Mike Sperber

I keep looking for a good argument that we should "engage with AI" despite its horrific externalities. It would sure make my life a lot easier. But if this is the best side of that argument, count me out.

As to Fowler's *so useful*, lots of things are *useful*, and @tante@tldr.nettime.org has dealt with that aspect of AI. Let me connect this with Majors's posting: If we follow her argument that we all need to "engage with AI", we all should "engage" with lots of useful things. Yet, as a society we've chosen to "engage" with many things only in highly controlled environments, or not at all. Think of nuclear power and life sciences. https://tante.cc/2026/07/15/useful-is-not-sufficient/

Majors's article is such a hot mess of non sequiturs that it's difficult to even know where to begin. I'll just highlight one major point. As an example for "AI is just technology", she cites, of all things, *Facebook for Myanmar*: That we "discover the risks before we know how to govern them". (Really! Look it up!) After reading this a dozen times, the only conclusion I can draw from this, is that Majors actually believes that Facebook is "just technology", that somehow its fueling a genocide was a necessary step (towards what?) and that we (or somebody) has learned how to regulate Facebook this will not happen again. Like. Seriously? https://systemicjustice.org/article/facebook-and-genocide-how-facebook-contributed-to-genocide-in-myanmar-and-why-it-will-not-be-held-accountable/

For reference, here are these two articles: https://charity.wtf/p/make-ai-boring-again https://martinfowler.com/fragments/2026-07-06.html

In particular, writing code with care is a process that helps the writer understand something: About the domain, an ingenious algorithmic idea, and, most importantly, about the humans that inhabit it, and - sometimes - even something fundamental about ourselves, our understanding of the world and the folks around us, and about our own minds. When that happens, it can bring great joy, and the spark inherent in such code can jump over to the reader: Good code can convey this understanding and joy, the idea as it formed in the writer's head, the click when everything fit together just so. (I still remember Andy Hertzfeld's "famous print routine" on the Apple II from the early 80s, and still feel a connection to the man even though I never met him.) Code written collaboratively can bring all of these joys and insights to the next level.

Thinking of code in this way sometimes makes me think of Peter Brook's great, great book on the theatre, "The Empty Space". (I apologize for the analogy if it makes no sene to you - I do theatre sometimes, so it's on my mind.) Brook distinguishes between the Deadly, the Holy, the Rough, and the Immediate Theatre. In the Deadly theatre, the shape is right - everything is objectively done by coping previous, established productions, but it is lifeless and uninspired. The Holy theatre makes "the invisible visible", and imparts deeper spiritual truths to the audience. It's immediately recognizable if you've been so lucky as to be in its presence. The Rough theatre is popular theatre, less focussed on style but to make "joy and laughter" as it organically transforms characters and plot into stagecraft. The Immediate theatre is about the live, direct relationship between the actors and the audience, leaving room for improvisation and variation. I'll leave you to apply these concepts to code you've seen.

So I don't think the answer to the ongoing crisis in software development is to make the code disposable and unimportant. Let's not deal with Deadly code through automating its creation. Instead, let's intensify our strife to make it meaningful to us humans - to treat it with care.

@plexus BOB

The main point I want to make is that code is not just that one, disposable thing, but can be Deadly, Holy, Rough, and Immediate - in arbitrary combinations, and sometimes all at once. We should not see code as a mere artifact in the production of functionality, but as a social medium through which can can collaborate, communicate, form understanding, and enjoy each other and what we've created.

@dotstdy@mastodon.social @wingo@mastodon.social More like Lisp-syntax appreciation day.

@dpk As a matter of fact, I do. Happy to talk.

@Taneb@hacksrus.xyz Glad to hear it!