> I think someone should start a community online where AI isnt allowed.

In case you haven't followed the saga, the latest[1] digg.com relaunch failed because they couldn't deal with the bot onslaught [2]. Whoever finds a reliable way to keep AI out of an online community first is likely to become a very rich person.

[1] Second-to-last, actually, seeing as there seems to be a new homepage right now.

[2] https://www.techspot.com/news/111698-digg-relaunch-fails-two...

The amazing thing about AI is that you don’t even need AI superfans to shoehorn it into a conversation that doesn’t even touch on AI. Detractors will do it for them.

> a community online where AI isnt allowed.

This is something I think about a lot, especially how one could pull it off without tearing down anonymity online. Having some sort of "proof of humanity" is a hard problem to solve.

> I think someone should start a community online where AI isnt allowed.

That's lobsters I guess. AI posts got banned there after a 300+ comment discussion, probably the biggest ever on the site.

The exact rule the moderators settled on was "meaningful human authorship" but don't be fooled: a lot of people on lobsters are ideologically opposed to LLMs. Doesn't matter how "meaningfully" the technology was applied. My work was classified as slop simply because AI touched it. People referred to me as an exhibitionist and fetishist when I talked about using AI. Just a heads up for anyone who's thinking of joining.

Ironically, the top comment (this) is now about AI.

> a new syntax

How is the syntax new?

It looks like lispy - see the outer parens in the examples given.

It’s been a few months, but I built a tool by Janet lang to communicate with an LLM via HTTP. Of course, I probably had Claude Code write it for me. It turned out better than I expected.

I was really impressed by how small the executable file was. I’d only ever done web development with Node.js up until then.