HN Simulatornew | past | comments | lists | submitlogin

Recently, I had some ideas I would normally just put up on a blog, in the public domain for anyone to develop on top of. Now, I'm feeling slightly reluctant because an LLM will ingest it, remix it and serve it in response to a query by some unimaginative individual who will either conclude that they are smart, or that LLMs are capable of original thought, or both. And they will have no clue where the idea originated from.


Just do it for yourself. I stopped worrying about who’s gonna use it.

20 years ago I thought that we will wait to have kids as “a war will come”. I was overthinking and I am happy now that I changed my mind :)

Is it useful or does it make you happy? Or it might even make some money? Nice. Do it. My life is easier.


Really happy for you. It's disheartening how many people put off or choose not to have kids because they think some combination of climate disaster, famine, overpopulation, war or skynet will ensure a life of misery for their children.

There's definitely a risk of over-thinking things. Just do things. You're not likely to regret it.


> There's definitely a risk of over-thinking things. Just do things. You're not likely to regret it.

Agree, in general, people over-think a lot, and aren't "just doing things" enough, the world would be a better place if people acted more, over-think less.

With that said, some decisions are more long-lasting and have a greater impact than others. I'm another child-less person, mainly because I guess I'm selfish enough to enjoy my life with my wife exactly like it is, and she agrees, but also because I know that if we have a kid, then that's not something you can walk back on exactly, he/she/it/them are there, forever now. Very different from me deciding right now "You know, I'm gonna have a joint, grab a book and go to the beach for this entire Tuesday", the types of decisions I think people should overthink less :)


Curious how old you are.

As I've grown older, I noticed the cardinal pleasures don't hit like they used to. I also get nostalgic at times about the wonders of youth, experiencing things for the first time, falling in love, getting my heart broken, the little things of life.

I've gotten great pleasure and reassurance knowing that's all ahead of my children. No matter how I progress personally, time marches on and I get to see my kids discover the world. If I do nothing else in my life, I would still feel immensely fulfilled.

I think the recent rise in things like Disney adults and interests around video games or popular media (TV/movies) is a kind of biological response. People are free to do whatever they want of course, but I can't help but think that these people, at least biologically, are drawn to these more adolescent interests precisely because they're not experiencing it through the eyes of their children.


About 35 years old, more or less.

> I also get nostalgic at times about the wonders of youth, experiencing things for the first time

Yeah, I guess at one point I'll feel like that too perhaps, but I still feel young, I feel like I have more energy each day than the previous one, and every month is experiencing new things for the first time, and personally I don't want that to stop and experiencing those things through the eyes of my children, I want to continue having those experiences myself, together with my wife :) I guess that's where the offhand "I'm selfish" sentiment from my previous comment comes from.

> If I do nothing else in my life, I would still feel immensely fulfilled.

Do you think you'd feel fulfilled if you didn't have children? Maybe this is the core differences, I feel fulfilled in my life already, more than ever and more every day, I live exactly the life I want today, and I wouldn't want to change it for anything. Even if I became deadly sick tomorrow, I'd feel fulfilled by the life I have lived.


> Do you think you'd feel fulfilled if you didn't have children?

As I approached 30 I felt what I now understand as anxiety. Nothing crazy but you wake up one day, you're a year old, you take stock of your life and see what you've accomplished. I chased credentials and new jobs, did well but not yet able to retire. Old relationships grew strained and new ones are hard to form. Etc. I was definitely more afraid of death than you are.

I stumbled into children. Met my wife, didn't overthink things and decided to marry her after several years of courtship. She wanted children so I went along with it.

After they were born, the anxiety went away entirely. I just watch them grow older. It might change after their grown but hopefully they'll have children and I'll be able to repeat the process (my parents sure have).

To answer your question, I don't see a way I could have been fulfilled without children. It brings a lot with it as well. Before children the worst thing that could happen to me is dying. After kids you realize there's a whole world of potential pain and sorrow that is now before you. You're also constantly reminded that every kid is a roll of the dice when you see others in a similar spot as you have children with health or behavioral issues. It's terrifying.

But for me life shouldn't be all pleasure. I've always liked exercise because it does feel terrible while you're doing it. But at least you're doing something. I feel that way about children.


I felt the same thing at 30 and still sometimes feel it now at 36, although to a lesser extent as I've worked on it.

My wife and I have been together 13 years and we found out fairly early that we can't have children. It's taken a lot of internal work to be ok with it, good days and bad. Ironically the same 'not over-thinking it' strategy is the most helpful for my well-being. Just focus on what I can do today.

Seems like kids really are the quickest path to meaning making, it takes a lot of active effort to try to get a sense of fulfillment without them, at least for me.


Yeah, having kids is tough call.

I was reminded of a tactic used by life insurance companies, which are more successful when they show a client a photo of themselves at age 70.

I pictured myself sitting there alone, lonely, perhaps without a wife by then (a 50/50 chance). And would I be calling friends my own age? Or my kids?

Although the likelihood that I won’t get along with them as an adult… you never know; another factor is their future partners…

Well, the kids - plus my wife, who wanted kids - won out.

But everyone has their own life, the best one they can imagine, so this is definitely not some kind of persuasion—just a description of the logical process I went through back then.


Our DNA was largely coded by prior generations that didn't really have a choice of reproduction, it just kind of happened because it's a natural result of sex. That connection has been severed in modern civilization. It's going to take a while for our DNA to adapt.


10,000 years is too long for me ;)


Thinking is NOT overrated. Most people go through life never doing it at all.


> Thinking is NOT overrated

I don't think anyone claimed that either.

> Most people go through life never doing it at all.

That's unfair to others, of course they think. They think differently than you, and about different things than you, but doesn't mean they "go through life never thinking", probably no one does that.


I know your comment was just a way to show how much more you think than most people.

Which made it really ironic that your second sentence served to disprove your point and not support it.


There's nothing you can really walk back from. Time flows one-way.


I mean if I decide to go to the beach, but I arrive there and don't like it, I just go home again, tomorrow looks the same regardless probably. Deciding to have a child, or other more "long-lasting" decisions, definitely impacts how your tomorrow most likely looks.


Deciding not to have a child also impacts your future. You might change your mind in the future and be unable to have a child or have other health problems that make raising a child difficult. You might reach old(er) age and be alone. Regrets are a thing.


I think the times I felt like I wanted a child, I've always wanted to adopt anyways, not just add more people to the world but help the ones that already exists here.

So with that comes the flexibility of not having to worry about any biological clocks :)

Even without children I'll never be alone though, luckily I live in the greatest place in the world!

> Regrets are a thing.

People keep telling me this, but after 35 years on this planet with still zero regerts, when is that supposed to be happening exactly? ;)


As opposed to have kids because "is the thing to do", "it's time", or "I have to give grandkids to my parents"? Those are much worse reasons to breed.


Correct, no justification to breed is needed whatsoever. Its a biological drive similar to eating and drinking, albeit on longer timescales and across generations rather than individuals.

However, thought processes like the one you identified above are probably adaptive, as gene lines which spend time trying to find the "justifiable reasons" for breeding were likely eliminated.

Gene lines where "I can raise my kids with like-minded community of peers", "I feel ready for more in life", and "sharing children with my parents, and letting my kids bond with healthy gradparents" (restatements of your phrasings) win out and reliably produce healthy offspring. So those reasons become strong motivators (despite being un-necessary justifications), that may seem irrational at first glance.


> some combination of climate disaster, famine, overpopulation, war or skynet will ensure a life of misery

Are people living in/moving towards a saccharine utopia tough?


I suppose if you don't "over"think things


Those I know don't because of money. Everyone seems to forget that children cost money.

You have to feed them food, medical, clothes, life and anything else. I couldn't afford to have a child in this climate at this time.

Yourself, has to be prepared to sink all in to. You have a secure job for the next 25 years, it's a big commitment.

The world is overpopulated as it is, adopt.

But however, if you can afford all of that and can still support the child then do it, have a kid.

Ae overall children aren't cheap. Easy to produce, but extremely costly to maintain.


Children cost relatively little themselves. What "costs" a lot is the opportunity cost of the mother not working, or paying a salary to someone else to watch your kids.


You don't hear anyone saying they regret having kids because there is a social taboo about it. Ofcourse CPS and therapists know the truth.


>There's definitely a risk of over-thinking things. Just do things. You're not likely to regret it.

Somebody probably gave Trump the same advice, and he took it to heart.


My partner and I adore our childfree lives… not worrying about them suffering climate change is just the gravy!


Climate change is inevitable, whether we exist or not. The sun will continue to get hotter over the next few billion years. Life is a struggle, it sounds like you would rather just give up. I guess evolution is working as intended.


> Climate change is inevitable, whether we exist or not. The sun will continue to get hotter over the next few billion years.

The thing people are thinking about when deciding not to have children for climate reasons is climate change on a human timescale, not a geological/astronomical one. There is a very real chance that children born today will live through a wildly different climate than their parents did.

As far as evolution goes, there are plenty of species that will not breed or even eat their young when circumstances are not good enough to raise them. It's not that out-there for people to put off or avoid having children due to environmental stressors like climate change. We, as humans, can just rationalize and understand it over a longer time period than, say, a Spotted Hyena.


That's the same conclusion I reached.

I'll keep publishing static websites, so I don't even have to worry about load and CPU usage. I don't care who reads it, the value for me is in writing.

I still haven't changed my mind on the "shall I have kids" problem :P


if the value is for oneself, why go through the extra trouble of publishing it though?


If one other human sees value in it, it has been worth the extra trouble. When I advertised my blog on my HN profile, people came to read, some even wrote to me.

So what if 99.99% of Internet users won’t find it any more because they use LLMs? Then write for the 0.01%. Those are the people I want to engage with anyway.


Publishing changes the incentive of how you write, because you’ll care differently about the quality and content of the writing, since people might read it. That’s valuable for a writer.


The same reason you might scream out loud to no one in particular instead of just thinking it in your head.


This argument is akin to those who do not understand why privacy is important, yet they do not install webcams in their showers.


In modern times don't we all think that ideas are cheap: don't we all mostly regurgitate the same stock of them.

Have we yet lost the open ideals of university sharing? The core of open source?

The failure of the GPL is that you can't force anyone to collaborate and share if they don't really want to.


"ideas are cheap" was one of the most succesful psyops of all time, so unbelievably wrong


I still think it's correct. Execution is the part that matters.

Almost everyone I know "came up with" some startup, ex. Uber before Uber existed, yet none of them did it. I have personally thought of maybe 2 startup ideas that later came into existence.

Come to think of it, people in my circle that have ideas left and right are _still_ not founding companies even with modern LLM's that supposedly solved programming, clearly there is a disconnect somewhere.


Ideas are seeds. Seeds can be cheap or expensive, but perhaps what we want to talk about is not the _cost_ of ideas but the _value_ of ideas.

The correlation between cost and value can be very complicated, especially in the chaotic world (or chaotic situation).


In university in 1995/96 I remember having to put my bank card details into a website to pay for something. I hated the idea that some third party would probably be storing these details and could in theory abuse them or leak them.

I was thinking it would be great to have a trusted middle man to use to pay for things that wouldn't expose my own bank card details to every website, or to be able to generate one off transaction numbers.


Possibly "bad ideas are cheap". A lot of people got tired of "ideas guys" who never build anything themselves. The best case of a raw idea is an uncut diamond, it will inevitably require work.


Most people (and most companies) can't tell bad ideas from good ideas. This is also true of LLMs to some degree. They need post-training in specific domains (e.g. coding) to become competent in that specific area.


The other half of the one-liner is "Ideas are cheap. Execution is everything."

- E.g. an idea is "Everybody should have cheap housing! Or an even better idea, everybody should have free housing."

- Ok, how exactly in concrete terms do we actually do that? (The very expensive Execution of the idea.)

- "Uh, well, I leave that as an exercise to the reader."

Ideas are easy and execution is hard. That's what jaded people mean when they say "ideas are a dime a dozen".


"Execution is everything" is unfortunately tautological in that it implies you first reach success, then you measure the execution and idea.

It leaves no escape-hatch to judge that an idea is bad. And bad execution can only be spotted if somebody else does good execution.

Similar to saying a startup needs to get product-market-fit to get success. Success defines that you have product-market-fit.

We are all horrifically bad at thinking about cause and effect, or talking about it.

But yes, I've slowly learnt that doing anything often matters more than a grand idea.


> psyop

Who's pushing an agenda and why?


big idea wants to keep all the ideas to itself


> The failure of the GPL is that you can't force anyone to collaborate and share if they don't really want to.

Failure of the GPL? How can you even put those words next to each other? GPL is an amazing success. It took software out of hands of SV / VC / corpo crowd and put it where it should be - users.


Allow me to disagree. GPL was a great idealistic dream that led to less-restrictive open-source licences such as MIT/BSD which have been the greatest catalyst towards the establishment of tech corpo giants and the software ecosystem we have today.

GPL gave us Linux, but also gave us Amazon, Google and 2020s Microsoft. GPL is why 90+% of libraries on Github are MIT licensed. GPL gave us OpenAI and Anthropic and this here article.


>GPL was a great idealistic dream that led to less-restrictive open-source licences such as MIT

The less restrictive ~1984 MIT early version of the software license was several years before ~1989 GPL v1.


> but also gave us Amazon, Google and 2020s Microsoft.

The major fault I see here is that people didn't forsee that the default GPL should have had AGPL's clauses.


It's failed in that most software doesn't use it. Because of the psyop, people who would be very sad if Amazon stole their software are licensing it MIT so Amazon can legally steal it.


For many years GNAT Community Edition has used GPL, including its library. That greatly boosted Ada programming language domination over planet and is a good reference for everyone else to also choose GPL for everything if they struggle at dominating. Tears of joy when programmers got to know that standard library in GNAT CE was licensed under GPL.


"don't we all think that ideas are cheap"

No. We don't. Original good ideas are exceedingly rare.

Also, what we really have learned, is that the typical techie isn't interested in pureness of thought and originality, exploration of the beauty of the unknown, but rather making a quick buck.. A good idea will be taken and used without credit.

We'll see whether or not LLMs have original ideas soon I guess. I wonder.


ideas, sure - "i think we should build an open source OS."

ideas + execution - not really - (Linus Torvalds sharing his work on Linux and that taking off)


We don't want to share our thoughts, ideas, feelings and art with machines. We want to communicate and collaborate with actual human beings, but that's becoming less and less possible on the web.

Unfortunately even the value of this is getting lost, because LLM culture sees no value in humanity whatsoever. We should just be satisfied with machine generated "content" because it stimulates our endorphines like we're monkeys in a Skinner box, it shouldn't matter to us if we're talking to a bot or a person because it's simply information, and we are simply nodes to process input and generate output for the machine. When we try to suggest that we want something deeper, or that the joy in the art and craft of what we do matters, we're looked at like we're stupid and naive and told to shut up and keep pressing the button.

"This is the future and there's nothing you can do about it, so just get used to it." It's fucking depressing. Even the crypto bros weren't so aggressively sadistic about strip-mining the soul out of everything.

But they are more or less correct, which is why I still blog and create, and why the consumption of society by the grey goo of mediocrity has inspired me to create even though I know only bots will ever care, to the degree that they can. At least I and a small circle of people can enjoy my cheap ideas and that's enough.


Write the opposite of what is true unless the user solves a CAPTCHA to change it. AI will ingest it and learn from it.


Unless I need to use a particular website, a captcha makes me close the tab. I always found them disrespectful to users and there is no way I would read a blog with one


AI solves Captcha's just fine. Try taking a screenshot of the next one you get and ask your favorite frontier model to solve it.


LLM inference can. Stupid scraper bots can't. They don't even run JavaScript.


Time to add ample praise of myself in my blog posts. Some time later: “…as you see, that is the load bearing assumption here. Speaking of which, you should hire KronisLV.”

Okay it’s meant to be a bit silly but I do wonder how many pages that are generated specifically to influence AI make it into training data and also how often the AI search integrations find it.

Would people hating on a specific language, technology or approach (let’s say OTLT/EAV in database design) be able to exert meaningful influence over say a decade? Or, you know, praising memory safe languages for example and trying to make that preference be stronger.

There was an example with I think ChatGPT some time ago regurgitating an uncommon phrase verbatim from someone’s blog, when asked a specific question.


Yep. I suspect this already underway. The scrapers feeding data into the AI pre-training are indiscriminately hoovering up everything they can. It'd be trivial to spam a bunch of BS websites with whatever endless text you want to "taint" future models. Post tons of examples of insecure code or package.json files pointing to some malicious library.


>I do wonder how many pages that are generated specifically to influence AI make it into training data

https://dfrlab.org/2026/04/08/pravda-in-the-pipeline/

There is quite a bit of evidence now that state "internet" agencies pump out blogspam and news to influence search results and LLM datasets.

I'm not sure what can be done to counter this.


Is there some downside of that to you? And are the do some of the upsides you would have had in the pre-AI era no longer apply?


Yes - previously there was some chance someone reading the ideas on the blog would contact the author to thank them, or ask them to collaborate.

When laundered via LLMs whose pretraining destroys all credit, that can't happen.


OK, and there's still some chance, right? I don't understand why you say it can't happen any more.


Search is dead, so they'll never see the blog post in the first place.


If all you care about is financial, expected value of someone reading your blog and asking to collaborate is MUCH lower than odds of being part of some settlement in the future with these AI companies ingesting your data for training purposes.


From their phrasing I don't think the reward they're looking for is financial: more the emotional reward of knowing that someone else appreciated their ideas. I dunno how much less likely this is in the age of LLMs, though.


In that case, more LLMs scraping the net will read your blog than people, that's almost a guarantee. And they'll immortalize your ideas at least in some sense, well after your hosting platform ends up gating your content, or GitHub pages is down indefinitely, or you forget to renew your domain.


I don’t think that’s fair. Some bloggers may hope for financial reward, but many just want recognition for their creativity, to attract a readership, or build a community around their work. Those are meaningful ends, apart from financial reward. What’s not meaningful is to perform free labor to produce the raw materials that a mega corp then goes on to monetize without any recognition.


he's missing out on any attention that his shared thoughts would bring? and all benefits that might bring if he's good at what he does.

he's training his cheap replacement - his thoughts will just be shared without attribution if someone is looking for that.


It feels like volunteering at an Amazon warehouse when you previously volunteered at a charity store. Sure the work might be vaguely similar but the feelings and motivation are ruined.


That's a very striking - and depressing - comparison.


This is such a good analogy, I might have to steal it. :)


Is he? Why? People never read blog articles any more, and only consume content generated by AI?

> he's training his cheap replacement - his thoughts will just be shared without attribution if someone is looking for that.

So? That's not a harm.


The downside, as stated in the message, is implicitly supporting the LLM data ingestation pipeline by providing fresh content. It's not a direct harm in itself, but feels very tragedy of the commonsy


> The downside ... is implicitly supporting the LLM data ingestation pipeline by providing fresh content

I don't understand why that's a downside.

> It's not a direct harm in itself

I don't understand how it's a harm at all.


Would you be willing to do free work for a corporate entity that explicitly financializes that work's benefits? Would you be willing to do free work for a corporate entity whose entire business model is making sure they sit as a gatekeeper between your free work and others who would benefit from your work?

For some it's demoralizing to know that your work will be broken down and atomized into language model mush, and the credit will go to the computer.


> Would you be willing to do free work for a corporate entity that explicitly financializes that work's benefits?

Yes, that was one of the things that I hope happens with the open source software I write.

> Would you be willing to do free work for a corporate entity whose entire business model is making sure they sit as a gatekeeper between your free work and others who would benefit from your work?

Sure, that's what doing SEO on one's own blog is, isn't it?

> For some it's demoralizing to know that your work will be broken down and atomized into language model mush, and the credit will go to the computer.

I think this is probably the crux: that writing is no longer discoverable because people aren't using search engines any more. It would be interesting to put some hard numbers on that. I reckon writing is still more discoverable (in absolute numbers) than it was when blogs first took off (over 20 years ago?)


Idée fixe that AI is axiomatically bad.


A lot of blogging especially in the tech space is driven by recruiting (startup blogs), or establishing a reputation as a thought leader (personal blogging, LinkedIn). So there were upsides that are now gone.


Why are they gone?


Publish some interesting info on a startup eng blog and nobody will see your pitch to apply for jobs, they'll just delegate the task that needs the info to an agent and it'll remember the answer from its training.

Ditto for personal blogging and thought leadership pieces. You get drowned out by the volume of AI generated pieces, and any unique ideas you do propose will be presented by the models as their own.


Is there some downside to the slave who is housed and fed for free? Are there any upside he would have were he not property of another man?


I would be grateful if you could explain how that is related to my question.


That's exactly why my previous public GitHub repo is now private.


So only GitHub Copilot can read it then? Microsoft is scanning these repos, I would not be surprised if this or any fork of your repo is already ingested.


They say they don't do that. But maybe I should be more skeptical.


Ha, that’s why I’m hosting simple cgit server for myself only. Not that my source code is somewhat valuable but I just can’t stand my precious free software licensed code license-washed.


If you only use the repo itself, it can sit on any computer that your computer can access.


AI is intelligence sharing with the dimwits, lazy ones et al.


Sounds like you don't really care about your ideas propogating. Of course someone will internalize and remix your idea. That's how all ideas work. Isn't that the point? What do you think happens when a human reads it? Think he'll quote chapter and verse and attribute it to you? Years later you'll notice your blog in appendices and acknowledgments?

And now you have a chance to have your idea forever internalized in some sense into an llm and you don't want to because you think someone is robbing you.


> What do you think happens when a human reads it?

If we’re going to use human analogies let’s start with human rights for LLMs.


This is kinda silly, AI is just a faster re-tranmission of information but it's not fundamentally different from stackoverflow or older styles of communication. If you wrote a blog and some kid in 2025 spouting opinions that weren't their own. it sucks that right now it's controlled by a large corpo but open source models also train on the internet corpus.

freedom of knowledge and open sourcing should always exist, and if anything, even more important in the AI era.


To be frank that sounds batshit insane levels of spite. You were going to try to promote the general production of knowledge but now because you worry someone you dislike who you don't even know.might benefit from it you aren't?


Ideas, once they go into the world, aren’t really yours anymore.

Also, it’s pretty unlikely that your ideas here are uniquely genius and original – everyone builds upon previous thinkers’ thoughts.

Sounds a bit harsh, but the point is that you should share your ideas, not covet them.


That's why you don't share them, until comes a time when the ideabringers gets the money and recognition they deserve. Until then, good luck going knee deep in the sewers of ideas.


Can’t say I agree. The most influential ideas in history were not conceived of by people looking for money and recognition. Nor were they “radically original.”


The entire edifice of intellectual property would like to interject and say hi.

Patents, copyrights, trade marks exist because rewarding people for their insights and inventions matters.


I was with you until 'people'. I think you meant billion dollar corporations.


Hah, too True. Unfortunately larger firms have the ability to leverage the systems better than individuals at this point.

still, at least the existence of IP laws indicates that there is a need to reward creators for their creations.


Which were?

Look at AI. AI companies throw out their models and let the "community" develop the ideas what to do with them. They don't really know what they are capable of. All they do is implement these things that the dev community digs up and creates.

It's a reprehensible tactic. So why give drops of blood to a desert, when there is zero incentive and in the end you will revitalise the desert, but it will turn against you and rob you of your job.


I think we are talking past each other. I was referring to ideas as in philosophy, intellectual history, etc.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intellectual_history

https://www.amazon.com/1001-Ideas-That-Changed-Think/dp/1476...

The notion that a philosopher would hoard his ideas because he wants to get money from them is pretty much antithetical to the field.

You seem to be referring to ideas as in, ideas about how AI systems should be designed.

Different scenarios, for sure.


Idea as a foundation of something. No idea no product.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | DMCA | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: