Finding out that this is over 10 years old has made me profoundly sad. Despite the age of LLMs arguably unlocking massive amounts of productivity and agency for developers and non-developers alike, it feels as though we are living in a dark age of creativity on the web, maybe even a dark age for computer culture in general.
I'm keenly aware, I have a pretty extensive collection of Hacker News bookmarks. It's hard to articulate why I think these are different, but I think the best way to put it is that cachemonet feels a lot more avant garde, and perhaps also a reflection of a very particular form of "web culture" that has no clear successors.
People are experimenting with what you can do on the web, but the experiments aren't very "aesthetically inspiring". For that reason I'm kind of lukewarm on neal.fun.
EDIT: so I think a better way to describe it is that when artists experiment with technology, you get something like cachemonet. When developers experiment with technology, you get a web experiment that challenges conventional notions of what you can do with the web, but with varying degrees of creativity. I think terra.layoutit.com is best appreciated by other web devs who can appreciate the sheer amount of work required to figure out how to render a terrain map in CSS, but otherwise it's basically just a tool to generate terrain height maps, and not a particularly good one. Generating terrain maps in CSS is not a feature, but a handicap.
I believe the demoscene is still ongoing, especially in France. Would love to understand why that is (French tech: parallel early teletype internet, high demoscene, more open approach to UFOs (GEIPAN) - French don't seem obviously "that different" to Americans, but there's obviously something different going on).
To me demoscene is kind of synonymous with the Amiga, so I would argue that peak demoscene lines up with the rise and fall of the Amiga brand.
So I think that's maybe the other differentiator between web experiment and art, because demoscene has a very distinct but difficult to describe cultural element that makes me identify it as art.
I posit that periods of relatively high creativity [ in art science music literature ] coincide with periods of relatively low inequality.
ie. if everyone is working so hard to pay rent / college, nobody has time to work on side projects in the garage, or go deep into books, or dedicate spare time to a craft or do down a science research rabbit hole.
Im not sure LLMs will free up much time for people in the middle of the economy - they might produce more but get paid the same.
I'm not sure if that's true. The Renaissance was peak creativity, but also high inequality - from peasants to the Medicis. Chinese and Japanese art seemed to flourish during wealthy imperial times, but decline during war, where the blender of chaos made people much more equal. Chinese art surged back in the last two decades in new modern forms.
Basquiat thrived during peak 1980s New York, and had a rags to riches trajectory, I think. Art is not generally something people get to "as a hobby" when they have time among normal life. The artist mindset is different: you need to do it. It's survival. Not about money. You have to express and create. You probably don't choose like other people.
The true creatives find a way with what they have. This is not to denigrate people who take up painting or photography as a hobby and often produce high quality stuff. It is to distinguish separate experiences. It's also to highlight that "great creativity" comes from a psychic imperative and visceral drive on part of the people who do it.
Not sure if transhumanism is the only solution to the problems you mentioned - I think it's often problematic because people like Thiel claim to have figured it out, and look for ways to force people into their "contrarian" views, although there is nothing but disregard for any other opinions other than their own.
But you are of course free to believe and enjoy the vision of such a future but this is something that should happen on a collective level. We still live in a (to some extent idealistic) but humanistic society where human rights are common sense.
It's not what his businesses are doing, it is what he says and what he spreads to a tech bro disciple that spreads this shit far away, working with technologies like AI at the forefront, ending up setting us back in our progress & history.
Same applies to Thiel, Zuckerberg and whoever not. Read up on Thiel & Trump, then come back.
I arrive in 2026. Decide to start a startup. By the year 2038, the state mandated reader of legal documents has finished reading out aloud to me and my co-founder. Now we find a VC. His documents need to be read to us both. But the Y2K38 problem strikes. He thinks we are in the year 1970. He needs to read us the "ancient company addendum". While he's reading he chokes and keels over, dead from the emissions from his Volkswagen. Our ARR may be zero, but what about our government grants? Also zero.
My friend. He starts in France in 2026. The government mandates that the retiree earnings to worker earnings ratio must be fixed by law to what it was in 2025: 130%. For every employee I hire, I must also pay a retiree 1.3 times his salary. He visits me via train in 2038. I ask him how his trip was. Turns out he actually got on Deutsche Bahn train back then in 2026. I just didn't know because he spent all his time on Twitter explaining why the US approach to startups won't work. He's lucky. Pretty short delay for DB train.
Reminds me of how often you hear Austrian Railways announcing that they apologize for the late running of a train "which was subject to delays in a neighbouring land". They never name which country but it's always Germany.
The GDP should be banned as a metric for being a life quality proxy, it's insane how so many people still refer to it although proven to neglect so many parts of what counts into LQ. To OP: Go check out Doughnut Economics - the book does a good job clearing up economical fallacies & mismodelling of such things.
I am happy they are careful with new technologies, especially one like AI, and also set the right impulses. Enough non-political reasons to have that stance, especially taking in societal implications and how technology affects everyone and not just stakeholders and techbros. In a time when tech in the US is just accelerating by the top-down agenda of figures like Andreesen, Thiel & Co., that is very much needed imo.
reply