cross-posted from: programming.dev/post/36398844

::: spoiler Comments
- Hackernews.
:::

Pro

2025-08-27 08:51:50

Uncomfortable Questions About Android Developer Verification

::: spoiler Comments
- Hackernews.
:::

Uncomfortable Questions About Android Developer Verification

Google announced a program that is proving to be unpopular among Android app development experts. I have questions.

^{CommonsWare: Android App Development Books}

cross-posted from: programming.dev/post/36401904

::: spoiler Comments
- Hackernews.
:::

Pro

2025-08-27 10:56:13

Asahi Linux Lead Developer, Alyssa Rosenzweig, Steps Down, After bringing full GPU support to Asahi Linux on Apple Silicon.

::: spoiler Comments
- Hackernews.
:::

Dissecting the Apple M1 GPU, the end

^{rosenzweig.io}

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/26/climate/trump-wind-farms-energy.html?unlocked_article_code=1.hE8.dBk9.SZ0cJmucriVr

cross-posted from: programming.dev/post/36401904

::: spoiler Comments
- Hackernews.
:::

Pro

2025-08-27 10:56:13

Asahi Linux Lead Developer, Alyssa Rosenzweig, Steps Down, After bringing full GPU support to Asahi Linux on Apple Silicon.

::: spoiler Comments
- Hackernews.
:::

Dissecting the Apple M1 GPU, the end

^{rosenzweig.io}

A ChatGPT-powered robotic companion called Hyodol is taking over some work from overburdened caregivers, much to the delight of seniors who treat them like grandchildren.

• South Korea has handed out AI companionship robots to seniors living alone.
• Eldercare workers say the robots act as their eyes and ears, easing their mind about clients in the days between visits.
• Older adults form strong bonds with the bots, which occasionally becomes problematic.

Hyodol AI robots ease loneliness for South Korea’s seniors - Rest of World

ChatGPT-powered Hyodol robots are helping overburdened caregivers while providing companionship to lonely seniors across South Korea.

^{Gayathri Vaidyanathan (Rest of World)}

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/26/us/politics/gates-foundation-democrats-arabella-advisors.html?unlocked_article_code=1.hE8.o3LA.YPjT6mVtgaX7

~States with AI processor companies.~

• AI investment is booming, with $13.5 billion poured into 95 start-ups and an estimated $60 billion in R&D from 26 public companies.
• Tenstorrent secured over $693 million in Series D funding, with investors including Samsung, LG, and Jeff Bezos backing its open RISC-V CPUs and modular chiplet approach.
• Lightmatter raised $400 million for photonic interconnects, while Germany’s Black Semiconductor received $275 million in state-led support.
• Imagination Technologies unveiled its E-Series GPUs, blending graphics and AI in a unified architecture designed for automotive and edge devices.
• Flow Computing advanced its Parallel Processing Unit, a fresh take on parallelism embedded directly into CPUs.

Source: Jon Peddie Research.

A class-action lawsuit against AI company Anthropic over copyright infringement is nearing settlement, with both parties reaching an agreement in principle¹. The lawsuit, filed by authors Andrea Bartz, Kirk Wallace Johnson, and Charles Graeber, alleged Anthropic illegally downloaded millions of books to train its AI models².

U.S. District Judge William Alsup certified what could be the largest copyright class action ever, potentially including up to 7 million claimants¹. The lawsuit claimed Anthropic pirated books from online sources including Books3, Library Genesis, and Pirate Library Mirror².

"This historic settlement will benefit all class members," said Justin A. Nelson, attorney for the authors¹. The parties must file a motion for preliminary approval by September 5, 2025¹.

While settlement terms remain undisclosed, the case had serious implications - industry advocates warned that if every eligible author filed a claim, it could "financially ruin" the AI industry¹. Anthropic had previously argued the lawsuit threatened its survival as a company¹.

1. Ars Technica - Authors celebrate "historic" settlement coming soon in Anthropic class action ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎ ↩︎
2. LA Times - AI company Anthropic settles with authors who alleged piracy ↩︎ ↩︎

AI company Anthropic settles with authors who alleged piracy

Anthropic trained its AI assistant Claude using copyrighted texts, according to a lawsuit from several affected authors.

^{Cerys Davies (Los Angeles Times)}

cross-posted from: programming.dev/post/36394223

Letter.

The attorneys general request that:
1. Search platforms describe how they currently restrict or block deepfake NCII content and tools, and commit to further action to prevent their services from being used to propagate such material.
2. Payment platforms outline how they identify and remove payment authorization for deepfake NCII-related content and commit to proactive enforcement of their terms of service to prevent monetization of this content.

Pro

2025-08-27 06:08:35

47 State and Territory Attorneys General Urge Tech and Payment Platforms to Address Deepfake Exploitation

Letter.

The attorneys general request that:
1. Search platforms describe how they currently restrict or block deepfake NCII content and tools, and commit to further action to prevent their services from being used to propagate such material.
2. Payment platforms outline how they identify and remove payment authorization for deepfake NCII-related content and commit to proactive enforcement of their terms of service to prevent monetization of this content.

State and Territory Attorneys General Urge Tech and Payment Platforms to Address Deepfake Exploitation - National Association of Attorneys General

In their letter, the attorneys general outlined the broader societal harms associated with illegal online gambling, including its links to fraudulent schemes, problem gambling, money laundering, and other criminal activity.

^{Lisa Jeter (National Association of Attorneys General)}

cross-posted from: programming.dev/post/36382199

Pro

2025-08-26 23:26:18

Breaking Down the Lawsuit Against OpenAI Over Teen's Suicide

cross-posted from: programming.dev/post/36394646

In the last two years I've written no less than 500,000 words, with many of them dedicated to breaking both existent and previous myths about the state of technology and the tech industry itself. While I feel no resentment — I really enjoy writing, and feel privileged to be able to write about this and make money doing so — I do feel that there is a massive double standard between those perceived as "skeptics" and "optimists."

To be skeptical of AI is to commit yourself to near-constant demands to prove yourself, and endless nags of "but what about?" with each one — no matter how small — presented as a fact that defeats any points you may have. Conversely, being an "optimist" allows you to take things like AI 2027 — which I will fucking get to — seriously to the point that you can write an entire feature about fan fiction in the New York Times and nobody will bat an eyelid.

In any case, things are beginning to fall apart. Two of the actual reporters at the New York Times (rather than a "columnist") reported out last week that Meta is yet again "restructuring" its AI department for the fourth time, and that it’s considering "downsizing the A.I. division overall," which sure doesn't seem like something you'd do if you thought AI was the future.

Meanwhile, the markets are also thoroughly spooked by an MIT study covered by Fortune that found that 95% of generative AI pilots at companies are failing, and though MIT NANDA has now replaced the link to the study with a Google Form to request access, you can find the full PDF here, in the kind of move that screams "PR firm wants to try and set up interviews." Not for me, thanks!

In any case, the report is actually grimmer than Fortune made it sound, saying that "95% of organizations are getting zero return [on generative AI]." The report says that "adoption is high, but transformation is low," adding that "...few industries show the deep structural shifts associated with past general-purpose technologies such as new market leaders, disrupted business models, or measurable changes in customer behavior."

Yet the most damning part was the "Five Myths About GenAI in the Enterprise," which is probably the most wilting takedown of this movement I've ever seen:
- AI Will Replace Most Jobs in the Next Few Years → Research found limited layoffs from GenAI, and only in industries that are already affected significantly by AI. There is no consensus among executives as to hiring levels over the next 3-5 years.
- Generative AI is Transforming Business → Adoption is high, but transformation is rare. Only 5% of enterprises have AI tools integrated in workflows at scale and 7 of 9 sectors show no real structural change.
1. Editor's note: Thank you! I made this exact point in February.
- Enterprises are slow in adopting new tech → Enterprises are extremely eager to adopt AI and 90% have seriously explored buying an AI solution.
- The biggest thing holding back AI is model quality, legal, data, risk → What's really holding it back is that most AI tools don't learn and don’t integrate well into workflows.
1. Editor's note: I really do love "the thing that's holding AI back is that it sucks."
- The best enterprises are building their own tools → Internal builds fail twice as often.

These are brutal, dispassionate points that directly deal with the most common boosterisms. Generative AI isn't transforming anything, AI isn't replacing anyone, enterprises are trying to adopt generative AI but it doesn't fucking work, and the thing holding back AI is the fact it doesn't fucking work. This isn't a case where "the enterprise" is suddenly going to save these companies, because the enterprise already tried, and it isn't working.

An incorrect read of the study has been that the "learning gap" that makes these things less useful, when the study actually says that "...the fundamental gap that defines the GenAI divide [is that users resist tools that don't adapt, model quality fails without context, and UX suffers when systems can't remember." This isn't something you learn your way out of. The products don't do what they're meant to do, and people are realizing it.

Nevertheless, boosters will still find a way to twist this study to mean something else. They'll claim that AI is still early, that the opportunity is still there, that we "didn't confirm that the internet or smartphones were productivity boosting," or that we're in "the early days" of AI, somehow, three years and hundreds of billions and thousands of articles in.

I'm tired of having the same arguments with these people, and I'm sure you are too. No matter how much blindly obvious evidence there is to the contrary they will find ways to ignore it. They continually make smug comments about people "wishing things would be bad" or suggesting you are stupid — and yes, that is their belief! — for not believing generative AI is disruptive.

Today, I’m going to give you the tools to fight back against the AI boosters in your life. I’m going to go into the generalities of the booster movement — the way they argue, the tropes they cling to, and the ways in which they use your own self-doubt against you.

They’re your buddy, your boss, a man in a gingham shirt at Epic Steakhouse who won't leave you the fuck alone, a Redditor, a writer, a founder or a simple con artist — whoever the booster in your life is, I want you to have the words to fight them with.

Pro

2025-08-27 06:24:13

How To Argue With An AI Booster

In the last two years I've written no less than 500,000 words, with many of them dedicated to breaking both existent and previous myths about the state of technology and the tech industry itself. While I feel no resentment — I really enjoy writing, and feel privileged to be able to write about this and make money doing so — I do feel that there is a massive double standard between those perceived as "skeptics" and "optimists."

To be skeptical of AI is to commit yourself to near-constant demands to prove yourself, and endless nags of "but what about?" with each one — no matter how small — presented as a fact that defeats any points you may have. Conversely, being an "optimist" allows you to take things like AI 2027 — which I will fucking get to — seriously to the point that you can write an entire feature about fan fiction in the New York Times and nobody will bat an eyelid.

In any case, things are beginning to fall apart. Two of the actual reporters at the New York Times (rather than a "columnist") reported out last week that Meta is yet again "restructuring" its AI department for the fourth time, and that it’s considering "downsizing the A.I. division overall," which sure doesn't seem like something you'd do if you thought AI was the future.

Meanwhile, the markets are also thoroughly spooked by an MIT study covered by Fortune that found that 95% of generative AI pilots at companies are failing, and though MIT NANDA has now replaced the link to the study with a Google Form to request access, you can find the full PDF here, in the kind of move that screams "PR firm wants to try and set up interviews." Not for me, thanks!

In any case, the report is actually grimmer than Fortune made it sound, saying that "95% of organizations are getting zero return [on generative AI]." The report says that "adoption is high, but transformation is low," adding that "...few industries show the deep structural shifts associated with past general-purpose technologies such as new market leaders, disrupted business models, or measurable changes in customer behavior."

Yet the most damning part was the "Five Myths About GenAI in the Enterprise," which is probably the most wilting takedown of this movement I've ever seen:
- AI Will Replace Most Jobs in the Next Few Years → Research found limited layoffs from GenAI, and only in industries that are already affected significantly by AI. There is no consensus among executives as to hiring levels over the next 3-5 years.
- Generative AI is Transforming Business → Adoption is high, but transformation is rare. Only 5% of enterprises have AI tools integrated in workflows at scale and 7 of 9 sectors show no real structural change.
1. Editor's note: Thank you! I made this exact point in February.
- Enterprises are slow in adopting new tech → Enterprises are extremely eager to adopt AI and 90% have seriously explored buying an AI solution.
- The biggest thing holding back AI is model quality, legal, data, risk → What's really holding it back is that most AI tools don't learn and don’t integrate well into workflows.
1. Editor's note: I really do love "the thing that's holding AI back is that it sucks."
- The best enterprises are building their own tools → Internal builds fail twice as often.

These are brutal, dispassionate points that directly deal with the most common boosterisms. Generative AI isn't transforming anything, AI isn't replacing anyone, enterprises are trying to adopt generative AI but it doesn't fucking work, and the thing holding back AI is the fact it doesn't fucking work. This isn't a case where "the enterprise" is suddenly going to save these companies, because the enterprise already tried, and it isn't working.

An incorrect read of the study has been that the "learning gap" that makes these things less useful, when the study actually says that "...the fundamental gap that defines the GenAI divide [is that users resist tools that don't adapt, model quality fails without context, and UX suffers when systems can't remember." This isn't something you learn your way out of. The products don't do what they're meant to do, and people are realizing it.

Nevertheless, boosters will still find a way to twist this study to mean something else. They'll claim that AI is still early, that the opportunity is still there, that we "didn't confirm that the internet or smartphones were productivity boosting," or that we're in "the early days" of AI, somehow, three years and hundreds of billions and thousands of articles in.

I'm tired of having the same arguments with these people, and I'm sure you are too. No matter how much blindly obvious evidence there is to the contrary they will find ways to ignore it. They continually make smug comments about people "wishing things would be bad" or suggesting you are stupid — and yes, that is their belief! — for not believing generative AI is disruptive.

Today, I’m going to give you the tools to fight back against the AI boosters in your life. I’m going to go into the generalities of the booster movement — the way they argue, the tropes they cling to, and the ways in which they use your own self-doubt against you.

They’re your buddy, your boss, a man in a gingham shirt at Epic Steakhouse who won't leave you the fuck alone, a Redditor, a writer, a founder or a simple con artist — whoever the booster in your life is, I want you to have the words to fight them with.

There Is No AI Revolution

Soundtrack: Mack Glocky - Chasing Cars Last week, I spent a great deal of time and words framing the generative AI industry as a cynical con where OpenAI's Sam Altman and Anthropic's Dario Amodei have used a compliant media and braindead i…

^{Edward Zitron (Ed Zitron's Where's Your Ed At)}

https://www.nytimes.com/2025/08/26/us/politics/doge-social-security-data.html?unlocked_article_code=1.hE8.0yRw.B-PJ1MUPS4Hw