Kanary definitely looks good - although they are US only at the moment (rules it out for me unfortunately). Thanks for your insight!

I’m not really adding to the conversation with this but wanted to share anyway:

I can’t disagree with you on that, you’re absolutely right - I suppose my read just gives the author the benefit of the doubt that it’s not ‘better AI’ that we deserve, but a better internet (i.e. with no AI whatsoever).

Personally I read it as a general “demand better”, “don’t accept crap wrapped in gold” as an offensive principle against (de)generative AI. Perhaps I’m inserting my own positive spin on their words, but it seems to me that their point is “don’t let the hype win”; if these companies are pushing AI, forming dependencies on bad tech, then we need to say “not good enough” and push back on the BS. Deny the ability of low quality garbage to ‘fulfil’ our needs. It’s not a directly practical line to be sure (how do we do this exactly?), but it does drill down past “AI is bad” to a more fundamental (and arguably motivating) point - that we, all of us, deserve better than to drown in a sea of crap and that’s still important.

I really like Neocities - highly recommended for a personal website.

I feel like this is just investing in the tech hype of AI - AI/LLMs are really just probability calculators, if very impressive ones.

We’re not going to see ‘god-like’ AI run rampart and become sentient (at least not any time soon) - the real dangers of AI are the applications of it that are done my humans. The people who force it into spheres that it is ill-equipped to benefit, to undercut people who’s work can be ‘replaced’ or ‘enhanced’ by AI.

AI will inevitably be harmful. But not because it becomes uber-advanced; it will be harmful because techbros and grifters will use it badly, driven by money, hype or plain stupidity. Believing AI is more advanced than it is just feeds into the human machine that’s going to do real harm.