Category: Linklog

subscribe to this category with rss

Posted on
by

Favorited Headless Everything For Personal AI by Matt Webb

I see this being adopted around me too. Not just CLI’s though, also more APIs, pulling in data sources from elsewhere. And most interestingly: I see adoption by people who did not program or treat their computer as their personal toolbox they can adapt before. Until generative AI lowered their barrier to entry. Going from 0 to using the command line (which coincidentally is what it was until 30 years ago anyway). Even without AI, CLI tools, like Automator on Mac did before, allow the creation of workflows around a piece of software. Matt mentions the Obsidian CLI, and I’ve been using that to manipulate Tasks in Obsidian without going to the Obsidian UI. For about a decade I’ve treated application UIs as just views on my data, with functionality geared towards the viewing, and interfaces as different queries on that data. Going headless means removing the viewer, and using the output of queries directly programmatically. Combined with how I see the arch of generative AI bending significantly towards deterministic code, I look forward to the type of things people come up with. Not their tools, but what they come up with. Because the path to scale of these things imo is not adopting or buying what someone else made, but adopting what someone else came up with conceptually and creating your own local version. Like we do socially too, contagion spreading through effective behaviour, and culturally, the contextual and local sum of all time greatest hits of our group behaviour. The invisible hand of networks rather than markets. It would be highly ironic if unethical corporate extractive AI not only creates the incentive but also actually paves the way for the masses to Walkaway.

It turns out that the best place for personal AIs to run is on a computer. […] ideally your computer. That way they can see the docs that you can see, and use the tools that you can use, and so what they want is not APIs (which connect webservers) but little apps they can use directly. CLI tools are the perfect little apps.

Matt Webb

Posted on
by
Favorited AI Policy and Human.json by Claudine Chionh
Favorited Adding human.json to WordPress by Terence Eden

Claudine Chionh and Terence Eden both mention human.json, a data file that lists people and sites you know are written by humans, as opposed to generated by AI. A rekindling of FOAF?

In these days of needing to assume anything you encounter is machine generated unless proven to be human made, we continuously have to apply a Reverse Turing test: do I have enough indications to assume something was created by a human.

When I first wrote a Reverse Turing page I mentioned much the same things as Terence Eden does about vouching for other people to be human authors.

Not sure if having a machine readable file makes the right point here though, ironic as it is. Blogrolls, webrings come to mind too, because Long Live the Author.

One element I think we’d need to contemplate is to not just list, but also provide URI’s to some supporting evidence. Expose the depth of a connection. Only met at a vouching party countersigning your credentials, or two decades of in person and online encounters and proof thereof are different in depth and quality, and may well impact how the Reverse Turing test turns out for others perusing your human.json file.

Posted on
by
Favorited I used AI. It worked. I hated it. by Michael Taggart

An excellent post by Michael Taggart on how it felt to him to make a much needed bit of code with the help of Claude Code. The results worked, but he hated how it made him feel. He explores those opposing outcomes without trying to resolve the tension. Much in here that I recognise from my own experiences, as well as what I see others do and how they talk about it. Towards the end he talks about ‘the real monster’ here, and I think that is the right frame: we have created a technology monster once more, and Smits’ monster theory (2003) is a tool to bring to bear again. Where will we adapt the monster to our tastes? Where will we shift our cultural understanding of ourselves and the world to make room for the monster? Once we’re done embracing it until the bubble bursts, or rejecting it outright no matter what.

I hated writing software this way. Forget the output for a moment; the process was excruciating. Most of my time was spent reading proposed code changes and pressing the 1 key to accept the changes, which I almost always did. I was basically Homer’s drinking bird.

Michael Taggart

Posted on
by
Favorited If you thought the speed of writing code was your problem – you have bigger problems by Andrew Murphy

Good blogpost on how ‘speeding up’ code production (x lines committed this week, yay!) by using AI, will likely cause more trouble in an organisation. Because the theory-of-constraints bottleneck in an organisation will never be the speed and volume of writing code.

For non-coders making personal tools, this is I think different.

When you optimise a step that is not the bottleneck, you don’t get a faster system. You get a more broken one.

Andrew Murphy

Posted on
by

Bookmarked How Generative and Agentic AI Shift Concern from Technical Debt to Cognitive Debt by Margaret-Anne Storey

I enjoyed this short posting by Margaret-Anne Storey, a CS professor. The effect of using generative tools can indeed lead to loss of overview, and uncertainty about the project I recognise. It creeps in very quickly, especially if I’ve started from something exploratory, as opposed to planned. A cognitive debt accrues because of wanting to move fast or move at all, at the cost of understanding one’s actions in enough detail. It hinders being able to make changes later.

It also makes me wonder something completely different. Partially because of examples I saw last week in Madrid of how BMW and Airbus had sped up some specific tasks orders of magnitude with AI:

If we see companies as slow AI, i.e. context blind algorithms working towards a narrowly defined singular goal (this is where the notion of AI turning all the material in the world including ourselves into paperclips comes from), what methods have we come up with to deal with cognitive debt in organisations? My intuitive response is reporting chains, KPIs, and middle management. Consultancy too, hiring an external actor to blame if needed. That suggests to me we actually didn’t, as so much of that is management-theater. Does any board of any company above a certain size actually know what is going on in their organisations? Understand what consequences changes may have? There’s a world of hurt out there caused by ‘reorganisations’ that all too often seem ritualistic more than rational when seen from the outside.

It may also be why companies easily embrace AI, despite e.g. warnings about cognitive debt. It looks the same as current practice, just with the promise of higher speed.

I saw this dynamic play out vividly in an entrepreneurship course I taught recently. .. one team hit a wall. They could no longer make even simple changes without breaking something unexpected. … no one on the team could explain why certain design decisions had been made or how different parts of the system were supposed to work together. … issue was that the theory of the system, their shared understanding, had fragmented or disappeared entirely. They had accumulated cognitive debt faster than technical debt, and it paralyzed them.

Margaret-Anne Storey

Bookmarked Vimeo Lays Off ‘Most’ of Its Staff, Allegedly Includes ‘the Entire Video Team’ (by Gizmodo)

Vimeo was bought by the infamous Italian Bending Spoons last year (who previously bought Evernote, Meetup, Wetransfer, Eventbrite). For years Vimeo was a very usable video platform away from the mess that is YouTube. E used it in the past to host videos. My blog links to Vimeo videos 18 times (I stopped embedding things in 2020 to avoid the tracking that comes with it).
Bending Spoons now seemingly doing away with all video-savvy staff at Vimeo does not bode well for its future as a service. Relocation of whatever you may have at Vimeo seems advisable. Bending Spoons has repeated this pattern across all their acquired digital services: extreme cost cutting, raising annual subscriptions, while maintaining the status quo. (via Stephen Downes)

The news comes just months after the Italian tech holding company Bending Spoons bought Vimeo for $1.38 billion last year.

Gizmodo