this post was submitted on 26 Oct 2025
168 points (100.0% liked)

Hacker News

2904 readers
262 users here now

Posts from the RSS Feed of HackerNews.

The feed sometimes contains ads and posts that have been removed by the mod team at HN.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] No1@aussie.zone 1 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (3 children)

It sounds antithetical to the idea of the internet itself. But do we need a walled garden that is people only and keeps AI out? The internot?

(Please AI, don't kill me. This is just a random thought for consideration and discussion.)

[–] lvxferre@mander.xyz 4 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago) (2 children)

"Don't kill me"? You will not be spared! /jk

Serious now: IMO the wall we need isn't against AI itself but against corporations. Once you take commercialisation out of the equation, generative models stop being a big negative to become either a non-issue or a small positive.

[–] No1@aussie.zone 3 points 5 days ago (1 children)

It's funny you mentioned that, because I was thinking the exact same thing; could you make a network of, eg, .net/.org (non commercial) sites?

But I suspect allowing AI would allow pollution from commercial to non-commercial.

[–] lvxferre@mander.xyz 2 points 4 days ago

But I suspect allowing AI would allow pollution from commercial to non-commercial.

That's possible. Thinking on it, maybe you're right and we need walls against both. Even then I think the main issue is commerce, not AI itself.

could you make a network of, eg, .net/.org (non commercial) sites?

My take would be a federation of simple web pages, using a new markup format (more complex than gemtext, but still way simpler than HTML+CSS), and where people were collectively able to kick hostile entities out. I'm not sure on how to do it, though, specially in a way that wouldn't be weak against Sybil attacks.