I personally have no insight into what they have or haven't dismantled. Just found the article interesting (had never heard of the company). Was responding to the "They seized the wrong domain" claim in the tweet you quoted. I read that and thought they disabled an unrelated domain, which doesn't appear to be the case. As for the main domain, no idea about that. Someone brought that up to the author of the piece, and the bit I quoted was his response. I have no more info beyond that.
Google shows netnut.com[1] being the same thing, so not sure it's the wrong domain. Maybe not the main one. Brian Krebs' comment on this[2]:
> Pretty sure they're working on getting that domain too, but it's taking longer for some reason. Either way, they have dismantled the botnet's back end infrastructure, so for now it's not doing much.
This article, as with many like it, ignores the fact that trust in "traditional media" is at an all time low globally. That's not because people enjoy fake news on social media, it's because traditional media has failed them. There are many studies that look at bias in traditional media. But journalists within that system completely ignore that aspect (it's harder to deal with), and simply assume they just need to embrace videos or new formats.
> I think many people in tech have existed in a high-demand labor market for so long that they have no idea how much less other job markets reward people for their intelligence, work ethic, knowledge, education, etc.
Absolutely! It's fascinating that when I discuss the job issue, and how undemocratic and soul-crushing it is for many people, there's this huge chasm between what most workers experience in their jobs, and that small, vocal group of highly paid, in-demand workers, who enjoy a lot of freedom and who've never experienced the other side.
> From the very inception of these LLM coding tools, some people predicted this would destroy the dev job market, and others said ‘maybe it will replace other software developers but there’s no way it could replace me,’ seemingly assuming their role would remain largely unchanged, regardless of how the field changed.
It's fascinating to watch, and it prickles people's egos. If the thing I spent a lot of time learning to do well, and which gave me status and a high salary, can be done easily by a machine, does that mean I'm not special? I saw this tweet from a very experienced developer, Dax Raad, that captures a part of it well I think[1]:
> i used to say programming was creative work
> except LLMs are fine at programming and are literal 0s for more obviously creative work
> i think we mistook enumerating a lot of possibilities and picking one for being creative
> The fundamental flaw in all these style arguments against core employment is people's personal desire to have a straight forward path for survival that doesn't involve a lot of strategic thought.
One of the most popular alternatives proposed is Universal Basic Income, where you just get a sum of money periodically. That's more straight forward for survival than holding down a job, and worrying about layoffs.
I'm not in the camp that believes AI is actually going to reach human intelligence. So yes, AI is simply dumb. But many people overlook the fact that many of our jobs today require exactly that level of dumbness. So saying AI is dumb doesn't say much about whether it can replace a lot of jobs or not.
My post focused more on trying to question why we value jobs so much, beyond the paychecks they offer. I didn't get into alternatives, but Universal Basic Income (UBI) is what you'll see discussed most often as an alternative. I'm certainly not arguing for taking away people's paychecks and then letting them fend for themselves with nothing to replace it.
On your first point, I agree with you that it's a deeply held belief. But that doesn't make it reasonable. That's why I think it's worth the effort trying to question it, especially at a time when there's so much discussion and fear around job loss.
Regarding UBI, I've also read a lot of different opinions on it, and all the ways it can be implemented to do more harm than good. My own view is that the only reason we even see it proposed from the very wealthy is that they're looking ahead at the direction all this is heading and see it as inevitable (to stave off riots and mass protests that could affect their wealth more than UBI would), so they want their version of UBI to be the one that wins out. That doesn't make UBI as a concept a bad idea, it just means it's going to be a struggle to get a version of it that actually lets us live a decent life. But to even get to that point in the discussion, we have to win more people over to the idea that not having a job isn't such a bad thing, and doesn't say anything about your worth as a human being.
> There is no future in which they willingly submit to the kind of redistribution that would be required to finance a society where work is optional.
Do they ever willingly submit to anything that results in less money for them? Too early to know if AI will actually reduce the need for jobs, but if it does, are they going to be forced to create positions for roles they don't need, so that there are no job losses? And what will people do in those roles?
I agree, but I think it's a shame that this purpose to life is tied to jobs. It's understandable, because pretty much everyone's path in life is schooling, then a job. So the job becomes our purpose and identity. Job loss can then create a void that people don't know how to fill, because it's all they've had.
Believe it or not, many people genuinely don't see an alternative to having a job. So when AI threatens jobs, rather than call for measures to ensure people can live without jobs, they call for jobs to be protected.
I understand that, and that's what I was trying to get at with the post. That an AI future which can take away jobs, doesn't have to be a bad one if the paycheck is replaced with something else. The Rutger Bergman piece I linked to argues for Universal Basic Income. Many people assume jobs are the only way.
Definition of conflict of interest: a conflict between the private interests and the official responsibilities of a person in a position of trust.
Army generals are in a position of trust, we assume they're acting in the public interest. Whether that's for more spending, more war, or less.
Here's an ex general's view on war and military spending:
> Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed. - Eisenhower
The point is, there's clearly a problem if the public are getting opinions on this stuff from people who now have undisclosed private interests.
Shouldn't the public know that the former army general telling them that military spending needs to increase, now has the following roles?
> Paid positions included working part-time as a strategic advisor for Schroders bank, plus advisory roles at Helsing – a German AI defence start-up – and an insurance firm. ...spends 30 days per year “as a thought partner for Tony Blair in his role as Executive Chairman” at the Tony Blair Institute for Global Change. ...is chairman of Equilibrium Gulf Limited, which advises the crown prince of Bahrain on the autocratic country’s notoriously brutal interior ministry.”
As the person suggesting that the Guardian is somehow an exception in the UK media, I think the onus should be on you to prove it. I merely pointed out that the report did not say any such thing, and gave you an example from the Guardian showing them doing exactly the same thing.
I'll give you more examples, but here's a challenge for you: Can you find examples of the named people in the Guardian where their arms industry links are clearly disclosed?
Nick Houghton
From the report:
> In an article in the Daily Mail dated 2 April 2024, Baron Houghton backed the Mail’s campaign to increase defence spending. There was no mention made of his various vested interests.
The Guardian, also with no mention of his vested interests[1]:
- "Ukraine is being asked to fight a proxy war against Russia on behalf of Nato without being given the means to win it, Nick Houghton, a former head of the armed forces, told the Lords today."
- "Houghton also called for higher spending on defence."
Nick Carter
From the report:
> "Sir Nick has been quoted across various publications re-increasing defence spending, with only reference to his military status.”
The Guardian[2]:
- "The promises to bolster the defence of the Arctic came as British former head of the armed forces General Sir Nick Carter called for greater European cooperation to deter Russia and support Ukraine."
I'm sorry, that's a real stretch. It's apparent to anyone reading what his comment implies.
And this is far from an isolated case, if you think the Guardian is an exception. We're all technical here, easy to use Google search and look up the names in the report and see how often the Guardian and the other "better" papers disclose the arms industry links. (Oh and the political party he's affiliated to isn't what's under discussion here.)
The report doesn't say the media mentioned is an exhaustive list of the media that failed to disclose ties to the arms industry, which is what you're assuming.
You mention the Guardian. I took one of the names listed in the report, Richard Barrons, and quickly found an article in the Guardian where he's quoted but his ties to the arms industry are not disclosed: https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/mar/20/britain-def...