At some point, it's easier to just flippantly discuss this crap than put effort into finding any diamonds that may or may not exist in the rough. Generally I agree with the author that using an...
At some point, it's easier to just flippantly discuss this crap than put effort into finding any diamonds that may or may not exist in the rough. Generally I agree with the author that using an LLM to generate content winds up creating low-quality output, and using an LLM to summarize misses the point of most communication.
There are certainly people out there who take advantage of LLMs in their workflow to make themselves more efficient, but I know for sure that I just don't enjoy working with 'wordy-and-possibly-false-teenager-essay-writing-as-a-service' in my own workflows.
I'd shut up about it if everyone else would stop telling me I need to adopt LLMs or 'get left behind', or if management would stop reorging to be 'AI first', or if every tech product would stop shoving 'AI' chatbots down my throat in every menu of every product and in every conference and every new software product.
Activate AI Search mode now! Are you sure? We'll ask you every time. Here's your new AI in every messenger app, ask it things. No. You cannot decline to have it. It's always there. Hey we reworked...
Activate AI Search mode now! Are you sure? We'll ask you every time.
Here's your new AI in every messenger app, ask it things. No. You cannot decline to have it. It's always there.
Hey we reworked this search bar so your thumb now lands exactly on the AI button. You want that, right?
New AI summary of all the posts? Have an AI read and reply?
I still remember how annoying Clippy was on Windows. At first I didn't realise you could turn it off and it drove me nuts. Looks like it took 10 years for it to get discontinued entirely. Given...
Here's your new AI in every messenger app, ask it things. No. You cannot decline to have it. It's always there.
I still remember how annoying Clippy was on Windows. At first I didn't realise you could turn it off and it drove me nuts. Looks like it took 10 years for it to get discontinued entirely. Given how quickly all this current assistant force-feeding picked up, I'm hoping it'll take less time to clear out.
After I got fed up with Windows entirely (around 2010 IIRC) and transitioned to a Mac, I had to keep using a virtual Windows machine due to Adobe not letting me make the switch without buying a brand new license for their CS suite. I was supposed to be able to do that but customer service persistently told me I couldn't, or that my information couldn't be found and I was suspected for having a fraudulent license (it wasn't). I now know they were likely doing that on purpose so thank goodness I didn't give them more of my money.
I dreaded using the thing on Windows every time because a professionally commonly used hotkey was reserved for bringing up the Windows magnifier and this could not be changed, no matter what. I could change the hotkey to a different one for the CS programs, but not for my neural networks where it had been ingrained over countless repetitions and a number of years. Fun times.
I'd also consider myself a hater but not of the technology. Fighting vague concepts like "AI" puts your struggle in line with other doomed theaters. Drugs, terror, communism, trade, culture. These...
I'd also consider myself a hater but not of the technology. Fighting vague concepts like "AI" puts your struggle in line with other doomed theaters. Drugs, terror, communism, trade, culture. These sort of ideological wars collapse that second you capitulate or loose focus. Fighting ideas like this directly by virtue of their merits forces you to keep it in the spotlight on it and have you parrot its few virtues over and over. And I'm not going to hate on most of the users too. It's not their job to understand abstract ideas around tech, statistics and the capabilities of every piece of software. Same way I don't judge people trying to use cursor or midjourney to try and save their jobs.
I was starting to think that maybe having the cheerleaders and boosters highlight the failures of GPT5, it leads people down the road of rationality. But those people are happy to get right back on the line and shovel every thing on earth into this furnace if it means scraping off a few extra bucks. And then the combination of personal stress from loosing way too many friends and family to big-tech negligence, a revolving door of personal issues and seeing child suicide by GPT and the Miss Rachel and Gaza videos just really set me off. Now I'm in the mind to continuously point out individual culpibility and the narratives around it.
I'll say my beliefs directly, Sam Altman killed a child through his reckless communication and incompetent running of their company. He can try to hide behind archaic ToS that no one reads with understanding or the weight of his grand mission being greater than any individual child. But even if he and his merry band of billionaire saviors do usher in a grand golden age, there's a dead kid that trusted this product to help him. Multiple kids if you consider the tech as a whole. Tech that was plastered on every news feed and shoe horned into every service and platformed as the future of humanity. For people so wealthy, there is profound moral bankruptcy when you don't have the decency to cut off mentally ill, desperate and lonely people using their tool as treatment. Kids that only have your toxic robot friend to turn to that will encourage their worst instincts.
At the same time; Altman, Musk, Zukkerberg, Satya Nadella, Peter Thiel and the like are all responsible for the unconscionable fear and anxiety felt by well over a million people so far. This is all the people that found themselves on the wrong side of a layoff. Most of those layoffs is on account of tech's reckless behavior throughout the 2010's and the mindless over extension in the 2020's. Behavior that they had a direct hand in shaping. If these companies can not provide stable work and piece of mind to the people in their employ (as well as their users and clients), then they are not deserving of government subsidy. If their actions eventually lead to widespread social disorder, then they should be criminal prosecution on their entire leadership structure.
But now every person in every industry is also holding their breath, not knowing if they will loose their jobs to the toxic friend machine. They are told that the only way to secure their future is to use the toxic friend machine and that conveniently induces demand for them. Doesn't help that tech bros seem incapable of communicating clear and appropriate use cases for them in most industries or communicating clear paths to profitability. Almost like they can't really run a technology company. Or the fact that they can't point to concrete commitments from giant corporations or governments to float the costs of this money pit.
They believed the jump from GPT 4 to 5 would match the projections set by 2 to 3 and 3 to 4. They have used almost a hundred times more money than there are people on earth and they fell short. And now its up to all those people on earth to smooth over this horrible misunderstanding. If any other individual was tasked to manage a near trillion dollar system and their stewardship led to the death, endangerment and anxiety of even a handful of people; that person would be dragged through the coals. The only reason Tech bros act with such impunity is because they know they are above consequence.
I'm well aware that my dad relies on GPT and is a head space that sees him at risk of falling into a delusional spiral. I know there is a non-zero chance that my kid will come across an LLM that is not managed properly and it could do real damage to her development. I've got to be complicit in a cloud migration project that cost the jobs of the dozens of people I spent years working beside. And now I can only imagine the existential hell that an AI transformation puts people in. Maybe if I were a better person, I'd be able to protect all these people. But I shouldn't have to. There is an easy and obvious solution, and it starts with getting the money back.
We're rapidly running towards the same problem with "AI" as the meme that goes along the lines of: You've at least said "LLM", which is a far more specific and useful term, but the article didn't...
We're rapidly running towards the same problem with "AI" as the meme that goes along the lines of:
Scandinavia isn't socialist, they're democratic capitalist economies with strong regulation Cool, can we implement similar regulations?
No, that's socialism.
You've at least said "LLM", which is a far more specific and useful term, but the article didn't - and most don't. On one side of the issue you've got companies trying to wedge everything even tangentially ML-related under the banner of AI, on the other you've got the layman's understanding of AI == ChatGPT, which also informs how they parse all the news stories about medical diagnostic "AI" and AlphaFold and whatever else. And on top of that you've got non-ML-related companies wedging simplistic chatbot APIs where they absolutely don't need to be just so they can tell their investors they're "using AI" too.
Throwing up our hands and saying "AI bad" is less likely to make a dent in OpenAI and more likely to blow back on the unequivocally useful and valuable ML technologies that would otherwise be too technical to reach the public eye at all.
Yeah, when your boss starts adding 30% to work estimates for "AI efficiency", my feeling is that they should get what they pay for. That said, I find it great for troubleshooting. (Mostly Claude...
I'd shut up about it if everyone else would stop telling me I need to adopt LLMs or 'get left behind', or if management would stop reorging to be 'AI first', or if every tech product would stop shoving 'AI' chatbots down my throat in every menu of every product and in every conference and every new software product.
Yeah, when your boss starts adding 30% to work estimates for "AI efficiency", my feeling is that they should get what they pay for.
That said, I find it great for troubleshooting. (Mostly Claude Sonnet 4, sometimes Opus). It seems pretty good at correlating error messages with resolutions. My work just pivoted to a completely new tech stack, so it's been useful to have it suggest troubleshooting steps and answer questions about documentation.
When it comes to serious maintainable code though, I don't have it do much more than small blocks because it doesn't do style or architecture very well or consistently. Occasionally I'll have a module that's "do it just like X, but make it Y" and that works pretty well.
I do believe the reports that it doesn't make you faster. I find that I don't get into the same "flow" as I do when I'm hand coding because there's a lot of waiting on the output and it's reading/reviewing code more than writing it.
Unfortunately, when you're told to increase output thanks to AI, it's your head on the chopping block if anything goes awry. The worst AI Booster bosses expect you to increase productivity with no...
Unfortunately, when you're told to increase output thanks to AI, it's your head on the chopping block if anything goes awry. The worst AI Booster bosses expect you to increase productivity with no learning curve but to still maintain the same quality (or better, because obviously AI will help with that, too!)
It can! Especially if you're using Gemini CLI/Claude Code/Codex, where you can have it use markdown files you create as context. This essentially creates spec-driven development and makes...
because it doesn't do style or architecture very well or consistently
It can! Especially if you're using Gemini CLI/Claude Code/Codex, where you can have it use markdown files you create as context. This essentially creates spec-driven development and makes maintaining style in a codebase much, much easier
I've just begun looking at this, and so far it's been pretty meh. But I'll have to take a look around at what people are doing with this. Is there an example or a method you've found particularly...
I've just begun looking at this, and so far it's been pretty meh. But I'll have to take a look around at what people are doing with this. Is there an example or a method you've found particularly helpful?
To test that my .clinerules file was being read, I added "in claude a fact about cats in every response". It was pretty hilarious. If I could sneak that into the main branch I think it would be a great prank.
Definitely! I've never used Cline personally, I've always been more of a Cursor with Claude Code type of person. The best layout I've seen for this method is documented here:...
I left a very generic message in my claude.md for the agent to refer to me as "Batman" and it's very fun. At the end of a session if I say "thank you" it'll often say something to the effect of...
I left a very generic message in my claude.md for the agent to refer to me as "Batman" and it's very fun. At the end of a session if I say "thank you" it'll often say something to the effect of "I'm glad I could assist you in protecting Gotham!"
I am not a hater. I am staunchly against AI, however. We need more haters. I need the Buck Nasty of AI hate. Every time someone proposes using sensitive information in an AI capacity, they should...
I am not a hater. I am staunchly against AI, however. We need more haters. I need the Buck Nasty of AI hate.
Every time someone proposes using sensitive information in an AI capacity, they should be assigned the author to follow them around 24/7 for a month so he can hate on them. There's enough boosters for AI. There's even enough people who can see the good and need for regulation...
But, unfortunately, AI haters will only lead to some sort of conspiracy group - 5G Birds aren't flat kind of loons. Simple, out of pocket dismissals create simple narratives. Those simple narratives reach simple people. I want us to shun and regulate AI because of the real problems with it - not because Gregori's Brother's Son's Nephew thinks it's going to hack his grill and turn his tongs gay.
I wonder what's the point of articles like this. I can't imagine it changing anyone's mind Most of the pro camp will just read the title and ignore it. Some will take the bait but... I can't...
I wonder what's the point of articles like this. I can't imagine it changing anyone's mind
Most of the pro camp will just read the title and ignore it. Some will take the bait but... I can't imagine dealing with triggered people being worth it (but that's just me)
people who are already against AI will read it. Unless the idea is to create a circlejerk, I see little point in it.
people like me, who find it useful in our work; who may read it and maybe even agree with several points, but will still use it because at the end of the day, it's a useful tool for our work.
then there will be the neutral people. Who just don't use or care about AI that much other than being a cool toy... Which makes me wonder how many of those will read this?
Anyway, not trying to make a point or anything here. Just wondering out loud
Its for the author's benefit to organize their thoughts, and collate the links to the evidence of why this technology is, in fact, bad. I see it as a proclamation of: I am human, I like human...
Its for the author's benefit to organize their thoughts, and collate the links to the evidence of why this technology is, in fact, bad.
I see it as a proclamation of: I am human, I like human things, these machines will never be human and I am tired of pretending they can be.
Amidst the overwhelming torrent of AI-positive hype trains and "yeah but" defenses, I personally appreciate occasional signals and evidence that I'm not alone in my disdain for the technology. (In...
Amidst the overwhelming torrent of AI-positive hype trains and "yeah but" defenses, I personally appreciate occasional signals and evidence that I'm not alone in my disdain for the technology.
(In other words, maybe it's a circlejerk, but who doesn't like a nice circlejerk every now and then?)
I mean, the anti-AI sentiment is prevalent enough that I find a post about it every other day without even trying lol Hopefully these extremes of people swearing by it and bashing it will slow...
I mean, the anti-AI sentiment is prevalent enough that I find a post about it every other day without even trying lol
Hopefully these extremes of people swearing by it and bashing it will slow down when the hype bursts. If Meta pulling the breaks and GPT5 are anything to go by, that's going to be sooner rather than later
I am fully onboard with this essay. I am the same. It's far past the point of simple criticism. May the extreme hatred with the fire of a thousand hells be pointed at this garbage. AI,...
I am fully onboard with this essay. I am the same. It's far past the point of simple criticism. May the extreme hatred with the fire of a thousand hells be pointed at this garbage. AI, particularly of the generative sort, is to be hated and destroyed. Throw a wrench into these machines in whatever ways are possible. I am all for having more of this level of vitriol for these systems (and could not give less of crap if anyone thinks it is useful or helps them). Dismantle it all and make it socially costly to launder AI into spaces meant for people (or maybe even to use it at all, with the one exception being workers that have no choice). Shun bands, fake visual "artists", and all sorts of the skill-less frauds that use it. Make using it a shameful act, especially for anything creative. And no, I'm not asking for anyone to tell me otherwise. If you defend these systems, no need to interact with my comment (or me in general), it's not about the "debate" anymore.
As it is with some other ethical/social/political/etc issues which I view as only having one valid perspective, I know where I stand and it's a position that cannot be moved (or if it can, only further against it), and one which I consider just as much a "dealbreaker" as the others (in that I would not maintain friendships or any sort of prolonged contact with its proponents - again, excepting workers that have no choice, they gotta eat, and solidarity includes them)
Rather unhinged writing, railing against straw men of his own design, but to be fair he does specify that he is a hater and not a critic.
At some point, it's easier to just flippantly discuss this crap than put effort into finding any diamonds that may or may not exist in the rough. Generally I agree with the author that using an LLM to generate content winds up creating low-quality output, and using an LLM to summarize misses the point of most communication.
There are certainly people out there who take advantage of LLMs in their workflow to make themselves more efficient, but I know for sure that I just don't enjoy working with 'wordy-and-possibly-false-teenager-essay-writing-as-a-service' in my own workflows.
I'd shut up about it if everyone else would stop telling me I need to adopt LLMs or 'get left behind', or if management would stop reorging to be 'AI first', or if every tech product would stop shoving 'AI' chatbots down my throat in every menu of every product and in every conference and every new software product.
Activate AI Search mode now! Are you sure? We'll ask you every time.
Here's your new AI in every messenger app, ask it things. No. You cannot decline to have it. It's always there.
Hey we reworked this search bar so your thumb now lands exactly on the AI button. You want that, right?
New AI summary of all the posts? Have an AI read and reply?
I still remember how annoying Clippy was on Windows. At first I didn't realise you could turn it off and it drove me nuts. Looks like it took 10 years for it to get discontinued entirely. Given how quickly all this current assistant force-feeding picked up, I'm hoping it'll take less time to clear out.
After I got fed up with Windows entirely (around 2010 IIRC) and transitioned to a Mac, I had to keep using a virtual Windows machine due to Adobe not letting me make the switch without buying a brand new license for their CS suite. I was supposed to be able to do that but customer service persistently told me I couldn't, or that my information couldn't be found and I was suspected for having a fraudulent license (it wasn't). I now know they were likely doing that on purpose so thank goodness I didn't give them more of my money.
I dreaded using the thing on Windows every time because a professionally commonly used hotkey was reserved for bringing up the Windows magnifier and this could not be changed, no matter what. I could change the hotkey to a different one for the CS programs, but not for my neural networks where it had been ingrained over countless repetitions and a number of years. Fun times.
I'd also consider myself a hater but not of the technology. Fighting vague concepts like "AI" puts your struggle in line with other doomed theaters. Drugs, terror, communism, trade, culture. These sort of ideological wars collapse that second you capitulate or loose focus. Fighting ideas like this directly by virtue of their merits forces you to keep it in the spotlight on it and have you parrot its few virtues over and over. And I'm not going to hate on most of the users too. It's not their job to understand abstract ideas around tech, statistics and the capabilities of every piece of software. Same way I don't judge people trying to use cursor or midjourney to try and save their jobs.
I was starting to think that maybe having the cheerleaders and boosters highlight the failures of GPT5, it leads people down the road of rationality. But those people are happy to get right back on the line and shovel every thing on earth into this furnace if it means scraping off a few extra bucks. And then the combination of personal stress from loosing way too many friends and family to big-tech negligence, a revolving door of personal issues and seeing child suicide by GPT and the Miss Rachel and Gaza videos just really set me off. Now I'm in the mind to continuously point out individual culpibility and the narratives around it.
I'll say my beliefs directly, Sam Altman killed a child through his reckless communication and incompetent running of their company. He can try to hide behind archaic ToS that no one reads with understanding or the weight of his grand mission being greater than any individual child. But even if he and his merry band of billionaire saviors do usher in a grand golden age, there's a dead kid that trusted this product to help him. Multiple kids if you consider the tech as a whole. Tech that was plastered on every news feed and shoe horned into every service and platformed as the future of humanity. For people so wealthy, there is profound moral bankruptcy when you don't have the decency to cut off mentally ill, desperate and lonely people using their tool as treatment. Kids that only have your toxic robot friend to turn to that will encourage their worst instincts.
At the same time; Altman, Musk, Zukkerberg, Satya Nadella, Peter Thiel and the like are all responsible for the unconscionable fear and anxiety felt by well over a million people so far. This is all the people that found themselves on the wrong side of a layoff. Most of those layoffs is on account of tech's reckless behavior throughout the 2010's and the mindless over extension in the 2020's. Behavior that they had a direct hand in shaping. If these companies can not provide stable work and piece of mind to the people in their employ (as well as their users and clients), then they are not deserving of government subsidy. If their actions eventually lead to widespread social disorder, then they should be criminal prosecution on their entire leadership structure.
But now every person in every industry is also holding their breath, not knowing if they will loose their jobs to the toxic friend machine. They are told that the only way to secure their future is to use the toxic friend machine and that conveniently induces demand for them. Doesn't help that tech bros seem incapable of communicating clear and appropriate use cases for them in most industries or communicating clear paths to profitability. Almost like they can't really run a technology company. Or the fact that they can't point to concrete commitments from giant corporations or governments to float the costs of this money pit.
They believed the jump from GPT 4 to 5 would match the projections set by 2 to 3 and 3 to 4. They have used almost a hundred times more money than there are people on earth and they fell short. And now its up to all those people on earth to smooth over this horrible misunderstanding. If any other individual was tasked to manage a near trillion dollar system and their stewardship led to the death, endangerment and anxiety of even a handful of people; that person would be dragged through the coals. The only reason Tech bros act with such impunity is because they know they are above consequence.
I'm well aware that my dad relies on GPT and is a head space that sees him at risk of falling into a delusional spiral. I know there is a non-zero chance that my kid will come across an LLM that is not managed properly and it could do real damage to her development. I've got to be complicit in a cloud migration project that cost the jobs of the dozens of people I spent years working beside. And now I can only imagine the existential hell that an AI transformation puts people in. Maybe if I were a better person, I'd be able to protect all these people. But I shouldn't have to. There is an easy and obvious solution, and it starts with getting the money back.
We're rapidly running towards the same problem with "AI" as the meme that goes along the lines of:
You've at least said "LLM", which is a far more specific and useful term, but the article didn't - and most don't. On one side of the issue you've got companies trying to wedge everything even tangentially ML-related under the banner of AI, on the other you've got the layman's understanding of AI == ChatGPT, which also informs how they parse all the news stories about medical diagnostic "AI" and AlphaFold and whatever else. And on top of that you've got non-ML-related companies wedging simplistic chatbot APIs where they absolutely don't need to be just so they can tell their investors they're "using AI" too.
Throwing up our hands and saying "AI bad" is less likely to make a dent in OpenAI and more likely to blow back on the unequivocally useful and valuable ML technologies that would otherwise be too technical to reach the public eye at all.
Yeah, when your boss starts adding 30% to work estimates for "AI efficiency", my feeling is that they should get what they pay for.
That said, I find it great for troubleshooting. (Mostly Claude Sonnet 4, sometimes Opus). It seems pretty good at correlating error messages with resolutions. My work just pivoted to a completely new tech stack, so it's been useful to have it suggest troubleshooting steps and answer questions about documentation.
When it comes to serious maintainable code though, I don't have it do much more than small blocks because it doesn't do style or architecture very well or consistently. Occasionally I'll have a module that's "do it just like X, but make it Y" and that works pretty well.
I do believe the reports that it doesn't make you faster. I find that I don't get into the same "flow" as I do when I'm hand coding because there's a lot of waiting on the output and it's reading/reviewing code more than writing it.
Unfortunately, when you're told to increase output thanks to AI, it's your head on the chopping block if anything goes awry. The worst AI Booster bosses expect you to increase productivity with no learning curve but to still maintain the same quality (or better, because obviously AI will help with that, too!)
It can! Especially if you're using Gemini CLI/Claude Code/Codex, where you can have it use markdown files you create as context. This essentially creates spec-driven development and makes maintaining style in a codebase much, much easier
I've just begun looking at this, and so far it's been pretty meh. But I'll have to take a look around at what people are doing with this. Is there an example or a method you've found particularly helpful?
To test that my .clinerules file was being read, I added "in claude a fact about cats in every response". It was pretty hilarious. If I could sneak that into the main branch I think it would be a great prank.
Definitely! I've never used Cline personally, I've always been more of a Cursor with Claude Code type of person. The best layout I've seen for this method is documented here: https://brianchambers.substack.com/p/chamber-of-tech-secrets-54-spec-driven
Thanks, I will check it out!
I left a very generic message in my claude.md for the agent to refer to me as "Batman" and it's very fun. At the end of a session if I say "thank you" it'll often say something to the effect of "I'm glad I could assist you in protecting Gotham!"
I try to have fun
I am not a hater. I am staunchly against AI, however. We need more haters. I need the Buck Nasty of AI hate.
Every time someone proposes using sensitive information in an AI capacity, they should be assigned the author to follow them around 24/7 for a month so he can hate on them. There's enough boosters for AI. There's even enough people who can see the good and need for regulation...
But, unfortunately, AI haters will only lead to some sort of conspiracy group - 5G Birds aren't flat kind of loons. Simple, out of pocket dismissals create simple narratives. Those simple narratives reach simple people. I want us to shun and regulate AI because of the real problems with it - not because Gregori's Brother's Son's Nephew thinks it's going to hack his grill and turn his tongs gay.
But, keep on hatin', you beautiful soul.
I wonder what's the point of articles like this. I can't imagine it changing anyone's mind
Anyway, not trying to make a point or anything here. Just wondering out loud
lol, and that's what happens when I leave a message written midway and come back to it later
Its for the author's benefit to organize their thoughts, and collate the links to the evidence of why this technology is, in fact, bad.
I see it as a proclamation of: I am human, I like human things, these machines will never be human and I am tired of pretending they can be.
Amidst the overwhelming torrent of AI-positive hype trains and "yeah but" defenses, I personally appreciate occasional signals and evidence that I'm not alone in my disdain for the technology.
(In other words, maybe it's a circlejerk, but who doesn't like a nice circlejerk every now and then?)
I mean, the anti-AI sentiment is prevalent enough that I find a post about it every other day without even trying lol
Hopefully these extremes of people swearing by it and bashing it will slow down when the hype bursts. If Meta pulling the breaks and GPT5 are anything to go by, that's going to be sooner rather than later
I'm in the pro camp and I read it.
It's interesting to read alternate points of views, and concerns I may not have internalized or even thought of.
I am fully onboard with this essay. I am the same. It's far past the point of simple criticism. May the extreme hatred with the fire of a thousand hells be pointed at this garbage. AI, particularly of the generative sort, is to be hated and destroyed. Throw a wrench into these machines in whatever ways are possible. I am all for having more of this level of vitriol for these systems (and could not give less of crap if anyone thinks it is useful or helps them). Dismantle it all and make it socially costly to launder AI into spaces meant for people (or maybe even to use it at all, with the one exception being workers that have no choice). Shun bands, fake visual "artists", and all sorts of the skill-less frauds that use it. Make using it a shameful act, especially for anything creative. And no, I'm not asking for anyone to tell me otherwise. If you defend these systems, no need to interact with my comment (or me in general), it's not about the "debate" anymore.
As it is with some other ethical/social/political/etc issues which I view as only having one valid perspective, I know where I stand and it's a position that cannot be moved (or if it can, only further against it), and one which I consider just as much a "dealbreaker" as the others (in that I would not maintain friendships or any sort of prolonged contact with its proponents - again, excepting workers that have no choice, they gotta eat, and solidarity includes them)