@sxb@tilde.club Early deliveries are awesome!

@eldersnake@we.loveprivacy.club I’ll make a release this weekend (today)

@prologic@twtxt.net yeah I should probably update. Version 0.15.1@31958f89 2025-06-29T20:35:20+10:00 go1.23.1

@eldersnake@we.loveprivacy.club What version are you running btw? It’s probably time you upgraded and time I released a new version finally 😂 If you’re running a version that’s pre-SQLite-cache, then yeah I’m not surprised. The SQLite cache version is honestly much better 🤣

@bender@twtxt.net to work through both https and gemini, the site is not written in HTML, but in Gemtext, automatically converted to HTML, when needed. Gemtext is nicely explained for example here: https://garden.bouncepaw.com/hypha/gemtext . In short, it is so limited, no line can be more than one thing, so no links in a list are possible, othar than doing it through something like this primitive workaround.

@thecanine@twtxt.net looks good! Was the use of asterisks instead of <li> a concerted choice (it doesn’t look intended, but I might be wrong)? With CSS you can replace bullets on lists with whatever you want.

@prologic@twtxt.net He’ll be probably back in a few days or weeks I reckon. It’s not the first time that his raspi (or what hardware does he use again?) is down. :-)

@bender@twtxt.net All good. ✌️ It’s just that I’ve been through several iterations of this (on other platforms), AI output back and forth, pointing out what’s wrong, but in the end people were just trolling (not saying that’s what you had in mind), because apparently that’s “fun”.

@movq@www.uninformativ.de my apologies if I crossed some lines, I only meant it as a friendly engagement (which, all aside, was achieved!). Thank you for sharing your thoughts; please know that I appreciate them.

@movq@www.uninformativ.de It’s formatted just fine 🤟

… and now I just read @bender@twtxt.net’s other post that said the Gemini text was a shortened version, so I might have criticized things that weren’t true for the full version. Okay, sorry, I’m out. (And I won’t play that game, either. Don’t send me another AI output, possibly tweaked to address my criticism. That is besides the point and not worth my time.)

@prologic@twtxt.net Let’s go through it one by one. Here’s a wall of text that took me over 1.5 hours to write.

This section says AI should not be treated as an authority. This is actually just what I said, except the AI phrased/framed it like it was a counter-argument.

The AI also said that users must develop “AI literacy”, again phrasing/framing it like a counter-argument. Well, that is also just what I said. I said you should treat AI output like a random blog and you should verify the sources, yadda yadda. That is “AI literacy”, isn’t it?

My text went one step further, though: I said that when you take this requirement of “AI literacy” into account, you basically end up with a fancy search engine, with extra overhead that costs time. The AI missed/ignored this in its reply.

Okay, so, the AI also said that you should use AI tools just for drafting and brainstorming. Granted, a very rough draft of something will probably be doable. But then you have to diligently verify every little detail of this draft – okay, fine, a draft is a draft, it’s fine if it contains errors. The thing is, though, that you really must do this verification. And I claim that many people will not do it, because AI outputs look sooooo convincing, they don’t feel like a draft that needs editing.

Can you, as an expert, still use an AI draft as a basis/foundation? Yeah, probably. But here’s the kicker: You did not create that draft. You were not involved in the “thought process” behind it. When you, a human being, make a draft, you often think something like: “Okay, I want to draw a picture of a landscape and there’s going to be a little house, but for now, I’ll just put in a rough sketch of the house and add the details later.” You are aware of what you left out. When the AI did the draft, you are not aware of what’s missing – even more so when every AI output already looks like a final product. For me, personally, this makes it much harder and slower to verify such a draft, and I mentioned this in my text.

You, @prologic@twtxt.net, also mentioned this in your car tyre example.

In my text, I gave two analogies: The gym analogy and the Google Translate analogy. Your car tyre example falls in the same category, but Gemini’s calculator example is different (and, again, gaslight-y, see below).

What I meant in my text: A person wants to be a programmer. To me, a programmer is a person who writes code, understands code, maintains code, writes documentation, and so on. In your example, a person who changes a car tyre would be a mechanic. Now, if you use AI to write the code and documentation for you, are you still a programmer? If you have no understanding of said code, are you a programmer? A person who does not know how to change a car tyre, is that still a mechanic?

No, you’re something else. You should not be hired as a programmer or a mechanic.

Yes, that is “skill evolution” – which is pretty much my point! But the AI framed it like a counter-argument. It didn’t understand my text.

(But what if that’s our future? What if all programming will look like that in some years? I claim: It’s not possible. If you don’t know how to program, then you don’t know how to read/understand code written by an AI. You are something else, but you’re not a programmer. It might be valid to be something else – but that wasn’t my point, my point was that you’re not a bloody programmer.)

Gemini’s calculator example is garbage, I think. Crunching numbers and doing mathematics (i.e., “complex problem-solving”) are two different things. Just because you now have a calculator, doesn’t mean it’ll free you up to do mathematical proofs or whatever.

What would have worked is this: Let’s say you’re an accountant and you sum up spendings. Without a calculator, this takes a lot of time and is error prone. But when you have one, you can work faster. But once again, there’s a little gaslight-y detail: A calculator is correct. Yes, it could have “bugs” (hello Intel FDIV), but its design actually properly calculates numbers. AI, on the other hand, does not understand a thing (our current AI, that is), it’s just a statistical model. So, this modified example (“accountant with a calculator”) would actually have to be phrased like this: Suppose there’s an accountant and you give her a magic box that spits out the correct result in, what, I don’t know, 70-90% of the time. The accountant couldn’t rely on this box now, could she? She’d either have to double-check everything or accept possibly wrong results. And that is how I feel like when I work with AI tools.

Gemini has no idea that its calculator example doesn’t make sense. It just spits out some generic “argument” that it picked up on some website.

The AI makes two points here. The first one, I might actually agree with (“bad bot behavior is not the fault of AI itself”).

The second point is, once again, gaslighting, because it is phrased/framed like a counter-argument. It implies that I said something which I didn’t. Like the AI, I said that you would have to adjust the copyright law! At the same time, the AI answer didn’t even question whether it’s okay to break the current law or not. It just said “lol yeah, change the laws”. (I wonder in what way the laws would have to be changed in the AI’s “opinion”, because some of these changes could kill some business opportunities – or the laws would have to have special AI clauses that only benefit the AI techbros. But I digress, that wasn’t part of Gemini’s answer.)

Except for one point, I don’t accept any of Gemini’s “criticism”. It didn’t pick up on lots of details, ignored arguments, and I can just instinctively tell that this thing does not understand anything it wrote (which is correct, it’s just a statistical model).

And it framed everything like a counter-argument, while actually repeating what I said. That’s gaslighting: When Alice says “the sky is blue” and Bob replies with “why do you say the sky is purple?!”

But it sure looks convincing, doesn’t it?

This took so much of my time. I won’t do this again. 😂

@bender@twtxt.net We could – It’s just never became “strong enough”™ of a demand that I ever extended the possibility of supporting other mime types.

@prologic@twtxt.net when I first “fed” the text to Gemini, I asked for a three paragraphs summary. It provided it. Then I asked to “elaborate on three areas: user experience, moral/political impact, and technical/legal concerns”. The reply to that is too long for a twtxt.

I then asked to counter the OP opinions—as in “how would you counter the author’s opinion?”. The reply was very long, but started like this:

“That’s an excellent question, as the post lays out some very strong, well-reasoned criticisms. Countering these points requires acknowledging the valid concerns while presenting a perspective focused on mitigation, responsible integration, and the unique benefits of AI.”

What followed was extensive, so I asked for a summary, which didn’t do justice to the wall of text that preceded it.

@bender@twtxt.net Same I only have one registrar too (OnlyDomains).

@prologic@twtxt.net hehehe, yeah, it isn’t mine neither. Most obscure TLDs are in small registrars. I like to stick to one register (even though when Google Domains ceased to exist I was forced to have two, as Cloudflare doesn’t support the .ONE TLD).

@bender@twtxt.net It’s not even available on my registrar anyway 🤣

@prologic@twtxt.net save your coins! :-D

@bender@twtxt.net Makes me wonder whether somethingarather.zip is a good primary domain for the service I’m building? 🤔

@prologic@twtxt.net it looks made with good taste, which I appreciate. Developer’s site address is cool, https://tiago.zip. I didn’t know one could rent a ZIP TLD.

@bender@twtxt.net I think that’s where it sends the capture verification requests. It’s based on PoW, so it has to perform validation somehow. It actually looks pretty decent as far as a way to prevent spam/abuse of forms on the open web (e.g: Waitlist on SnipMail).

@prologic@twtxt.net never heard of it before. I wouldn’t call lightweight to anything that needs Docker to run, though. 😅

@movq@www.uninformativ.de I am genuinely curious as to why you think Geminis summarization and the categorization of your gopher post was and is as you say misunderstood?

I asked this very genuinely because before reading @bender@twtxt.net’s comments and Gemini summarization I actually went and unplugged your post into flood gaps go for proxy, and then listen to the text intently with my own human ears 👂

hi @lafe@tilde.club and thank you!

hi @sxb@tilde.club and welcome to twtxt!

hello, @threatcat@tilde.club!

@bender@twtxt.net It’s sad. Remember that Munich once ran the LiMux project. 😞

We could build a strong IT sector in Germany or the EU, but we just don’t want to.

@lyse@lyse.isobeef.org @bender@twtxt.net I’m not very knowledgable regarding the two points you mentioned, hence I didn’t include them in my list. But, yeah, from what I’ve heard, it doesn’t look good.

helooooooo @sxb@tilde.club!

Hmm anyone got a contact detail for Andrew? @eldersnake@we.loveprivacy.club – The emails/contacts I have have all bounced 😭

@bender@twtxt.net Hmm anyone got a contact detail for Andrew? @eldersnake@we.loveprivacy.club – The emails/contacts I have have all bounced 😭

@prologic@twtxt.net that poke will go no where. It is 502d. 😅

@bender@twtxt.net LOL sure lets trade!!

@aelaraji@aelaraji.com I’ll poke @eldersnake@we.loveprivacy.club

@movq@www.uninformativ.de this I find more worrisome, and saw no mention of it on your text: Right-Wing Chatbots Turbocharge America’s Political and Cultural Wars (gift article).

Enoch, one of the newer chatbots powered by artificial intelligence, promises “to ‘mind wipe’ the pro-pharma bias” from its answers. Another, Arya, produces content based on instructions that tell it to be an “unapologetic right-wing nationalist Christian A.I. model.”

@threatcat@tilde.club that seems like a cool reason to drive though. Sounds fun!

@movq@www.uninformativ.de LOL.

@movq@www.uninformativ.de Great writeup! It’s just missing a section on burning down the planet.

@movq@www.uninformativ.de Ah, I see.

@lyse@lyse.isobeef.org Maybe, but still nice. 😊

@bender@twtxt.net Thanks for this illustration, it completely “misunderstood” everything I wrote and confidently spat out garbage. 👌

@lyse@lyse.isobeef.org There’s an auto-finish function:

https://movq.de/v/7a01b9471c/os2-autofinish.mp4

I just did it by hand because I found it satisfying. 😅

@movq@www.uninformativ.de using gopher also limits tenth fold the amount of bystanders you will get. I think a finger .plan would probably have a bigger audience. :-D :-P

@movq@www.uninformativ.de Gemini liked your opinion very much. Here is how it countered:

The criticism of AI as untrustworthy is a problem of misapplication, not capability.

• AI as a Force Multiplier: AI should be treated as a high-speed drafting and brainstorming tool, not an authority. For experts, it offers an immense speed gain, shifting the work from slow manual creation to fast critical editing and verification.
  
• The Rise of AI Literacy: Users must develop a new skill—AI literacy—to critically evaluate and verify AI’s probabilistic output. This skill, along with improving citation features in AI tools, mitigates the “gaslighting” effect.
  

The fear of skill loss is based on a misunderstanding of how technology changes the nature of work; it’s skill evolution, not erosion.

• Shifting Focus to High-Level Skills: Just as the calculator shifted focus from manual math to complex problem-solving, AI shifts the focus from writing boilerplate code to architectural design and prompt engineering. It handles repetitive tasks, freeing humans for creative and complex challenges.
  
• Accessibility and Empowerment: AI serves as a powerful democratizing tool, offering personalized tutoring and automation to people who lack deep expertise. While dependency is a risk, this accessibility empowers a wider segment of the population previously limited by skill barriers.
  

The legal and technical flaws are issues of governance and ethical practice, not reasons to reject the core technology.

• Need for Better Bot Governance: Destructive scraping is a failure of ethical web behavior and can be solved with better bot identification, rate limits, and protocols (like enhanced robots.txt). The solution is to demand digital citizenship from AI companies, not to stop AI development.

For the innocent bystanders (because I know that I won’t change @bender@twtxt.net’s opinion):

curl -s gopher://uninformativ.de/0/phlog/2025/2025-11/2025-11-05--my-current-reasons-against-ai.txt

@bender@twtxt.net Hahaha, great, mission accomplished! :-D The cleanup took half an hour, that was the annoying part. But the immediate aftermath of this accident looked really funny, I thought about taking a photo for a second. However, in order to confine the damage quickly, I decided against it.

@bender@twtxt.net Not sure, if we actually have a law like that. But I wish it was the case. The clamp doesn’t say anything like that, just that it is now cactus.

The glue takes three days to reach its final strength. Let’s see. I’m sceptical.

@prologic@twtxt.net pfff, you are a kid! :-P

@kiwu@twtxt.net wanna trade? I would be willing to become celibate to go back to my 20s, and believe me, if there is something I don’t want to do is becoming celibate, so that ought to tell you something! 😅

@lyse@lyse.isobeef.org believe it or not, I imagined the whole thing in my head, and kind of ROFLMAO. I am sure it was much, much less funny in real life. So, sorry! :-P