328 private links
With some 300 data centers already in operation and 200 more in development,
80 GW of new gas plants into construction. The half is reserved for data centers.
The colossal Stargate project is using minor permits, that allows 62 backup diesel generators. That's 1.6 million tons of CO2a and 1000 tons of air pollutants. It's not minor anymore.
In several cases, data centers secured these permits before seeking massive expansions later on, deploying a “small first, big later” strategy that watchdogs say limits public input and creates unstoppable momentum for their projects.
Stargate expanded for example the next year 4 times more turbines and 30% increase of generators.
[W]e will become deeply skeptical of one another’s realness. Every time you find a new favourite blog or Twitter account or TikTok personality online, you’ll have to ask: Is this really a whole human with a rich and complex life like mine? Is there a being on the other end of this web interface I can form a relationship with?
Ms. Appleton explains how we can use the limitations of language models to prove our humanity:
This leaves us with some low-hanging fruit for humanness. We can tell richly detailed stories grounded in our specific contexts and cultures: place names, sensual descriptions, local knowledge, and, well the je ne sais quoi of being alive. Language models can decently mimic this style of writing but most don’t without extensive prompt engineering. They stick to generics. They hedge. They leave out details. They have trouble maintaining a coherent sense of self over thousands of words.
Also human beings can vouch for other human beings using classic web methods such as blogrolls or webrings, or by linking to other interesting articles.
Un retour sur des outils d'IA pour la sécurité.
I love the notion of “Quiet AI”. These are tools that are mostly invisible, sit in the background, and do small tasks on the user’s behalf. They never scream for attention but happily assist in repetitive, frustrating tasks that can easily be automated or assisted with a smart helper.
Yes because AI is always a tool and not a solution by itself. What should I do as user with a "Magic AI buttons"; rewrite the button as "Add automatic transcription" (with AI powering the feature) and everyone will understand.
The take here is to document how each folder should behave. An AI agent can take care of the rest. Its integration is seamless.
Well unless the AI agent can not reproduce the same behaviors but it's another discussion.
For transparency
How Google is slowly killing the web and
If you do care about the web, about people’s ability to participate in it as more than mere passive consumers, this needs to be taken seriously. De-googlifying your mental apparatus becomes more urgent today. Find other search engines, don’t use the Chrome browser. Or wake up in a slopified AOL kind of environment where your access to information is limited to what Google’s synthetic text extruders deem relevant.
When ChatGPT appeared in 2022, I quickly realized the Web was being forced into another battle. This one is different. With BBSs, the Web won because it was more accessible. With Flash, the Web won because open standards eventually became powerful enough. With mobile apps, the Web survived because search, links, and publishing were still essential.
This is the browser losing its position as the primary interface to knowledge.
Stack Overflow was the warning shot of the web searches being replaced by AI.
The website will becomes even more infrastructure: Websites will increasingly become infrastructure for machines. They will feed models, agents, search systems, APIs, datasets, crawlers, and private knowledge bases. A source of truth and data.
Emails will remain, but younger generations do not think in folders, inboxes, subjects and signatures. They think in threads, voice notes, reactions and instant replies.
If people stop browsing, stop searching, and stop clicking, then visibility depends on whether AI systems decide your content matters.
Then browsing and URLs will be lost little by little.
People will not say, "Today I reject the open Web." They will simply ask the assistant because it is faster. Convenience wins. Convenience replaces nostalgy, all the time. It almost always wins. The Web's biggest enemy is not ideology. It is not regulation (well, a bit yes). It is not even AI itself. It is convenience.
So the web can become a nerd medium again, like IRC, FTP, Gopher or Bulletin Board System.
Now I am watching AI become the next interface. The pattern is obvious. Interfaces change. Behaviors remain. People want answers. People want connection. People want tools. People want convenience. People want to publish, learn, buy, flirt, argue, create, complain, and feel less alone with their questions. The container changes. The hunger does not. The Web we know is going to disappear. Not because it failed, but because it succeeded so completely that its content can now be absorbed into the next interface.
Maybe this article will be read by humans. Maybe it will be summarized by an AI into two polite lines for someone curious on the other side of the planet. Maybe that person will never visit this page. That is probably the future. A little sad. A little funny. Very predictable.
Use UIs instead of writing code. Ok.
I don't believe this is the case. In my opinion, LLMs do not represent a layer of abstraction, but rather a layer of automation. It doesn't abstract away the code layer, it automates it.
I believe in the importance of making understandable software. To this end, I'm working on projects that further this goal.
Primarily, I develop ReTangled, an Entangled-compatible bi-directional tangler written in Rust. It's meant to extend literate programming as far as it can go while integrating it as tightly into existing toolchains as reasonable. As of writing, it's in the early stages of development. I welcome contributions!
Des palettes de vieux livres venant de librairies du monde entier sont expédiées vers les Etats-Unis. Des entreprises spécialisées en IA seraient à l'origine de cet accaparement massif de patrimoine. Elles utiliseraient ces livres comme données brutes pour entraîner leurs modèles de langage, puis les jetteraient après leur numérisation.
Le problème est bien de les jeter ensuite. Le mininum serait de les rediffuser en copie numérique, ou de les renvoyer.
L'entreprise de ce business serait "Zoom Books": Nous ciblons des ouvrages de non-fiction publiés à partir de 1970 et dotés d'un numéro ISBN – des invendus poussiéreux dont personne ne voulait depuis des années."
Quiconque numérise des textes et les diffuse sur Internet s'expose à des poursuites pour violation du droit d'auteur. Mais, aux Etats-Unis, la législation autorise l'entraînement de modèles d'IA à l'aide de livres acquis légalement. Si une entreprise achète de grandes quantités de livres d'occasion à bas prix, les désassemble et les numérise, les textes peuvent ensuite servir à entraîner des modèles d'IA.
C'est le principe étatsunien du "fair use", ou principe d'utilisation équitable. Il autorise l'utilisation d'œuvres protégées par le droit d'auteur sans l'autorisation expresse du titulaire des droits, à condition que cette utilisation serve l'éducation du public et stimule la production intellectuelle.
Parce que oui
À court terme, les libraires se réjouissent d'écouler leurs invendus. À long terme, cependant, un tout autre scénario se dessine. Si ces anciens livres sont détruits à grande échelle, ce patrimoine sera irrémédiablement concentré sous la forme d'une masse de données numériques possédée par quelques entreprises. Un accaparement discret, systématique et soumis à aucune délibération publique.
Et le copyright ne s'appliquera plus sur les livres ingurgités par les IA.
A layer against AI to make copyright right.
More about it at https://www.wired.com/story/matthew-butterick-ai-copyright-lawsuits-openai-meta/
Donc l'État a arrrêté après 6 mois un contrat sur 3 ans. Bravo la stratégie.
Aucune précision n’a en revanche été donnée sur les modalités concrètes de cette passation au sein de la DGSI, alors que le contrat avec Palantir courait théoriquement jusqu’en 2028.
Because it has other purposes
Ähnlich zu https://shaarli.lyokolux.space/shaare/vP775Q sind KI-Modellen nicht deterministisch. Das ist halt ein Problem.
Das Unterhnemen erklärt seinen Punkt: kein Agentic Engineering ist geplant.
Azure is also not enough for Copilot, so Microsoft turns to the compute of AWS.
Un mauvais pressentiment: un mélange d'effet d'annonce pour dire qu'on fait quelque chose, mêlé à une solution technologique venant de politiques. Cela finit rarement bien.
L'article relate la gestion des bots d'IA: ils sont devenus un enfer depuis quelques temps.
Un site web ne se résume pas à des fichiers statiques : beaucoup de pages HTML sont générées dynamiquement par des CMS ou frameworks comme WordPress, Symfony ou Python. Chaque visite peut donc consommer du CPU, de la RAM, des accès base de données et de la bande passante. Quand des visites massives ou illégitimes arrivent, elles peuvent ralentir les sites des clients hébergés.
Jusqu’en 2023, les principaux robots étaient surtout des crawlers classiques comme Googlebot ou Bingbot. Certains bots mal réglés, comme Ahrefsbot, pouvaient poser problème, mais ils étaient généralement identifiables et blocables. Certains crawlaient très mal, visitant des milliers de sous-pages inutiles ou coûteuses, contournant les caches et saturant CPU/RAM.
Au début, la défense consistait à bloquer les bots via leur User-Agent, c’est-à-dire le nom qu’ils déclarent lorsqu’ils visitent un site.
Ensuite, certains bots ont commencé à se cacher derrière de faux User-Agent, en se faisant passer pour de vieux navigateurs ou appareils obsolètes. La stratégie de blocage consiste à interdire certaines plages IP de prestataires clairement identifiés et à bloquer certains navigateurs improbables ou représentant quasiment 0 % du trafic réel.
Cela demande du temps d’ingénieur, consomme des ressources serveur, de la bande passante, use les machines, et augmente donc les coûts continuellement.
Dernièrement en 2025, les bots ont commencé à avoir des IPs résidentielles et des User-Agent crédibles. Octopuce cite le cas d'un crawler sauvage utilisant 1,3 million d’adresses IP distinctes en deux semaines, dont 950 000 n’ont fait qu’une seule requête. Ces nouveaux crawls utiliseraient des téléphones Android via des applications douteuses permettant de monétiser la bande passante des utilisateurs. Cette méthode est illégitime et sûrement illégale.
Octopuce conclut sur l'utilisation d'Anubis comme parade partielle, mais aucune solution n'existe actuellement. Ce coût de l'IA n'est pas prise en compte dans le bilan environnemental réel des services d’IA.
First of all, this essay is researched and argued. There are many sources accross the texts.
Landgon Winner wrote an essay
- the technology is designed to have certain political effects
- the technology is inherently political
Technologies and machines tend to profeit. For example, the mechanical tomato harvester by UC Davis in the 1950s.
Once the technology arrives and becomes entrenched, the conversation gets reframed as one of technological inevitabilism vs. anachronism, and dissent is discouraged. [...] The adaptation of social life to technical requiremetns pop up spontaneously.
Liberal democracy is sustainable as long as "the balance of power of democracy is premised on the average person having leverage through creating economic value. If that's not present, I think things become kind of scary."
In practice, certain people in a capitalist liberal democracy tend to get increasingly rich. Absent countermeasures, the wealthy gain control of the political apparatus, thwarting liberal-democratic norms.
The synthesis might be: as more wealth becomes concentrated in the hands of fewer citizens, liberal democracy weakens, because whichever citizens are losing economic relevance will also lose political relevance.
The AI story is a fallacy: the sci-fi discourse is optimized for cinematic impact instead of real daily life changes.
Moreover the paperclip maximizer experiment of Nick Bostrom shows AI has unintended side-effects.
The West was won by AI because we balance water supply between the population and AI. Water is a biological necessity; AI is not.
Another point is laber replacement. Every CEO is outdoing the next in predicting that AI will replace human labor, which will lead to waves of unemployment.
Capital markets are laready pricing as if AI companies will have the perfect scenarios.
Software programmers, highly paid writers and lawyers are all work with high costs that can be automated.
Zitron has characterized the AI market so far as a blinkered conversation between AI executives and trad executives, all of whom “have little idea what work looks like”.
Many CEOs and billionaires argued AI will create an abundance of goods and services. Really?
The persistent lack of detail signals that these billionaires have no idea how, exactly, AI will accomplish this.
Even if the labor comes down to 0$, resources, enegery and raw materials have a cost. Another contradiction is "Big AI’s promises of world-historical goodies for consumers and world-historical profits for shareholders may be incompatible".
To improve public acceptance, AI has so far emphasized their fun consumer-facing porducts: generating an image or writing a story. In the goodies economy, as citizens lose independence as economic actors, they will also lose independence as political actors. They will be captured by industry.
Tangible assets are the opposite—bricks, mortar, inventory, and so forth. According to the WIPO, since 1995 global investment in intangible assets has steadily increased, and since 2009 has exceeded that of tangible assets. By wide margin, the US leads investment in intangible assets.
If you think about it, it's crazy. It's even more crazy to see the productivity growth compared to the hourly compensation growth: https://www.epi.org/publication/charting-wage-stagnation/#:~:text=Figure%202
“Technology always makes certain jobs obsolete; new ones will arise.” AI’s predicted labor replacement is unprecedented in three ways: the diversity of tasks replaced; its outsize effect on highly educated workers; and the backdrop of 50 years of wage stagnation.
If an AI can replace the output of a company, then every company with an AI can do so.
Currently certain legal-AI startups license LLMs from Big AI and repackage them for Big Law at high prices. These startups claim to add other special sauce. OK, sure. Where’s the economic equilibrium? If legal-AI startups prove that money can be made selling AI to Big Law—won’t Big AI just sell to Big Law directly, and cut out the startups?
By the process described above: Big AI essentially uses its tech customers as an R&D facility.
As AI makes it harder for workers to capture value from their labor, they will increasingly have to rely on goodies from Big AI, privatizing what were once functions of government. If Big AI subsumes the functions of workers and government, both will tend to realign politically around Big AI’s interests. [...] AI-centered capitalism risks an extinction of democratic possibility