Conversely, a no-AI ethos is one that will very likely need to be walked back at some point in the future for tech products. AI isn't going anywhere, so finding ways to use it constructively with your product is going to be a far better long term strategy. For now while it's new and scary and there's a lack of regulation and governance and ethical considerations - I can see why an anti-AI stance is popular, but it's not durable long term.
I'm a big supporter of LibreOffice, Codeberg, SourceHut, etc. on what they do, tell and defend, and I'm with them.
On the other hand, I'm not anti-AI, but I don't want it to be shoved down my throat in any and every app I have. I don't want that sparkly "Enhance this slide" button, "WhatsApp AI" in the corner, automatically generated "AI summary" in Google/YouTube, etc.
However, I'm fine with an unobtrusive "Summary" button in my search results (Kagi), or a tab which I can use with some models (Notion), "use ML" checkbox while resizing or "enhancing" images (Pixelmator Pro), or many small touches Apple enables with on-device models which doesn't have AI written all over it.
In short, I want consent, control and dignity in my workflows. Yes, I'm very against how these LLMs are trained, built and how the datacenters they run on harm the environment we live in. However, I'm not against the tech. I want responsible development of it, for the customer instead of their owners which wants to milk their users like content and cash cows.
I really appreciate this comment since it very effectively communicates how I feel about the subject, since I have been struggling with putting it into such clear language.
The internet has been around for quite a while now, and is absolutely critical for a lot of applications. Most people would never give up the internet.
Yet there are still many applications without explicit mandatory internet tie-ins like cloud sync. In fact, "stores data locally" and "won't disappear with zero notice" are valuable features to many people!
Just because AI is a no-brainer must-have for some apps doesn't mean it is a required feature for all apps - let alone one shoved in your face every few minutes.
Which products that sell this are broadly popular? I can see some people on HN wanting it, but people I know who are outside that bubble don't even think of it as an issue.
I feel like the equivalent for the rise of the internet would be an explicitly anti-internet stance -- no website, no downloads, no online customer support, everything routed through snail mail, fax, and telephone (but no VoIP!) as an intentional ideological point.
> The criteria we have listed do not amount to a definitive rejection. The AI sector is evolving rapidly; on-premises inference is becoming manageable on standard hardware; and open models are improving much faster than most of us had anticipated. Should an approach emerge that meets all the conditions, we will evaluate it very carefully.
That list seems pretty easy to meet today. I’m not sure why they’re waiting for an approach to emerge instead of building it now, unless there’s something else they haven’t listed.
"User-controlled execution." Seems easy enough to add settings so this is configurable.
"No content may leave the computer without authorisation." OK, so don't do that.
"No telemetry of any kind." There are plentiful API providers with zero data retention. If this means no data of any kind, even just records of having accessed the API, then local inference is a thing.
"No dependence on a single provider." Trivial. The OpenAI API is a de facto standard implemented by tons of providers. If you really want to go broad, it's easy to implement clients for other APIs too.
"No compromises on format." I don't even understand how this would be a problem in the first place. Text goes in, text comes out. The client can put it into whatever format it wants.
"Entirely optional." Trivial to add an off switch. Or an on switch, so it's off by default. If it must be completely removable and not just turned off, it can be implemented as an extension.
I don't think there's enough information accurately assess this. Anti-AI movements might grow much larger than today, given AIs potential to replace jobs faster than we have the ability to create them. The movement could even result in AI going somewhere.
> is one that will very likely need to be walked back at some point in the future for tech products
No doubt, but that future is when companies have figured out proper fit for AI in their product context and preferably with local AI models.
It should not be with the current slap AI anywhere and everywhere approach that uploads and trains on all available user data, which is what everyone is opposed to.
I hate products that want me to find a use-case for their feature that they wanted to develop. It's great that some people love AI features, but for me, they are rarely solving an actual problem I have. But now I have to relearn the software because the company wants to go all-in on AI? Why should I? One example of that is Notion. I've loved it for years, and I'm still using it, but it's starting to lean heavier and heavier into an AI-first workflow and I don't like it to the point where I consider switching to something else regularly.
I'm not convinced about ignoring everything, but one of the best changes I ever made to my git workflow was ignoring all dotfiles by default by adding `.*` to ~/.config/git/ignore.
My projects do now have to have a boiler plate of unignoring the common ones (!.gitignore, !.gitattributes, !.github, !.editorconfig, etc), but then I'm free at any point to throw .foo.lang files, or .tmp/.cache dirs, or Claude helpers like .code_analysis.md, or .todos.txt, or whatever in my project without managing the fallout of forgetting to manage the .gitignore. I'm surprised more people don't go this route.
I have a shell alias to create a folder containing a `.gitignore` with just `*`, so I don't depend on my project never using a directory of a specific name.
10% of Microsoft's revenue is Windows. Azure is closer to 40%. Their focus has shifted hard from software to services. Azure is making them around $100B and growing. It'd be far more surprising if they were putting their focus back to Windows in a saturated market given all the incentives they have to chase bigger revenue elsewhere.
We chose Azure for our startup because of data location, and it was cheaper than the other two as well. Data center locations may not matter much in the US (because everyone has this covered well), but it does in other places of the world.
Can't reply to @shorel, but of course Azure is running Linux servers. It has nothing to do with being tied to a Windows ecosystem.
Your choice to go with Azure probably has more to do with where you're getting value for cloud services, and where you started your project - in other words, how tied you are to the Azure ecosystem, or the AWS ecosystem as the case may be.
