The medical world uses the terms indications and contraindications. I think we in IT could do with a similar process/procedure.
For example, my only used by Claude email address doesn't get any spam at all.
It can take a while for spammers to get your address on their list. Generally the amount of spam over time only goes up. Just because there's a correlation doesn't mean there is a causation. Anyone with an email address, including on a custom work domain, has experienced this and Claude wasn't responsible for all email spam lol
Sites aren't scraping their logs for email address in request headers and selling that to spammers. Getting emails to spam is already easy.
I have email addresses I literally don't use to sign up for anything and they still get spam because you can easily guess the address based on first name on LinkedIn plus the company domain. Spam has been a thing since email was invented.
There are numerous confirmed instances of websites asking to put personal information in the user agent string. And people here are downplaying, downvoting, or even denying that this issue exists. I am sick and tired of the relentless grifting that's overtaking the software industry.
> I am sick and tired of the relentless grifting that's overtaking the software industry.
It's only going to get worse especially depending on your definition of grifting in this context. I've been doing this for a long time but these days I don't even write code. I have AI write the code, monitoring the logs, and suggesting PRs. Our users are happy, I'm happy, and we get features out very quickly without any sort of uptick in bugs. Some people consider that grifting but others will just see it as the current state of development. By the way that's the way that things will become more and more over time. It's scary how good AI is at things these days. I was testing it on 3D modeling with Blender yesterday and was blown away.
If that wasn't bad enough, they're stealing and depriving everyone of critical resources like RAM, electricity, natural resources [1], public land, and taxpayer money.
All this for what exactly? Most of this isn't based at all on current demand, but rather the idea that they can make much better use of resources in the future than the people that actually need them right now. Yet, cheerleaders at HN downplay or deny that anything bad is going on.
This is the grifting. They're selling hypothetical demand while robbing everyone else of the actual resources that we all rely on. These companies are acting like the scammers at Wall Street who caused the 2008 financial crisis, except that the scale and scope of the harm is so much worse.
Your argument is akin to the scammers cheering for themselves in the lead-up to the financial crisis. "See? We're making it possible for people to afford homes, but you ungrateful people are calling affordable housing grifting."
That's gross.
Even the Wall Street scammers didn't publicly display this level of arrogance. Because at least, the superficial benefit was affordable housing, not the joy of rich assholes being able to play with their shiny new toy.
[1]: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/ng-interactive/2026/...
Sorry, I don't understand what is the "hypothetical demand" you identified in my comment you replied to? There is real demand for AI. I use it daily for years and my usage has only been increasing as its become more competent and I've learned how to use it better. If you think that is BS and its all hypothetical, you quite simply just don't know what you are talking about.
> Your argument is akin to the Wall Street scammers cheering for themselves in the lead-up to the financial crisis. "See? We're making it possible for people to afford homes, but you ungrateful people are calling affordable housing grifting."
What argument are you referring to? Can you specifically quote what you are talking about that I said because I don't understand. Just seems like you wanted to find a way to bring this back to a previous bubble and call me a scammer simply for not being anti-AI.
But I agree with you on one point. Voters demanded change, and it's not in favor of the enablers who think any of the above is okay. And childish behavior like trying to call people mentally ill without getting flagged will not buy you any sympathy.
This isn't something US politics can just put back in the bottle and you are naive for thinking this. If it gets heavily regulated in the US it won't be long before everyone is just using Chinese models. And then what? Will we ban Chinese models? That strategy and approach didn't work so well with semiconductors back in the day.
Also I didn't bring up mental illness first, hope you're doing fine.
Why is every accusation a confession with you people? I clarified multiple times what the issue is, and every single time you've either ignored, denied, or downplayed. You pretend that the people being robbed of resources are just "resisting change," and are now even calling us "literal bots." If that's how you view people, no wonder you think it's "bad faith" to oppose the multi-trillion dollar levels of exploitation that's going on.
> Also I didn't bring up mental illness first
What I said was that unempathetic people are driving others mad. Very disingenuous of you to frame that as me inviting you to call me mentally ill. You have nothing but your own free will to blame for making that insult, and a responsible adult owns their decisions.
All of this highlights the lack of empathy even further.
> hope you're doing fine.
And you did it again. Calling people ill in a sarcastic way is your idea of a "real discussion"? No, that's petty and childish.
I asked you very specific questions because I genuinely was trying to understand what points you were making and what argument you thought I was trying to make and you never addressed those very specific questions. If I ask you specific questions and then you completely ignore them that isn't really going to lead to a productive conversation. You are just letting emotion control you and you are justifying it by assuming that you are more empathetic than me which frankly isn't even relevant.
Another issue that makes having a discussion with you impossible is that you keep using the plural form of words like "you people" and "are now even calling us...". I am a singular person talking to you another singular person. Stop trying to put myself and yourself into buckets and extrapolate this conversation into things I never said just because people that you might think are similar to me have said in the past. I was calling you a literal bot for bringing up politics out of nowhere. I'm not talking about "you people" or anyone else, or any other situation, I'm only talking about you in that specific context. Stop extrapolating everything and putting words in my mouth. It's exhausting and even trying to have a conversation with you is simply not happening so I'm not going to reply further.
> Sorry, I don't understand what is the "hypothetical demand" you identified in my comment you replied to? ... If you think that is BS and its all hypothetical, you quite simply just don't know what you are talking about.
"You quite simply just don't know what you are talking about" is not a question. It's denial of a very real issue. It's no secret that Anthropic and co. are currently depriving others of resources based on speculative future demand. It's not current demand that's already being served. It's future demand. And they're threatening human extinction if they don't have their way. How much imaginary future demand justifies such deprivation? At that point, who is all of this even for?
Or by "question," are you referring to this:
> Just seems like you wanted to find a way to bring this back to a previous bubble and call me a scammer simply for not being anti-AI.
The exact same straw man rephrased, also not a question.
> You are just letting emotion control you
Says the person repeatedly calling people mental.
> I was calling you a literal bot for bringing up politics out of nowhere
The insane amount of resources being allocated to LLM datacenters was one of the deciding factors in the outcome of the election. People wanted change, the precise thing you accused me of being against. You invited that discussion.
Furthermore, you call me a "bot" for bringing up this point, saying it's "irrelevant." Calling that dismissal of human suffering for what it is isn't "extrapolation."
I clarified what the grift is in every single one of my replies, and you refuse to even acknowledge the issue of resource deprivation and instead made it about being pro-progress or anti-progress. Don't pretend like that's a good-faith discussion.
By questions I was referring to my sentences that ended up with a question mark that you ignored several comments back. None of them were rhetorical.
AI companies can barely meet current demand. I don't know why you think all the demand is hypothetical but that's on you.
Good luck, you'll need it.
I am a heavy user and I checked my logs and never once did it include my email in any sort of web requests. The chance that it actually included that person's email and then that led to them getting spammed is just incredibly low.