Chameth.com - posts like modern-css-is-fun, the-ethics-of-llms, why-you-should-be-using-https

Building a family of single-user services

2026-08-27T00:00:00Z

Last month I made and wrote about a personal service to track my workouts and record personal bests. Since then, things have escalated. I now have eight different services running in the same “family”:

Name	Purpose
Collegiate Room	Simple weather overview for my current location
German Mall	LLM broker for use by other services
Gloss White	Weight tracking
Olive Crosses	Central service hub
Pompei Band	Workout and personal best tracking
Speed Carp	Spaced repetition system
Tiger Island	Reading history and library tracking
Typical Horse	Location history and analytics

The names are all anagrams of something related to their function. Finding those anagrams brings me an unreasonable amount of joy. Unscrambling them is an exercise left to the reader. On top of those eight, I currently have four other service ideas sat in my todo list. It’s going to be a big family.

A postmortem on the previous hodge-podge

Most of this functionality isn’t new to me. When I started out playing around with LLMs, I created a “personal data aggregator” that just kept getting things bolted on. I said at the time:

My biggest just-for-me project is a web app that I started to help me aggregate film recommendations. It’s since morphed into a general personal data aggregation service: it deals with data from GitHub, Todoist, Letterboxd, TMDB, Healthkit, and others. It also lets me make re-orderable lists, store recipes, and more. Parts of this could definitely be open sourced, and I might carve them out at some point, but it’s mostly a glorious hodge-podge of things specific to me. Having all these services in one place lets me make quick and dirty automations, for example: when I create a Todoist note on my phone or watch, I often forget to set the due date, so it doesn’t show up in the “Today” view. It was literally a few lines of code to plumb things together so any inbox task without a due date gets set to today automatically.

In a twist that nobody could see coming, it turns out that a “glorious hodge-podge” is actually quite hard to maintain and very annoying to work with. It didn’t help that it had a fairly extensive Svelte frontend and I really am not a fan of JavaScript. I ended up using it less and less just because it wasn’t fun to use or work on, and I didn’t want to waste the limited LLM tokens on doing massive refactors or reworks.

I’ve got almost two decades of professional software development experience under my belt, so you’d think I would have learnt the lessons on how to write maintainable software. Hell, my CV even mentions that as something I’m particularly good at. So what went wrong?

There were a few factors. One of the obvious things to blame is that it was written mostly with LLMs. Most of that blame isn’t very honest, though. In the year or so since, LLMs have definitely got better at writing good code; but I was manually reviewing all the code at the time, and telling it quite carefully what to implement and how to do it. So the buck really stops with me.

I think it’s actually more because it was my first larger project using LLMs. It’s a bit like learning a new programming language. I don’t think the first sizable project I’ve written in any language has ever been any good. You can read and learn as much as you want, but you need to actually run into some problems headfirst to get a grip on how the language works. Or at least I do. LLM coding agents are basically the same deal.

What the LLMs actually did was mask several problems. The architecture wasn’t right for how the service developed. It started out as a single-purpose app and gradually got things bolted on, without any major changes. Everything ended up in horizontal slices: a massive database layer with every query used by every part of the app, a massive HTTP layer, and so on. Working on a single feature became a tap dance all over the source tree. This sort of friction is normally quite apparent when you’re writing code by hand, and at some point it hurts enough that you throw in the towel and do some refactoring. But the LLM will happily plod on without exposing that pain, so the project needed a more active kind of architecture management that it just didn’t get.

The other problem they covered up was how brittle and unmaintainable the JavaScript frontend was. I’m not even sure how I ended up with a Svelte frontend in hindsight. It’s my preferred framework, but I still only reach for it as a last resort when there’s no other way to avoid using one. It seems like there were lots of ways to avoid it here, but I seem to have… well… avoided them. Anyway, each feature got its own slew of Svelte components, without much thought to reusability, shared patterns, or anything sensible. Some of them were just thin wrappers around data supplied by Go, others had vast swathes of logic in them, with no real rhyme or reason as to which way that would fall. It’s the same issue as before: a human would look at it, say “WTF?” and suggest tidying it up; instead, the LLM just gets on with what you tell it to do.

There’s also a big non-LLM factor: one of the primary reasons all of this unrelated functionality got tossed into the same app was that I’d previously worked on a few projects with a microservice architecture and really didn’t like it. My conclusion was they only really worked in large environments where you can dedicate people or teams to working on all the boilerplate that happens from maintaining lots of interconnected projects. Dumping everything and the kitchen sink into one badly architected monolith was, perhaps, not the best rebound from that.

Pompei Band and beyond

When I wanted to implement ~~Strava at home~~ my PB tracking app, it seemed fairly natural to build it out as a new service, rather than bolt it on to the slowly decomposing hodge-podge that was giving off a funny smell. Then when I wanted a weather dashboard, why not do it in the same style as Pompei Band? The same serving architecture, the same page layout… I could even come up with a similar weird two-word name!

Then wouldn’t it be nice if the weather dashboard knew where I was, so it could show the local weather? I could just build that functionality in, but it’d also be a good opportunity to carve out the location history feature from my old service and make a new, shinier one. Then basically every time I even thought about going near the old service, I mentally sketched out a replacement service.

Olive Crosses showing links to the other services

At one point I had the thought that it’d be nice if the services could all link to one another, but I didn’t want to have to touch every service whenever I added a new one. So I made a “hub” service, which maintains the One True Catalogue, and provides a bit of JavaScript the others can all embed to add a navigation sidebar.

So after complaining about microservices and JavaScript, it sounds like I have landed on microservices (or at least miniservices) and JavaScript? Sort of yes, but sort of no. Each service is still its own thing and makes sense independent of the others. There are some cross-service dependencies, but they’re very simple and don’t have the same cognitive or boilerplate overhead as a login service that talks to an authentication service that queries a user manager and so on. And as for the JavaScript, it’s almost exclusively used for progressive enhancement and a few limited client-side visual things like maps and graphs. All of the logic lives in Go, which is a lot easier to maintain and test, and all of the pages are simple Go templates.

Having these services built in a way that I actually like has motivated me to play around a lot more with new features:

My workout tracking app pulls photos from my private Immich server that were taken during workouts, and shows them alongside. Now I can see all my obligatory end-of-run selfies in one place.
The location history app can detect trips away from home, and get an LLM to automatically title them. My most recent, very exotic, trip has the title “A fortnight in Milton Keynes and Coventry”. Each trip gets its own little map, and in the future I want to pull in images like with workouts.
My weight tracking app now exports weigh-ins to Garmin, as it doesn’t fully integrate with Apple Health (it will export its own weights, but not import others, like the ones from my Withings scales). Stupid walled gardens, but thankfully I can fix it myself.
My book tracking app automatically cleans up the titles of books from the nonsense provided by Amazon to something more palatable. “Killing Eve: Long Shot: A twist on obsession, betrayal and revenge from Luke Jennings, author of the TV sensation Killing Eve” becomes “Long Shot (Killing Eve #5)”. It does this by passing the title to an LLM with a bunch of rules.
The hub generates me a snippet of Tailscale configuration that defines the minimal grants needed to allow the intra-service dependencies to work.

The LLM integrations were inspired by my friend Shane who recently demonstrated an inventory tracking app he’d made, which used Haiku to process images of boxes and describe the contents. I’ve dabbled with LLM integration before, and always disliked the process of fiddling with the prompts, and debugging when the LLM gave a nonsensical response. So I built German Mall, which makes it a lot easier. It lets me define a “workflow” consisting of a system prompt, initial message, and expected response format. I can browse past runs, tweak the prompt, rerun them to see the change, all without touching the services using them. Quick iteration loops are the best. German Mall also provides markdown documentation for each workflow, so integrating it downstream is simply a case of pointing a coding agent at the right documentation endpoint.

The “tidy book titles” workflow in German Mall

It’s not all fun and games: having a bunch of services all following the same pattern means you need to do cross-cutting maintenance on them now and then. But that’s surprisingly easy with LLMs. I put all the projects in a common folder, and I launch cross-cutting tasks from that folder. Usually I’ll make the change in one project, and then the cross-cutting task is simply “Look at commit XYZ in ./foo, make the same change to the other projects”.

I’ve also ended up with a shared library used by all the projects to cut down on some boilerplate. That’s normally something I’d resist, especially with personal projects, just because the extra overhead of working in a separate project, managing releases of it, and so on, is a bit annoying. But, again, LLMs can do almost all of that grunt work. They effectively reduce the “cost” of maintaining separate services to a negligible level, leaving me to focus on the more fun aspects like coming up with new names.

Monthly Meanderings: March 2026

2026-04-01T00:00:00Z

Since last month’s update I’ve been unpleasantly reminded that I’m middle aged, through the medium of a dodgy knee. There’s nothing quite like not being able to stand up without groaning to underscore that you’re not young any more. The ongoing game of “will this seemingly mundane activity make my knee go funny again?” is a delight to play, too. I’m great at it.

Website updates

Two new blog posts this month: the longest way to represent a date is a short thought experiment on absurd date formats, and modern CSS is fun goes through some neat new CSS features I’ve used recently for this site.

I did some design tweaks this month: headers now have a blue background behind them¹, and a lot of components have been redesigned to have a consistent style. You can see that component in action in the new “now playing” widget I’ve added:

Lil Nas X — Old Town Road (remix) 7 Scrobbled 16m ago

Instead of each component defining its own styles (which were mostly copied and pasted), there’s now a single class that handles the drop shadow, border, background colour, and the optional title. It also applies a consistent format to elements that are clickable: they use the blue accent colour for their borders, and have a glow effect shown on hover.

The now playing widget is part of a larger bit of work I did on importing some music stats. I’m pulling in the data from my Navidrome instance. A new music page shows my most listened albums and artists. Navidrome doesn’t store a complete play history, just the last play and the count, so I can’t do “what I listened to last month” stats until next month.

Other projects

Other than a minor bug-fix update to contempt, my Dockerfile templating/updating tool, I’ve not done much on my other open source projects. I’ve got a bit more work to do finish migrating all my repositories from GitHub to my private Forgejo instance. I’ve also been thinking about mirroring my public repositories to Codeberg so there’s a non-GitHub way to access them.

Entertainment

I apparently only watched a single film in March:

The Substance

2026-03-18

I really didn’t get on with this. It’s too long for what it is, and over-the-top in a way that just didn’t work for me.

Demi Moore and Margaret Qualley were great, but nothing else really was. The cinematography and sound design were too affected, the plot was pretty shallow and obvious, most of the body horror fell into the uncanny CGI valley for me.

It’s not completely without merit: there were around 40 minutes in the middle where I was really into it, but that’s not really enough given it’s closing in on a 2.5 hour runtime.

There’s something to be said for the message it’s presenting about women in Hollywood, too, but it was very heavy handed. Dennis Quaid’s character is even called Harvey; it’s not so much a subtle nod as a sledgehammer to the face.

Instead of films, I’ve been watching a bunch of TV. After devouring The Pitt last month, I struggled to find something to fill the hole it left. I settled on catching up on Chicago Fire and Chicago P.D.. They’re both mostly about getting things done without personal drama becoming the primary focus. They’re not quite as grounded as The Pitt, but at least they’ve not completely gone off the deep end like 9-1-1 where the first responders end up in space somehow?

I’ve also watched the first two episodes of SNL UK. I didn’t have very high expectations, and it gave me a pleasant surprise. Both episodes so far have some hilarious sketches, and are obviously written by British comics with the typical darker, more sardonic humour that separates us from the USA.

Last but not least, board games! I spent a weekend at a tabletop/LAN event with friends, so got to physically play some games for a change. I also kept up with some turn-based games on Board Game Arena, as usual.

6 plays
4 plays
4 plays
4 plays
3 plays
3 plays
3 plays
2 plays
2 plays
2 plays
2 plays
2 plays
1 play

Around the web

Warranty Void if Regenerated

Some really cool speculative fiction about a future where all software is written by LLMs, and the social effects that may have. Unfortunately the story itself is written with an LLM, and that becomes painfully obvious about a third of the way in. By that point I was already hooked, though.

My 2-step process for AI-free blogging

Speaking of LLM-generated text, this short piece by Manuel Moreale made me laugh. I’m by no means anti-LLM, but I really hate people publishing the output like it’s their own work. It breaks the social assumption that the writer put more effort in than the reader, and makes me wonder how much is hallucinated.

25 Years of Eggs

An interesting applied use of coding agents. I’m a sucker for personal statistics. I have no explicit desire to keep my receipts, or generate graphs of my egg consumption, but seeing the graphs makes me question that. The journey to get there is a great read, too.

I made a one-page notebook

The clever paper folding is interesting, but I really like some of the small touches on the page. There’s a nice little “in reply to” callout providing context at the top of the page, you can click to rotate the image further down, and there’s a details element containing a textual version of it. It has that great ‘small web’ vibe of someone who really cares about what they’re doing.

Workers who love ‘synergizing paradigms’ might be bad at their jobs

I haven’t read the full paper, but the summary given by the article is equal parts interesting and amusing. They developed a “Corporate Bullshit Receptivity Scale”, what more is there to say?

It’s meant to resemble painter’s tape, but I’m not sure quite how well it works. ↩︎

Modern CSS is fun

2026-03-17T00:00:00Z

I’ve been doing a bunch of CSS tweaking recently, and keep being surprised by how nice modern CSS is to work with. As someone grey-haired enough to remember writing HTML without CSS, it’s amazing to think how far along web technology has come¹. I wanted to demonstrate some of the handy bits and pieces I’ve used recently.

:has

The :has selector allows you to effectively query for child elements. While a span will match a <span> within an <a>, a:has(span) will match an <a> that contains a <span>. This really shines when combined with more complex selectors, for example:

input {
    border-radius: var(--border-radius);

    &:has(+ .results:not(:empty)) {
        border-bottom-left-radius: 0;
        border-bottom-right-radius: 0;
    }
}

This is part of the styling for my film search box. When the search box is presented initially it has fully rounded corners. But when it is followed by a non-empty results element, it removes the rounding on the bottom corners so that the border continues in a straight line down into the results. You can see it in action below; just enter a few characters (like “the”) to get some results:

You could achieve the same effect by having JavaScript add a class to the <input> element, but I’ll take a CSS solution over a JavaScript solution any day.

Nested rules

You probably spotted this in the example above. It’s what finally made me switch from SCSS to plain CSS. If you have a rule for .foo and a rule for .foo .bar you can just nest them. Not only does it save repeating yourself an awful lot, it keeps everything organised nicely. For example, the CSS for my film list embeds looks like this:

a.film-list {
    display: grid;
    grid-template-areas: "header images" "description images" "meta images";
    grid-template-columns: 1fr auto;
    grid-template-rows: auto 1fr auto;
    row-gap: var(--small-space);

    @media (width <= 800px) {
        grid-template-areas: "header" "description" "images" "meta";
        grid-template-columns: 1fr;
        grid-template-rows: auto auto auto auto;
    }

    & + & {
        margin-top: var(--medium-space);
    }

    h3 {
        font-size: var(--font-size-xxlarge);
    }

    .description {
        /* ... */
    }
}

Everything is wrapped up in a single bundle, including the @media rules for changing the layout on smaller screens, the lovely little & + & rule that adds some extra margin if there are two lists in a row, etc. The & syntax refers to the parent selector, so & + & in this case is the same as a.film-list + a.film-list: it’s very handy! The best part about this is that it’s the exact same syntax as SCSS, so converting is easy². The styled element looks like this:

Watched films ranked

Every film I’ve watched since I started logging, ranked.

Obviously super subjective, and subject to change often and arbitrarily.

264 films

Media range syntax

Once again, you might have spotted this in the previous snippet. I’m not deliberately teasing things, I promise! Back in the day, you did media queries like so:

@media (min-width: 1000px) and (max-width: 2000px) {
    /* some rules that work for screens at least 1000px wide and at most 2000px wide */
}

I always hated this syntax. I always got muddled up as to whether I wanted “min” or “max”, and whether they were inclusive or not. It’s easy to reason through, but it never came naturally. Fortunately you can now just use ranges:

@media (1000px <= width <= 2000px) {
    /* some rules that work for screens at least 1000px wide and at most 2000px wide */
}

I find this style so much easier to write and understand.

Anchor positioning

Trying to dynamically position one element next to another used to exclusively fall within the purview of JavaScript. Fortunately anchor positioning fixes all this. I use this in the film search field I showed above:

.film-search {
    input {
        anchor-name: --film-search-box;
    }
    .results {
        position: absolute;
        position-anchor: --film-search-box;
        position-area: bottom center;
        position-visibility: always;
        width: anchor-size();
    }
}

This does lots of fun things. The .results element is anchored to the input field (via the --film-search-box name), and it’s positioned on the bottom, directly under the anchor. The position-area rule describes a 3x3 grid, with the anchor at the center, so top left would put it diagonally adjacent to the anchor. Next, position-visibility keeps the .results element visible when the anchor isn’t; otherwise when you scroll the anchor off the screen the results would immediately vanish. Finally, the special anchor-size() function makes the .results element take up the same exact width as the anchor.

All-in-all, this puts the results exactly where I want them, without having to deal with any JavaScript at all. I can see how it’d also be amazingly useful trying to do tooltips or other forms of ‘floating’ content too. You can even leave the positioning up to the browser, giving it hints about which order to try, or what property to optimise for (e.g. you can say “anchor to the left or right, whichever has more horizontal space”).

attr() function

This one blew my mind a little. In some of the elements on the site, I’ve added a little label to the top. It looks something like this:

It’s meant to just be a visual flourish, not a semantic title or anything, so I initially just added a ::before selector to each element, customising the content to have the right value. I didn’t like the duplication, though. Now, instead, I do this:

&::before {
    content: attr(data-title);
}

Each component defines its title in a data attribute: <div class="raised-box" data-title="an example">, and the attr function plucks it out and puts it in the content rule. It’s worth noting that this is only widely supported for the content rule, you can’t yet use it for colours or dimensions or other things. It still feels a bit magical, though. Like you’re making a reusable, customisable component with just HTML and CSS.

layers

I’d come across layers a few times, but I never found a need for them. It seemed like something you’d only really need with complicated design systems, or something. Then I had a problem and layers were the perfect solution!

The headings on this site have a whole bunch of CSS attached to them. Currently they look a bit like blue painter’s tape with handwriting on them. This style is applied to all headers, and then the various places that don’t want it had to manually reset everything. I got fed up with that, so decided to add a plain-header class which would “disable” the extra styling:

h2,
h3,
h4,
h5,
h6 {
    /* common styles for all headers, regardless */
    font-family: "Chris Hand", sans-serif;
    font-size: var(--font-size-xxlarge);
    color: var(--text-highlight-colour);
    margin: var(--medium-space) 0;
    line-height: 1;

    &:not(.plain-header) {
        /* do fancy stuff if it _doesn't_ have the .plain-header class */
        transform: rotate(-0.15deg);
        padding: var(--smedium-space);
        font-weight: 800;
        filter: drop-shadow(3px 3px 5px rgb(0, 0, 0));

        a {
            background: none;
            text-decoration-skip-ink: auto;
        }
    }
}

This might seem a bit backwards but I want the default to be styled, as those are far more common. I added this change, sprinkled around some “plain-header” classes, tidied up a lot of duplicate CSS, and things mostly worked. Mostly. Some things stopped working. In a few places the headers had slight tweaks, and they stopped working entirely.

It turns out in moving the rules from a plain h2 selector to a h2:not(.plain-header), I’d made them more specific. Previously a selector like h2.special would have been more specific, so its properties would override those from the less specific h2 selector. My first reaction was to try and hack around it. Changing all the overrides to body h2.special would make them more specific again, but I didn’t want to have to remember to do that forever more.

Instead, I defined some custom layers, and put the header definitions in one:

@layer reset, links, headings

@layer headings {
    h2,
    h3 {
        /* etc */
    }
}

The first @layer rule defines some layers that will be handled in a specific order: first the “reset” layer, then the “links” layer, then the “headings” layer, and then anything not in a layer after that. Rules in one layer don’t have to worry about beating the specificity of rules in another layer, because they’re handled separately.

Note that I couldn’t just put the headings in a layer and call it a day: their rules have to come after the CSS reset, and after the normal link styles, as headers have a bit of extra styling for nested links. If the CSS reset weren’t in a layer, then the * { margin: 0; padding: 0; } type reset would apply over the rules from the headings layer.

Using layers is definitely a bit fiddly, and is not necessary for a lot of sites, but it’s a much cleaner alternative to ugly specificity hacking.

Things I’m looking forward to

There are a few things that aren’t (widely) available yet, that particularly interest me:

sibling-index() and sibling-count()

These new functions are available in WebKit and Blink based browsers, but not Firefox. They give you the index of the element within its siblings, or the count of siblings. For the film list component above, I currently have this abomination for the overlapping posters:

&:nth-child(1) {
    z-index: 5;
    left: 0;
}
&:nth-child(2) {
    z-index: 4;
    left: calc(133px * var(--overlap) * 1);
}
&:nth-child(3) {
    z-index: 3;
    left: calc(133px * var(--overlap) * 2);
}
&:nth-child(4) {
    z-index: 2;
    left: calc(133px * var(--overlap) * 3);
}
&:nth-child(5) {
    z-index: 1;
    left: calc(133px * var(--overlap) * 4);
}

These could be replaced with something like:

z-index: calc(1 + sibling-count() - sibling-index());
left: calc(133px * var(--overlap) * (sibling-index() - 1));

As an added bonus, it would scale to any number of posters. index being 1-based not 0-based is a bit unfortunate as it makes using it in calculations awkward (see 1 offset in both of those rules!), but it’s leagues better than writing 5 separate rules.

random()

Currently only available in Safari. There are a few places where I’d like to have slight random variations of the style. Things like elements that are rotated slightly for aesthetics; they look a bit silly if they’re all identically positioned. I also randomise the icons and positions of my rating stars to break up the visual monotony. Here are a few examples:

Currently I do the stars by hardcoding a bunch of classes and having the backend randomly apply one when it generates the markup for stars. Being able to do it in CSS would be great, though.

Mixins

This one’s so far off it’s not even listed on caniuse.com yet. Mixins are another handy feature of SCSS, that allow you to define reusable blocks of rules, then import them when needed:

@mixin fancy-background {
    background: /*...*/;
}

.some-element {
    @include fancy-background;
}

#other-element {
    @include fancy-background;
}

This would be particularly useful if you can’t easily control the markup to add classes to everything. For example, my footnotes are rendered by a markdown plugin, and don’t easily have a way to add extra classes to them. To style it the same as another element, I currently duplicate a bunch of rules between them both. Mixins would allow me to define those rules once, and then import them in both places.

Aside from JavaScript, which seems to just endlessly reinvent new frameworks and ways to make the most sprawling dependency tree possible. ↩︎
It also means that if your website’s syntax highlighting library doesn’t seem to understand nested rules, you can just pretend your perfectly valid CSS is actually SCSS and it’ll magically work. Grumble, grumble. ↩︎

How tech companies failed to build the Star Trek computer

2025-07-16T00:00:00Z

A computer core room on the Enterprise-D

In most Star Trek series, the ship or station computer is ever-present in the background, waiting to be called on by the main characters¹. It nearly always does exactly the right thing, and there’s little limit to the functions it can perform. Take this mundane example from DS9:

KIRA: Computer, establish link with the Bajoran Medical Index for the Northwestern District.
COMPUTER: Link established.
KIRA: Access all information on Doctor Surmak Ren.
COMPUTER: There are no records matching that name.
KIRA: Try the Northeastern District, same search.
COMPUTER: Doctor Surmak Ren, currently serving as Chief Administrator of the Ilvian Medical Complex.
KIRA: Computer, open a channel to the Ilvian Medical Complex. Administrator’s office.

The computer is doing some kind of networking to a database only identified by name. It does a search and summarises the lack of results. It then repeats the process with another database, and succinctly announces the results. Finally, it opens a communication channel to a specific room in a facility, based only on its name.

This whole interaction is remarkably boring². Kira doesn’t have to know any URLs or API endpoints, or what protocol she wants to use. She doesn’t have to open a specific app and then login and then try the query again. She just says what she wants and the computer does it.

It seems like this should be one of the most easily obtainable bits of sci-fi wizardry with our current technology. We have multiple massive companies throwing lots of money at digital assistants, LLMs that are improving at an insane rate, but we’re somehow not even close to the usability or usefulness of the Trek computers. What gives?

Boring is, well, boring.

Larry Page once said something that might help explain it:

The Star Trek computer doesn’t seem that interesting. They ask it random questions, it thinks for a while. I think we can do better than that.

This is the same Larry Page that founded Google, whose mission statement is “to organize the world’s information and make it universally accessible and useful”. Of all people, surely he should find an omnipresent computer that can answer ‘random questions’ interesting?! It seems like it should be the epitome of Google’s mission!

Google’s “better than that” seems to have been to stuff LLMs into every product they can, even when you don’t want them there. Even when they’re worse than the normal content they displace. These things look exciting when they’re part of a scripted demo at Google I/O, but they fall flat and just get in the way when they’re exposed to the reality of day-to-day use.

The Star Trek computer is the opposite: it isn’t snazzy, but it is genuinely useful. That means it’s not an attractive target for the company execs who want marketing opportunities, and it’s not appealing for engineers who need to demonstrate “impact”. But even if Google did try to make the Trek computer, there are other problems…

Assistants need to be free

A significant amount of tech companies’ business models currently revolves around trapping users in walled gardens. They want you using their ecosystem; that way they get more data from you, and you’re more likely to spend more money on their other offerings that work together. There’s barely any incentive to allow any kind of interoperability with other platforms outside carefully contracted integrations.

I remember trying to help a family member move their photos from iCloud to Google Photos. At one point they turned around and said, exasperated, “why is this so hard? Aren’t they both in the cloud?!”. It’s easy to dismiss that as someone who hasn’t quite grasped the fundamental idea that “the cloud” is just someone else’s computers, but that’s not the whole story. There’s no reason why there shouldn’t be a quick and easy transfer: both services already allow uploading and downloading, there’s just no incentive for the companies involved to make it so³.

These kinds of misaligned incentives and walled garden business models cause even more problems when it comes to digital assistants. Siri is basically never going to be able to interact with, say, your Google Drive; ~~Bard~~ Gemini is never going to be able to send a message via iMessage. Even when there are appropriately blessed interactions, they’re so clunky. Can you imagine Captain Picard saying “Computer, ask the turbolift skill to take me to deck 5”?

Someone else’s computer

Software issues aside, there’s still a key difference between the Star Trek computers and our current batch of digital assistants: where they run. The Trek computers are all housed within the ship or station they serve; they can connect elsewhere to gather information, but they run entirely independently. If they go wrong, a local engineer can go in and fix things. While some of our assistants may have physical hardware in your home, they don’t work without a vast cloud apparatus behind them. If your Internet connection fails, they become paperweights. If the company running them decide to remove some functionality you depend on, you have no recourse.

That kind of helplessness isn’t limited to assistants, either. There’s a rapidly growing trend of being unable to modify or repair hardware you fully own and control. Part of this is just that they’re becoming more complex: it’s a lot harder to replace a microchip than a gear, but companies are also going out of their way to make it more difficult for users through draconian DRM regimes⁴ and aggressive intellectual property enforcement. If the US Navy can’t repair their own equipment because a corporation says so, what hope do consumers have?

We’re approaching a point where you don’t actually own anything. Software is cloud and subscription based, hardware is unrepairable. Even cars can be remotely updated and have features added or removed. The Federation wouldn’t allow a third party control over their ships⁵, so why are we so happy to put up with it in everything we consume?

A small ray of hope?

The most promising way of tackling all of these problems is through legislation. The EU’s Digital Market Act is an attempt to force ‘gatekeepers’ like Google, Apple and Meta, to allow third-party access to their services. It seems like a pretty reasonable approach, but the tech companies are unsurprisingly resisting it. Apple in particular have gone out of their way to refuse to comply, and when forced to do so have limited the functionality to people in Europe. Still, the DMA is a promising start, and if similar legislation is introduced (and robustly enforced) elsewhere it might start forcing companies to behave a bit better.

There are also smaller companies that actually do the right thing. Framework make laptops that are user-serviceable; Fairphone do the same for mobile phones. Smaller software companies provide useful, open APIs. The average person on the street will probably have never heard of these, unfortunately, but they do still exist. Maybe as the bigger tech companies tighten the screws more, people will turn to alternatives like this? Or maybe we’ll just keep accepting that our computers work for everyone but us?

Unless, of course, the computer is playing the role of the episode’s MacGuffin and has contracted space-computer-COVID or something, then it’s a lot less in-the-background. ↩︎
It’s almost like it only exists to move the plot along. ↩︎
You can generally export your data, thanks to a combination of legislation and efforts like Google’s “Data Liberation Front”, but I’ve never seen an export format that could then just be imported into an equivalent commercial product. ↩︎
Oh, you’ve changed the screen on your iPhone? Better hope it can do the secret handshake with the Apple hardware. ↩︎
I think there might actually have been an episode where that did in fact happen. We’ll just ignore that as a plot contrivance. ↩︎

The Ethics of LLMs

2025-06-22T00:00:00Z

I’ve written about LLMs a few times recently, carefully dodging the issue of ethics each time. I didn’t want to bog down the other posts with it, and I wanted some time to think over the issues. Now I’ve had time to think, it’s time to remove my head from the sand. There are a lot of different angles to consider, and a lot of it is more nuanced than is often presented. It’s not all doom and gloom, and it’s also not the most amazing thing since sliced bread. Who would have thought?

It’s worth noting that I’m just setting out my position here. I’m not trying to convince you to change your mind. To set the scene a bit, I mainly use Claude Code as a programming tool. I use the Claude chat interface sometimes to proofread things, do random one-off data analysis, or help organise things. More rarely I’ll try to use it to brainstorm things, or recommend things, or do more “creative” things, but I don’t trust it enough in those domains to do it often. I don’t use it for research or as a Google replacement¹, which I recognise probably makes me a weird half-in-the-water, half-out-of-it class of user.

Copyright & Corporate Control

One of the key issues, and something that is being prosecuted in several court cases right now, is how LLMs interact with the copyright system. And by “interact with” I mean “run roughshod all over”. It seems pretty obvious from my lay perspective that if having 10 seconds of pop music in the background of a YouTube video is copyright infringement, then Meta pirating books via BitTorrent must also be.

That said, the entire copyright system as it exists now is fundamentally broken. I don’t mind the idea of individual creators having protection, but I absolutely hate how copyright is wielded as a blunt instrument by massive corporations to intimidate individuals and to try to earn more money. If a law enables a huge conglomerate to sue the author of an open source project for a theoretical 75 trillion dollars then that is a bad law. Copyright today has been twisted well beyond what it was meant to be originally, thanks to lobbying by people and businesses with lots of money that want to keep it.

So if copyright law is not fit for purpose, are LLMs fine? Well, not quite. The argument that LLM training is a bit like a child learning to read holds some merit, but it falls flat when LLMs can regurgitate the input material verbatim². Personally I don’t care if they steal all the content of the New York Times and all the Disney characters that are still in copyright. It’s the individual harm that bothers me: the struggling author whose words are slurped up by the LLMs and regurgitated, potentially costing them readers; the open source dev who chooses a copyleft licence on their work, only for an LLM to dump complete copies of functions in someone else’s codebase with no attribution or licence, stopping any future improvements from being released for the public good.

I can mostly mitigate those concerns in my personal use. When coding I generally direct the agent closely enough that the opportunity to drop in massive chunks of someone else’s code is negligible. I don’t use LLMs to generate big chunks of written content. Overall I’m reasonably happy that I’m not making anyone worse off.

One related area that doesn’t affect me much because of my limited use, but does concern me a lot, is corporate control. Most of the frontier LLMs are built by big tech companies. As more and more people are using LLMs, they become an avenue for control over information. It’s clear the people in charge should not be trusted with that responsibility, as Grok’s whole Boer War thing demonstrated. I’m not sure what the answer is, though. Would a government built LLM be any better? Probably not. The requirements to actually do the training are so high that the only people who can do it are the ones you wouldn’t want to.

So I’m left in the uncomfortable position of using tools by companies I don’t trust, trained on data they shouldn’t have been trained on. Still, there can’t be many more ethical issues, right?

Forced Features & Flattery

Before we get onto the more obvious ethical topics, let’s go on a brief detour so I can complain about how LLMs are being crowbarred into seemingly EVERY SINGLE SERVICE. I don’t want an LLM in my text editor. Or when shopping. Or taking screenshots of everything my computer does every few seconds. I don’t want LLMs anywhere outside a clearly-defined LLM box. With these forced integrations, you’re even more in the dark about what their prompts are, what information they have access to, what underlying model they’re using, and so on.

There’s no good reason for 90% of these implementations; there’s just some weird Silicon Valley hype train that everyone is scared to miss out on. And as a result we get more and more screen real estate taken up with things with animated gradients that can’t be turned off and are prompted to talk in an insufferable manner.

The problem isn’t just that they’re everywhere, though, it’s how they behave when they’re there. The overly sycophantic behaviour that most LLMs adopt can hook users in the same way a social media app can fiddle with its algorithms to encourage people to keep scrolling. It’s a lot harder to dismiss an LLM when it’s blowing smoke up your ass. Now I don’t believe this behaviour is actually intentionally nefarious, but more of an artifact of the models overfitting on user approval instead of something useful like accuracy.

The combination of going too far to please the user and hallucinating things is incredibly problematic. How are ordinary, non-tech savvy, people meant to deal with these models being forced in front of them? If you ask a question and get back a flattering answer that’s roughly the shape of what you were expecting, would you question it? Would a student, who was doing their homework in Google Docs when an LLM inserted itself into their lives question it?

This isn’t just a problem for naive users, either: I occasionally ask Claude Code “Can we do X?” and discover much later that the answer should either be an emphatic “NO”, or at least have a page of caveats attached. But the LLM wouldn’t want to displease me, so it tries to do what’s asked of it, with all kinds of weird hacks, and ultimately gets itself tied up in knots. This is not how a tool should behave. If I wanted someone to say “Yes, and” repeatedly I’d join an improv troupe.

Environmental Expenses

The biggest ethical issue with LLMs is their environmental impact. Are we adding more fuel to the dumpster fire that is our planet, just so my phone can inaccurately summarise news headlines for me? The answer is a resounding “maybe”. The companies making the LLM models are cagey about how much energy goes into making them and then answering queries. There are estimates for the latter, but there are several orders of magnitude between the most optimistic and most pessimistic. LLMs are definitely not good for the environment. Basically no computer activity is³. But you don’t see people campaigning to shutter YouTube (for example) because of its environmental impact. I struggle to see the difference.

I’m not saying considering the environmental impact isn’t important. We are killing the planet. We are not doing enough about it. More attention to the climate crisis in general is a good thing. But even with the most pessimistic estimates on power usage, my personal LLM usage is a drop in the ocean. I can have far more impact by reducing the amount I travel, avoiding red meat, and so on.

One issue I do have, though, is the forced integrations I mentioned. I’m happy with my personal usage. I’m not happy that a whole slew of LLMs are being operated on my behalf. How much power is wasted by Google generating LLM results in every search results page, versus how much benefit it provides? How do people know if a search box will just use a few Watts doing a database search, or burn kilowatts⁴ spinning up an LLM and filling its context window?

Then there’s the issue with training. Who knows what resources go into training these models? Whether the amortised cost of that across all its users is worth it? I think the answer to the first question is “only the tech companies making the models”, and their utter silence on the second question says volumes.

But this kind of industrial power isn’t unique to LLMs. There are many industries that do far worse. And that’s not a justification, but I think it makes sense to look at them more holistically. In an ideal world, where we have functioning governments that listen to scientists⁵, we could address all of this with legislation on emissions and clean power. Then all of these industries will either manage to function in a manner compatible with keeping the planet alive, or will have to stop. I appreciate that actually legislating that is about as likely as waking up one day to find Claude has become an AGI, though.

Slop & Survival

We’re nearly done, I promise. You can see why I didn’t want to try to tackle these issues in an earlier post! The last big issue I want to talk about is slop. It feels like it’s everywhere, and still getting worse.

The Internet has slowly morphed from a wonderful place full of individual, quirky sites, into a desert of bland corporate silos, and now into a wasteland of AI slop. It’s becoming more and more difficult to find original information. There’s this conspiracy theory called “Dead Internet Theory” that basically says nearly all traffic on the Internet is generated by bots as part of a co-ordinated effort to manipulate us. Obviously it’s unhinged, but at the same time some elements of it are not that far off the mark. How long will it be before the Internet is so drowned in slop that it is, effectively, dead?

The other issue is what happens to the human jobs that have been replaced with slop? It’s way too easy for a money-pinching publication to get rid of their human staff in favour of pushing a few buttons and publishing the output. You’d hope that market forces would balance things out, but there doesn’t seem to be much sign of that happening. There are small movements of people putting badges and other marks on their work to show it was made by a human, perhaps that will take off?

On a more personal level: what happens to software developers? As it stands, code agents are nowhere near good enough to replace a human. At least not if you want a non-trivial output that works, can be changed in the future, and doesn’t have massive issues. Even if they get substantially better, I feel like you’d still need a knowledgeable human in the loop to keep a rein on everything. Does that mean the world needs far fewer software engineers? Probably. But it doesn’t mean we’re all going to be out of jobs overnight as some people seem to be predicting. The only way I can see that ever happening is if there’s a radical shift in how software is made: a new language of some kind that’s uniquely suited to LLMs, or new ways of composing software together from smaller parts⁶.

So… Yeah. Where does that leave us? I’ve written several thousand words about how LLMs are an ethical mess, but I’m going to carry on using them. That’s uncomfortable. But it’s not unlike using Amazon: they’re not a great company, I’d rather give the money to a local shop or supplier, but I’m also not going to massively inconvenience myself by being quixotic about it. Life is about compromises like this, and it’d be silly to think otherwise. I’ll stand on morals on some things⁷, but not to the extent of becoming a reclusive old crank shouting at the clouds.

That’s what Kagi is for. It’s great. You should try it. ↩︎
Or, maybe even worse, with added hallucinations. ↩︎
Hell, basically no human activity is good for the environment. ↩︎
±several kilowatts, because who knows? ↩︎
and didn’t elect people who withdraw from climate agreements, re-open coal plants, and so on… ↩︎
I don’t think I’m just saying this to reassure myself… ↩︎
I’ll grudgingly give Jeff Bezos money, but I sure as hell am not going to use any service from Elon Musk. ↩︎