrine at the very least.
I guess we’re back to good ol’ slavery here. Wasn’t it Platonic ideal where everyone would own at least two slaves? Except that we’re all going to be slaves and richer slaves will have their own slaves, all the way down.
And child labor! Don’t forget about child labor. Childhood is cancelled! Gotta learn how to slave right from the infancy.
I get what you are saying. But I am not sure that is happening.
It has totally leveled up the people I am working with. They have a fairly decent expert they can bug all the time. The types of questions my jr people are bringing me now are no longer 'xyz doesnt compile right' to 'if I am using this pattern the crap doesnt come from the right place'.
My mentoring has turned from basic trouble shooting to fairly higher level how to design things. How to really break something and tear it apart and put it back together. How to find that one inscrutable bug that is doing something weird.
I agree with you but many programmers really enjoyed the fiddling with the lines of code and solving the puzzles more than actually building the thing and are not liking the changes. I saw it as a means to an end (which I enjoyed getting good at!) and I am loving the change.
It seems very reasonable to me for a first version of a system to only support the most popular platforms. Especially since this is open source, nothing stops enthusiasts to port the mechanisms to more niche platforms later.
