I rather strongly dislike Chris Hedges, but I have to admit that sometimes he makes a good point.

The last days of dying empires are dominated by idiots. The Roman, Mayan, French, Habsburg, Ottoman, Romanoff, Iranian and Soviet dynasties crumbled under the stupidity of their decadent rulers who absented themselves from reality, plundered their nations and retreated into echo chambers where fact and fiction were indistinguishable.

Donald Trump, and the sycophantic buffoons in his administration, are updated versions of the reigns of the Roman emperor Nero, who allocated vast state expenditures to attain magical powers; the Chinese emperor Qin Shi Huang, who funded repeated expeditions to a mythical island of immortals to bring back a potion that would give him eternal life; and a feckless Tsarist court that sat around reading tarot cards and attending séances as Russia was decimated by a war that consumed over two million lives and revolution brewed in the streets.

It would be funny if it weren’t so tragic. There’s a great comic-horror movie that made this same point: The Death of Stalin. In the aftermath of Stalin’s death, the people who profited from the tyrant’s death bumble about, scrambling to take over his role, and it’s simultaneously horrifying and hilarious, because you know that every childlike tantrum and backstabbing pratfall is concealing death and famine and riots and futility. It portrays the bureaucrats of the Soviet Union as a mob of idiots.

There’s a new movie out that has the same vibe, Mountainhead. It’s not as good as The Death of Stalin, but it’s only fair that it turns the stiletto against American idiots, the privileged CEOs and VCs of Silicon Valley. The premise is that a group of 4 fictional billionaires are getting together for a poker game (which they never get around to) at an isolated mansion in the mountains. One of them, who is kind of a blend of Steve Jobs and Mark Zuckerberg, has just unleashed an AI on his social media company that makes it easy to create deepfakes and spoof other users — it turns out to be very popular and is also creating total chaos around the world, with assassinations, wars, and riots breaking out everywhere. He is publicly unconcerned, and actually suggests it’s a good thing, and suggests that we all need to push through and do more, promoting accelerationism. He’s actually experiencing visible anxiety as everyone at the meeting has their eyes locked to their phones.

What he wants to do is buy some AI-filtering technology from another of the attendees, Jeff, who doesn’t want to give it up. He just surpassed the others in net worth, and doesn’t want to surrender his baby. So they all decide that the solution is to murder Jeff so they can steal his tech. They aren’t at all competent at doing real world action, trying to shove him over a railing, clubbing him to death, etc., and their efforts all fail as Jeff flees into a sauna. They lock him in and pour gasoline on the floor, using their hands to try and push it under the door so they can set him on fire.

One of the amusing sides of the conflict is that all of them are using techbro buzzwords. The pompous elder “statesman” of the group is frequently invoking Kant and Hegel and Nietzche and Marcus Aurelius to defend his decisions, while clearly not comprehending what they actually wrote. They shout slogans like “Transhuman world harmony!” and declare themselves the smartest men in America, while struggling to figure out how to boil an egg. They have such an inflated sense of their own importance that they plan to “coup out” America and rule the world from their cell phones.

They’re idiots.

One flaw to the movie is that the jargon and references are flying so thickly that it might be a bit obscure to the general public. Fortunately, I had just read More Everything Forever: AI Overlords, Space Empires, and Silicon Valley’s Crusade to Control the Fate of Humanity by Adam Becker, so I was au courant on the lingo. It made the movie doubly depressing because it was so accurate. That’s actually how these assholes think: they value the hypothetical lives of future trillions over the existence of peons here and now. It’s easier to digest the stupidity when it’s coming from fictional characters, rather than real people like Yudkowsky and MacAskill and Andreesen and Gates and Ray Kurzweil (unfortunately, Becker twice says that Kurzweil is neither stupid nor crazy — sorry, he’s one or both of those). Fiction might make the infamous go down a little more smoothly, but non-fiction makes it all jagged and sharp and horrible.

Tech is the new religion. Écrasez l’infâme.

Here’s a nice Washington Post headline:

SpaceX has a partially successful test flight

The subhead tells the real story.

SpaceX successfully launched its Starship on May 27, but the rocket lost control mid-flight and eventually fell apart.

They failed to recover the reusable booster, which exploded, and the second stage was tumbling out of control, and exploded. SUCCESS!

This was the ninth Starship launch, and none of them have “succeeded” by any reasonable meaning of the word. Maybe someone needs to teach the editors at the WaPo the word “failed”? Somehow, I think they’re going to need to use that word a lot in the next few years, in lots of contexts.

Here’s a detailed breakdown of the flaws in Starship design, with Elon Musk at the top of the list of problems.

Musk isn’t an engineer and doesn’t understand iterative design, and now SpaceX and NASA are facing a sunk cost fallacy.

You never achieve iterative design with a full-scale prototype. It is incredibly wasteful and can lead you down several problematic and dead-end solutions. I used to engineer high-speed boats — another weight- and safety-sensitive engineering field. We would always conduct scale model tests of every aspect of design, iteratively changing it as we went so that when we did build the full-scale version, we were solving the problems of scale, not design and scale simultaneously.

SpaceX could have easily done this. They already proved they could land a 1st stage/Booster with the Falcon 9, and Falcon 9’s Booster could launch a 1/10 scale Starship into orbit. Tests of such a scaled-down model would help SpaceX determine the best compromise for using the bellyflop manoeuvre and retro rockets to land. It would help them iteratively improve the design around such a compromise, especially as they will be far cheaper and quicker to redesign and build than the full-scale versions. Not only that, but these tests would highlight any of the design’s shortcomings, such as the rocket engines not having enough thrust-to-weight ratio to enable a high enough payload. This allows engineers to do crucial, complete redesigns before the large-scale version is even built.

If you have even a passing knowledge of engineering, you know this is what iterative design looks like. So, why hasn’t Musk done this?

Well, developing a Starship like this would expose that making a fully reusable rocket with even a barely usable payload to space is impossible. Musk knows this: Falcon 9 was initially meant to be fully reusable until he discovered that the useful payload would be zero. That was his iterative design telling him Starship was impossible over a decade ago, as just making the rocket larger won’t solve this! But he went on ahead anyway. Why?

Well, through some transparent corruption and cronyism, he could secure multi-billion-dollar contracts from NASA to build this mythical rocket. But, by going for full-scale testing, he could not only hide the inherent flaws of Starship long enough for the cash to be handed over to him but also put NASA in a position of the sunk cost fallacy. NASA has given SpaceX so much money, and their plans rely so heavily on Starship that they can’t walk away; they might as well keep shoving money at the beast.

This is why Starship, in my opinion, is just one massive con.

That is the real reason why Starship was doomed to fail from the beginning. It’s not trying to revolutionise the space industry; if it were, its concept, design, and testing plan would be totally different. Instead, the entire project is optimised to fleece as much money from the US taxpayer as possible, and as such, that is all it will ever do.

Ars Technica has a list of the worst features of the internet. It’s depressing how much of the stuff mentioned is just growing and taking over everything. Sadly, Google gets mentioned three times, for their voice assistant, search, and the incorporation of AI.

I encountered a terrible example of AI assistance. Here’s some AI advice on hygiene.

Does the AI not understand the words “front” and “back”, or is it very confused about the location of the urethra and anus?

Or try this one.

This is a screenshot from an AI-generated movie titled “Sun Day”. I’m not going to show you the short movie itself which is freely available on YouTube, because I like you too much. It’s terrible. The plot is absurd, the acting is wooden and silly, the events in the plot are ridiculous and unbelievable, and everything is cobbled together with awkward and unlikely transitions. It’s bad. This is AI if AI is a smug little child with access to daddy’s high-tech video editing deck, but no background in literature or film or even Saturday morning cartoons.

It’s from an overly-generous but still critical review of a whole set of AI-generated movies. There is a company, TCL, that makes televisions, but plans to break into the streaming services market by creating a whole channel of nothing but AI-generated movies. They were premiering a set of films that were supposed to generate positive buzz for the whole idea, so you might assume they’d pick the very best representatives of the medium.

They’re all awful.

You don’t need to see them to realize that, though, because here’s the company spiel on why their service is so cool.

Before airing the short, AI-generated films, Haohong Wang, the general manager of TCL Research America, gave a presentation in which he explained that TCL’s AI movie and TV strategy would be informed and funded by targeted advertising, and that its content will “create a flywheel effect funded by two forces, advertising and AI.” He then pulled up a slide that suggested AI-generated “free premium originals” would be a “new era” of filmmaking alongside the Silent Film era, the Golden Age of Hollywood, etc.

Catherine Zhang, TCL’s vice president of content services and partnerships, then explained to the audience that TCL’s streaming strategy is to “offer a lean-back binge-watching experience” in which content passively washes over the people watching it. “Data told us that our users don’t want to work that hard,” she said. “Half of them don’t even change the channel.”

“We believe that CTV [connected TV] is the new cable,” she said. “With premium original content, precise ad-targeting capability, and an AI-powered, innovative engaging viewing experience, TCL’s content service will continue its double-digit growth next year.”

Oh my god. The company is driven by advertising and AI; they’re thrilled with their ad-targeting capability; they think double-digit growth is a good thing. This is a nightmare fueled by the bloviations of MBAs, without a hint of art or creativity anywhere.

Die, TCL, die.

Way back in the 1990s, I was writing lab software in my spare time, and I was working with a company in California for a while. I was coding exclusively on a Mac, but they mainly did PC stuff, so they bought me a cheap PC just so I could see the software they were developing. I think it was a Dell or something like that, and I set it up at my house. First thing that horrified me was that the computer was covered with stickers. Why? What are you advertising?

Then I tried running the thing, and had to wade through all the crudware that came pre-installed on the computer. Ads popped up. There were all these off-brand applications installed, and they didn’t want me to remove them — just cleaning up all the garbage took me several days before it was functional to run the tech software I had obtained the machine for.

That was 30 years ago. I guess the situation has gotten even worse, if you’re buying the inexpensive mass-market computers. Ed Zitron got one just to see what the average users experience was like. Now we’ve got the internet layered on top of everything.

The picture I am trying to paint is one of terror and abuse. The average person’s experience of using a computer starts with aggressive interference delivered in a shoddy, sludge-like frame, and as the wider internet opens up to said user, already battered by a horrible user experience, they’re immediately thrown into heavily-algorithmic feeds each built to con them, feeding whatever holds their attention and chucking ads in as best they can. As they browse the web, websites like NBCnews.com feature stories from companies like “WorldTrending.com” with advertisements for bizarre toys written in the style of a blog, so intentional in their deceit that the page in question has a huge disclaimer at the bottom saying it’s an ad.

As their clunky, shuddering laptop hitches between every scroll, they go to ESPN.com, and the laptop slows to a crawl. Everything slows to a crawl. “God damnit, why is everything so fucking slow? I’ll just stay on Facebook or Instagram or YouTube. At least that place doesn’t crash half the time or trick me.”

Using the computer in the modern age is so inherently hostile that it pushes us towards corporate authoritarians like Apple, Microsoft, Google and Meta — and now that every single website is so desperate for our email and to show us as many ads as possible, it’s either harmful or difficult for the average person to exist online.

This is our world now — the wealthy have control, and they’ve engineered everything to grow and make more money for themselves, and they’ve wrecked everything they’ve touched. I remember the early 2000s when Google was just a barebones text box that you typed things into and it bounced back with a list. It was clean and easy. But not any more!

The biggest trick that these platforms played wasn’t any one algorithm, but the convenience of a “clean” digital experience — or, at least as clean as they feel it needs to be. In an internet so horribly poisoned by growth capitalism, these platforms show a degree of peace and consistency, even if they’re engineered to manipulate you, even if the experience gets worse seemingly every year, because at least it isn’t as bad as the rest of the internet. We use Gmail because, well, at least it’s not Outlook. We use YouTube to view videos from other websites because other websites are far more prone to crash, have quality issues, or simply don’t work on mobile. We use Google Search, despite the fact that it barely works anymore, to find things because actually browsing the web fucking sucks.

The algorithm was never for you, the user. It didn’t make your interactions with the internet easier or better, it made it easier for companies, both legitimate and criminal, to sell you stuff. That has become the primary purpose of computers and the internet. It’s becoming increasingly difficult to even imagine using a computer for anything beyond convenient shopping…although it is becoming increasingly inconvenient as all the garbage piles up. One of the best examples of a growing obstacle to using the internet is all the “AI” trash being inserted.

The onslaught of AI-generated content — facilitated, in no small part, by Google and Microsoft — has polluted our information ecosystems. AI-generated images and machine-generated text is everywhere, and it’s impossible to avoid, as there is no reliable way to determine the provenance of a piece of content — with one exception, namely the considered scrutiny of a human. This has irreparably damaged the internet in ways I believe few fully understand. This stuff — websites that state falsehoods because an AI hallucinated, or fake pictures of mushrooms and dogs that now dominate Google Images — is not going away. Like microplastics or PFAS chemicals, they’re with us forever, constantly chipping away at our understanding of reality.

These companies unleashed generative AI on the world — or, in the case of Microsoft, facilitated its ascendency — without any consideration of what that would mean for the Internet as an ecosystem. Their concerns were purely short-term. Fiscal. The result? Over-leverage in an industry that has no real path to profitability, burning billions of dollars and the environment – both digital and otherwise – along with it.

Do you need AI? Do we really want some weird capitalist-created interface in front of everything that babbles and confabulates and tells us even more lies? Again, this isn’t something added for our benefit — we have to ask who profits from these layers of new crap tossed unto our computers. I don’t think it’s the users. We really don’t need ChatGPT for anything, and it literally makes everything worse.

Ed Zitron names names.

• Sam Altman is a con artist, a liar, and a sleazy carnival barker who would burn our planet to the ground, steal from millions of people and burn billions of dollars in pursuit of power, and I believe the same can be said of people like Dario Amodei of Anthropic and Mustafa Suleyman of Microsoft.
• Tim Cook is a wolf in sheep’s clothing, slowly allowing the rot to seep into Apple’s products, slowly adding bothersome subscription products and useless AI features to chip away at the user experience. Apple’s app store and its repeated support of exploitative microtransaction-laden mobile games built to create gambling-like addiction in adults and children alike, making it billions of dollars a year. Because Apple’s products are less shitty, it gets a much easier time.
• Sundar Pichai is the Henry Kissinger of technology — a glossy executive that escapes blame despite having caused harm on a global scale. The destruction of Google Search at the hands of Sundar Pichai and Prabhakar Raghavan should be written about like a war crime, and those responsible treated as such.
• Satya Nadella has aggressively expanded Microsoft’s various monopolies, the most egregious of which is the Microsoft 365 suite — a monopoly over business software that everybody kind of hates that Microsoft prices to undercut the competition, effectively setting the conditions of most business software as either “cheaper than Microsoft” or “slightly better than Microsoft.” Nadella has overseen layoffs of tens of thousands of people in the last three years alone, and despite his bullshit “growth mindset” culture treats his employees and customers as equally disposable.
• Mark Zuckerberg is a putrid ghoul that has overseen the growth and proliferation of some of the single-most abusive and manipulative software in the world. Meta has grown to a market cap of $1.5 trillion dollars by intentionally making the experience on Instagram and Facebook worse, intentionally frustrating and harming billions of people.

I’m willing to call these people crooks and corrupters, profiteers and parasites. They are getting rich off of our growing inconveniences. We really need to fight back somehow, and tell these people we don’t want ChatGPT or whatever pointless energy-sucking leech they want to attach to us. Unfortunately they’ve got all the money and power and have monopolized everything.

Bob the Angry Flower