Notices by tante (tante@tldr.nettime.org), page 2

RE: https://tldr.nettime.org/@tante/116165239429495379

I think that is actually the biggest problem with those systems.

It's not losing some random skill that we have made superflous, it's about taking skills that are the foundation for your agency in this world and your ability to understand it.

It is a fundamental human right that is being taken from you for the sake of efficiency and convenience.

The answer to problems in sociotechnical systems is not always "more software", "better software" or "open source software".
A lot of the time the best solution is _less software_ and sometimes even _no software_.

RE: https://hachyderm.io/@thomasfuchs/116165215922836572

Their makers also do not want you to be able to understand. It's about turning the means of understanding and sensemaking into externalized products to rent.

@ssilvonen @jukkan @jkmcnk @patrick_h_lauke @hiiaminfi Because dudes in tech rather talk to a chatbot than their family or a therapist.

Basically: If you run OpenClaw connected to any meaningful system you are not fit to design, program or run any kind of software. That disregard for security and quality should leave a black mark on you for many years.

RE: https://mstdn.social/@jukkan/116130658933405707

It's not just people at Meta running irresponsible vibe coded software. Microsoft ain't any better

Worth repeating: Claims of "AI" democratizing anything (coding, creative endeavors, etc) are always BS. The thing locking out people from doing that is not having the time/resources.

You want to democratize coding/art/creativity? Give people paid time off to do it and access to infrastructure. Easy.

At least 70% of things I read about people doing with "AI" assistants like "Open Claw" are basically things people have been doing with deterministic, secure tools like Home Assistant for years.

Oh you can tell your bot to dim the lights via WhatsApp chat? Welcome to 2015!

RE: https://mastodon.social/@AwetTesfaiesus/116119030408309460

"Menschen betrügen manchmal, deshalb darf man eine Maschine, die ziemlich verlässlich falsche Informationen verbreitet nicht deshalb kritisieren" ist ein ziemlicher Hot Take für eine *checks notes* Bundestagsabgeordnete.

Selbe Logik: "Menschen fahren manchmal zu schnell, daher dürfen Selbstfahrende Autos so schnell fahren, wie sie wollen." oder "Menschen machen manchmal den Grill an und erzeigen CO2, daher braucht eine automatisierte Produktionsstraße sich nicht an CO2 Limits zu halten".

Das ist eine Kapitulation. Die Aufgabe politischen Gestaltungswillens weil man an Technikdeterminismus glaubt.

Nicht ideal für die Obfrau des Ausschusses für u.a. Medien.

Das (vorgeschobene) Versprechen von Automatisierung ist ja die Sicherung und Standardisierung von Qualität: Es kommt verlässlich ein gewisser Qualitätsstandard heraus. Das ist eine der zentralen Legitimationen von Automatisierung (neben der echten: Arbeitnehmermacht reduzieren und Kosten drücken).

Wenn man das nimmt, dann gehts halt wirklich nur noch ums Kosten drücken. Das ist in einem Bereich wie Jura, wo es um existenzielle Bedürfnisse und Rechte von Menschen geht, ziemlich fatal. Wäre jetzt nicht mein Move da so mit "naja, is ja eh so" drüber wegzugehen.

Wenn Jurist*innen wirklich in der Breite lügen, wie Frau Tesfaiesus hier beschreibt, dann haben wir natürlich noch ganz andere Probleme. Weiß jetzt nicht, wie andere Anwälte das sehen würden.

Finde das auf jeden Fall keine sonderlich gute Beschwichtigung: "Falschinformationen durchs Werkzeug sind egal, wir lügen eh ständig".

Weiß nich, wäre nicht meine Verteidigung.

Dear media writing about tech: Sam Altman shitting on "data centers in space" is not the story. Nobody thought that that narrative makes any sense.

You failed as reporters when you pretended it did just cause rich dude claimed it would be the future.

Since the topic came up in the whole "I run models locally so it's all fine" conversation:

"Open Source AI" does not meaningfully exist. It's just openwashing proprietary shit

https://tante.cc/2024/10/16/does-open-source-ai-really-exist/

"Capable LLMs require a logic of dominance and of disregarding consent of the people producing the artifacts that are the raw material for the system. LLMs are based on extraction, exploitation and subjugation. Their politics is violence. How does one “liberate” that? What’s the case for open source violence?"

(Original title: Acting ethically in an imperfect world)

https://tante.cc/2026/02/20/acting-ethical-in-an-imperfect-world/

RE: https://tldr.nettime.org/@tante/116102639569199871

Follow up to the article from this morning. In which I argue how @pluralistic was right in his article: https://tante.cc/2026/02/20/on-alliances/

Yesterday Cory Doctorow argued that refusal to use LLMs was mere "neoliberal purity culture". I think his argument is a strawman, doesn't align with his own actions and delegitimizes important political actions we need to make in order to build a better cyberphysical world.

https://tante.cc/2026/02/20/acting-ethical-in-an-imperfect-world/

I am a luddite and to me there is a lot of joy in technology. In technology that we deploy for all our wellbeing. Solar panels and vaccines, high-speed rail and wikipedia.

But they joy stems from the feeling of being able to be part of humanity in an embedded, meaningful way. Not from buying shit.

"Part of the reason I made a hard leftwing turn was because I was burned by my own techno-optimism. I am part of a generation that believed it could change the world, and then was taught a harsh lesson about money and power."

(Original title: The Left Doesn't Hate Technology, We Hate Being Exploited)

https://aftermath.site/anthropic-claude-ai-leftist-technology/

RE: https://tldr.nettime.org/@tante/116098092171091455

"Hating technology" in their reading means "not just embracing its inevitability".

Maybe that's the reason: Leftist thought is based on the understanding that politics is a common project that allows us to make decisions about the world. The idea of "inevitable technology" is the antithesis to that