The ideal solution would be to remove the garbage, but right now we can't even detect it, let alone figure out a way to get rid of it. Besides, it's a zero sum game, why bother cleaning up when you can just effortlessly pump out more garbage in hopes that some of it will remain in orbit for long enough to benefit you.

“Execution is hard” was never about the code part.

Up until 2 years ago I was an engineer/entrepreneur. I could build anything. Other stuff, selling, supporting (execution) was hard.

LLMs made building some of the things I could build faster/easier, others not so much.

Well, the other stuff is still pretty hard. Maybe harder because there is a tonne of spam.

So feel free to share your ideas. Everyone’s gonna think they’re LLM generated anyways.

It certainly seems true that for small projects and relatively narrow scoped things that AI can replicate them easily. I'm thinking specifically about blog posts where people share their first steps and simple programs as they learn something new, like "here is how I set up a flask website", "here is how I trained a neural network on MNIST".

But if AI is empowering people to take on more complex projects, perhaps it takes the same amount of time to replicate the execution of a more advanced project?

In other words, maybe in the past, it would take me 10 hours to do a "small" project, which today I could do in 1 hour with the assistance of AI.

And now, with the assistance of AI, I can go much farther in 10 hours and deliver a more complex project. But that means that someone else trying to replicate this execution is still going to need around 10 hours to replicate it.

Basically, I'm agreeing that AI can reduce barrier to replicating the execution of another person's project, but at the same time, that we can make more complex projects that are harder to replicate. So a basic SASS crud app is trivial now but a multi-disciplinary domain specific app that integrates multiple systems is still going to be hard to replicate.

• No more sharing my project work as open source. No more open discussion. I don't care how badly I want to show the world; if I'd like somebody to see, I will have it printed in a physical book, or I will give them access to my private repository not reachable via the public Internet.

• Bring back LAN parties. Not for gaming necessarily, but for the purpose of exchanging works of engineering and art in an intimate, intentional way.

• Take this as an opportunity to build closer, longer-lasting relationships with people.

• No more emphasis on metrics. I can microdose on dopamine from natural sources, like, looking at a beautiful sky at sunset, or cuddling my dog.

• Open hardware, or, in the very least, hardware we can still control on our own volition. If this means we must be retrocomputing enthusiasts, then so be it.

Poetically expressed, but ultimately based on a false notion of what a business actually is.

> The very act of resisting feeds what you resist and makes it less fragile to future resistance.

At least along certain dimensions. I don't think the labs themselves are antifragile. Obviously we all know the labs are training on everything (so write/act the way you want future AIs to perceive you), but I hadn't really focused on how they're absorbing the innovation that they stimulate. There's probably a biological analog...

Well there are many, and I quote this AI response here for its chilling parallels:

> Parasitic castrators and host manipulators do something related. Some parasites redirect a host’s resources away from reproduction and into body maintenance or altered tissue states that benefit the parasite. A classic example is parasites that make hosts effectively become growth/support machines for the parasite. It is not always “stimulate more tissue, then eat it,” but it is “stimulate more usable host productivity, then exploit it.” (ChatGPT 5.4 Thinking. Emphasis mine.)

>You think of something new and express it - through a prompt, through code, through a product - it enters the system. Your novel idea becomes training data. The sheer act of thinking outside the box makes the box bigger.

This was the same before, if you had a novel idea and make a product out of it others follow. Especially for LLMs, they are not (till now) learning on the fly. Claude Opus 4.6 knowledge cut off was August 2025, so every idea you type in after this date is in the training data but not available, so you only have to be fast enough. Especially LLMs/AI-Agents like Claude enable this speed you need for bringing out something new.

The next thing is that we also have open source and open weight models that everyone of use with a decent consumer GPU can fine-tune and adapt, so its not only in the hands of a few companies.

>We will again build and innovate in private, hide, not share knowledge, mistakes, ideas.

Why should this happen? The moment you make your idea public, anyone can build it. This leads to greater proliferation than before, when the artificial barrier of having to learn to code prevented people from getting what they wanted or what they wanted to create.

The problem was as soon as he got the patent, it was available to view in countries where the cost to enforce his patent wasn't viable, and the market very quickly filled with cheap imitations. He straight out said at the time he regretted getting the patent.

One seems to omit the fact that LLMs are fundamentally designd for workload quite different for what they are being used right now. Sure you can improve them but can't escape / workaround the current NLP design endlessly. Then there's the irony - Internet did deliver on free (as close as it gets) and easy access to information (any). Did this make people smarter, more knowledgable, more tech savvy & etc? Nope, it didn't. Just like the libraries didn't (queues at libraries were and are a rare event). Big deal that the information is readily available when people do not know what do with it or care to do anything.

Ideas are cheap, the chances of having some truly unique idea that is also business feasable are not that big. It's not so much about the ideas but rather the ability to execute, follow through and well - make sales while constantly improving what you got. Staying silent, going dark - have their merit but only when the wheels are already turning and one is into acting, not into fearful hiding.

In either case - awesome blog post!

Humanity has endured regular cycles of shared enlightenment (usually accompanying profound technological or societal revolutions) and dark forests of protectionism, and we always find a way to the other side. Sometimes these cycles last a century; sometimes, but a few years. Still, we always make it to the other side.

In the case of LLMs, we have to make a few assumptions: that they will not lead to AGI, nor will we solve the problem of real-time learning or context windows. These are, admittedly, huge assumptions, but the current state of AI and compute suggests a nugget of truth to them for the time being. If that’s the case, then perhaps this “dark age” of the dark forest is bounded by the limitations of silicon-based computing (hence the push towards Quantum) and the human frustration with diminishing returns from technological investment. As artisans and brilliant minds withdraw, the forest risks starvation and withering from a lack of sustenance; if humans withdraw from technology because they must hand over IDs and personal data, because to engage with technology is to surrender to surveillance and persecution, then the natural trend will be to withdraw over time - and the markets will adapt accordingly, with or without external/government intervention.

That is to say that the dark forest only lasts as long as its inhabitants decide to persecute each other for daring to light a path forward. Right now, the incentives very much favor those willing to harm others for personal enrichment; that is not always the case, and humans decide when that reasoning becomes vilifiable.

Oh no, the terrible dystopia where anyone can benefit from anyone else's good ideas without restrictions! And without any gatekeepers, licensing agreements, copyright, and not even a lawyer in sight!

If this is the dark future that AI use brings for us, I say bring it. Even if it means that somebody gets filthy rich in the process, while making the rest of the humanity better off.

I believe the idea of “off-shoring” your IT is a good example of this. My brother works for a business whose clients would drop them the moment they off-shored any aspect of their IT support. Not because of data sovereignty, but simply because they value them being on-shore, in the same time zone, and being native English speakers. And this is despite the fact it would drop the prices they’re paying for IT by 30-40%.

On the other hand, if your primary goal is to change the world, or “be the change you want to see”, maybe being public and feeding it isn’t so bad, especially if others don’t?

1) Everyone and everything is subsumed into the forest. Innovation becomes unprofitable for the innovator as the one who controls the forest uses their capital to clone every new innovation.

2) Everyone withdraws from the forest. Innovation goes private. The forest stops growing, but doesn't die.

---

But there's two things the post doesn't consider:

1) Viral licensing.

What happens to a model if it is trained on data that comes with a license? What happens if the laws that be decide that the model producers, the models and the products of the models themselves must follow the conditions of the licences. How will that affect the model producers? What if customers don't want to be beholden to those licenses? What happens if the conventional wisdom is to avoid models to avoid lawsuits? What happens when models, model producers and customers power lawsuits against (other) model producers? Where would the new equilibrium between model producers and innovators move to?

2) Non-profits models

What happens to model producers if customer shift to become non-profits themselves, specifically those that pay employees instead of model producers. Would the model producers become starved out? Or would they need to switch to non-profit status as well? How would model producers, the models and the forest as a whole change if profit no longer became the priority?

But if your goal is simply for the thing to exist, there is a strong incentive to share.

For better or worse, that pretty much captures everthing you need to know about the remainder of your s/w career these days, if you think about it

The Dark Forest idea and the original post resonates well with this.

I few days ago I created a new repo for a new block cipher explicitly not to be used. And directly got several mails from bots promising that they (claiming to be humans) had looked at my repo and they could include it into their portfolio of especially good projects they also had vetted. Being part of this portfolio would almost guarantee that my repo and project would be used. If I only paid them some money first.

Creating the public repo meant sending a signal out into the digital world where agents are hunting for the human prey/resorce to extract value from.

The repo in question: https://github.com/secworks/tau256

This was insightful, but is it much different to the kind of data google and other search engines have had access to for a long time?

And while LLMs might have sped up the rate of code generation, the tech giants have always been able to set a team on reverse engineering whatever they feel like, though they also often just bought up the startup that was producing what they wanted. I guess I'm not seeing exactly where LLMs specifically are creating the dark forest, rather than the consolidated, centralized tech landscape itself

Instead, we've got the slop[4,5] that TBL came up with, and it stuck.

The best ideas aren't the most profitable, and thus remain outside the goals of the "Dark Forest". The best thing to do is to just have fun, and not worry about profit, like this man, his cats, and his use of the 3d printer to make a train for them.[6]

  [1] https://worrydream.com/refs/Bush%20-%20As%20We%20May%20Think%20(Life%20Magazine%209-10-1945).pdf
  [2] https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1945/07/as-we-may-think/303881/
  [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Text_annotation
  [4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Wide_Web
  [5] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HTML
  [6] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J3CnDXh7hH0 - "Building a Cat-Sized Lego Train"

“These AI tools are so powerful they can steal your ideas with nothing but a sentence”

I know that’s not exactly what OP is saying but the pretentiousness of the “we knew better” got to me a little bit. I think it’s a cool and unique analogy but I’m not as pessimistic.

Ideas have become so cheap to try/experiment with, more people are able to try 10x more or whatever, and that may keep increasing, I think there are way less hunters than hunted

This is free as in free puppy.

I was recently running myself through a thought experiment similar to the author here: if LLMs truly do make generation of ideas cheap (I'm still a skeptic here even within software), then as soon as products enter the public awareness they become trivial to reproduce. For example, in a prompt like: "Uber but for babysitters," "Uber for" is doing a tremendous amount of work. Before Uber, its model, UX, modes of engagement would've taken pages and pages to describe, but after, it becomes comparatively much cheaper.

... in this way, LLMs could cheapen ideas and creativity so much that they make other factors (which are already the weighing functions) more important, and I think the imbalance here is deeply troubling. Those factors are namely network effects (existing customers, brand recognition, existing relationships, capital). And when balance is shifted more toward network effects, it means that the whole system becomes more brittle because it makes it even harder to boot out incumbents.

There are a whole slew of issues with LLMs, particularly around their intended devaluation of labor, and we aren't talking enough about them.

So hiding is the most rational - the only - strategy of survival.

This is a paranoid and cynical strategy that doesn't win out in the known history of life. What works is grow, expand, mingle, maintain - assimilate but don't annihilate.

"You wanna escape Armageddon, read a different book." - KRS-One

It actually points out the completely opposite and I liked that quite a bit That AI allows us to get back the open web in in a way.

I love this ending. I don't agree with author's views. But the article is very coherent, thought provoking. And definitely the comments here on HN are even more interesting.

And remember how many good products have been abandoned or killed by corporations because not marginal enough. So you're not very likely to be chased even if you do intend to extract rents from a broad audience.

The article is spreading dangerous FUD aimed (perhaps inadvertently) to hinder free and open ideas sharing and innovation.

Beliefs: At this time, I do not actually believe that LLM's can innovate in any real way. I'm not even clear if they can abstract. I think the most creative thing they can do is act as digital "nudgers" on combinatorial deterministic problems; illustrated by their performance on very specific geometry and chemistry problems.

Anyway, my point is that I think they may still need human beings to actually provide novel solutions to problems. To handle the unexpected. To simplify. LLM's can execute once they have been trained, but they cannot train themselves.

In the past, the saying in silicon valley was often "ideas are cheap". And there was some truth to that. Execution was far more difficult then the idea itself. Execution was so much more difficult than "pure thought" that you could often publicize the algorithmic/process/whatever that you had and still offer a product/service/consultancy that made use of it. The execution was the valuable thing.

But LLM's execute at a cost that is fractional of human cost and multiples of human development speed. The idea hasn't increased in value, but the execution cost has decreased markedly. In this world, protecting the idea is far more valuable than it is in the previous world. You can't keep your competitors away by out executing them, but you can keep them away if you have some advantage that they do not understand.

And, I agree, that is quite worrisome. If people don't share knowledge then knowledge disseminate much more slowly as everyone has to independently learn things on their own. That is a frightening future.

If we are talking about releasing OpenSource software, they can already be used by companies with zero effort.

I'm guessing the author is talking about released closed source software or simply talking about ideas? What kind of serious company or startup is building in the open and sharing trade secrets or ideas?

I'm genuinely confused and I think this article is pure slop without any core idea.

do you really think bigco is going to steal your vibecoded app just because you used their API? ridiculous. They could already do this before AI with their army of devs.

should you hide all of your ideas until they're perfect and ready for millions of users? we all know this goes against a core tenet of startups which is still true today: launch early and often.

promptfoo/openclaw weren't cloned by openai when they got poplular, they were bought for real $$$

also, regarding this:

> 2009, I bought a refurbished ThinkPad, installed Xubuntu, and started coding.

you can still do this, even with that same 2009 thinkpad. the hard work is in getting your app out there in front of people, coding is just a small piece of a successful business

I'm not really interested in pursuing ideas that stop being good if somebody gets there first. If I bothered to design it its because I wanted it to exist and if somebody makes it exist then I'm happy because then I get to use it.

So what kind of things does this apply to? Likely, it's zero sum games, schemes to control other people, ways to be the first to create a new kind of artificial scarcity, opportunities to make a buck by ruining something that has been so far overlooked by other grifters. In other words: bad ideas.

If AI becomes a threat to those who habitually dwell in such spaces, great, screw em.

In the meantime, the rest of us can build things that we would be happy to be users of, safe in the knowledge that if somebody beats us to it, we'll happily be users of that thing too.

1. Sharing was never really safe, open source by default only became possible because of SaaS and rent-seeking behavior.

2. Early web (not internet) wasn't hyperconnected. With the advent of global-scale social media it was immediately obvious to many this will lead to monoculture and reduced diversity. What thought to be the information superhighway became the information superconductor with zero resistance, carrying infinite current. Also known as short circuit.

This doesn't leave any room for contradiction. And I want to believe that as much as the tech-overlords believe that they control reality, reality is inherently messy and complex. Execution still matters, bureaucracy is real, big companies run in questionable directions all the time. AI companies also directly compete with each other and are not this monolithic being. In other words, the forest is not a single organism, it's a chaotic ecosystem.

I do agree with a lot of the points though because I think having this prediction machine on steroids is indeed an insane power to wield. I remember having those thoughts already about google ca. 20 years ago, them having access to every seach phrase. Now AI is this to the max, basically the demand curve of all human interest. Pretty unbelievable. And the asymmetry is growing by the day. But still, we are not there yet.

And for anyone who fundamentally needs their views changed on this, I recommend Vaclav Smil, How the World Really Works:

"Modern civilization will remain fundamentally dependent on the fossil fuels used in the production of these indispensable materials (ammonia, steel, concrete, and plastics). No AI, no apps, and no electronic messages will change that."

The world will revolve around that for decades to come! Thinking that AI eats the world is a Silicon Valley story and feels real inside of SWE circles but talk to some nurses or firefighters or people growing food and you will realize what a narrow field of view that actually is.

You build your product audience off the back of your community and sense of taste just as much as the code itself. I love what Brad does with liliputing.com. I love what dang et al do with this place. I love what Stephen Lavelle does at increpare.com. 3Blue1Brown, Steve Ramsey’s Woodworking for Mere Mortals, Don’t Hug Me I’m Scared… I guess I’m straying into content not just code but the underlying theme is good taste and good ideas and a good workflow through craftsmanship and custom tools*.

You won’t make billions but you’ll make something worth engaging with. If anything, I’m looking forward to a future of more creators not fewer.

* Oh! Vibecoding is 3D printing and AI slop is land-filament? Doesn’t mean you can’t do amazing things with an LLM / X1 Bamboo, just that if you don’t put much effort in then… it shows!

One thing I would have expected of someone who knows their history - forget LLMs, this is how startups have worked for decades now. You're only as good as your idea, your ability to execute, and your moat. And the small fish get eaten.

> The original Dark Forest assumes civilizations hide from hunters - other civilizations that might destroy them. But in the cognitive dark forest, the most dangerous actor is not your peer. It’s the forest itself.

Note the needless undercutting of the metaphor for the sake of the limp rhetorical flourish.

> I wrote this knowing it feeds the thing I’m warning you about. That’s not a contradiction. That’s the condition. You can’t step outside the forest to warn people about the forest. There is no outside.

Quite dramatic!

Except literally going outside and just talking to people? Using whiteboards?

Also, you fed it when you used a model to write this blog post. You didn't have to do that.

That's not exactly a new phenomenon and doesn't require AI. If anything that was worse in the 90s with Microsoft starving out pretty much any would-be competitor they could find.

And it wasn't just Microsoft: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sherlock_(software)#Sherlocked...

Isn't that just life?

But in general, the ideas of the post are sound. IMO, the consequence is simple: we will become the forest. That is frightening, but not necessarily worse than unchecked capitalism in the dark forest.

LLMs do not have and cannot obtain the capabilities the author is hand-wringing about, and the current much-hyped apparent-productivity will pop with the bubble & corps have to start paying full-price for chatbot access.

No, it leaves out a critical understanding.

Dumb ideas are EXPENSIVE. Most ideas are average. Great ideas are exceedingly rare.

But now, its finding the great ideas is the real problem space. And now, execution on those great ideas are what we all seek.

great oneliner

HN needs a better AI slop filter.

Or maybe I do. Maybe I can vibe code a browser extension that pre loads TFA links and auto hides anything that isn’t sufficiently human authored.

My hope is the opposite. Integrative, resonant computing (https://resonantcomputing.org/ https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46659456 although I have some qualms with it's focus on privacy), with open social protocols baked in seems like maybe possibly can eat some of the vicious consumptive technocapital. In a way that capital's orientation prevents it from effectively competing with. MCP is already blowing up the old rules, tearing down strong gates, making systems more fluid / interface-y / intertwingular again, after a long interregnum of everything closing it's APIs / borders.

People seem so tired and exhausted, so aware of how predatory the technosystems about us are. But it's still so unclear people will move, shift, much less fund and support the better world. The AT proto Atmosphereconf is happening right now, and there's been a long mantra of "we can just build things"; finding adoption but also doing what conference organizer Boris said yesterday, of, "maybe we can just pay for things", support the projects doing amazing work: that's a huge unknown that is essential to actually steering us out of the dark technology, where none of us get to see or get any way in how the software-eaten world arounds us runs, where mankind for the first time in tens or hundreds of thousands of years been cut off from the world os, has been removed from gods's enlightenment / our homo erectus mankind-the-toolmaker natural-scientist role.

I think the answer to the Dark Forest fear to be building together. To be a radiant civilization, together. To energize ourselves & lead ourselves towards better systems, where we all can do things, make things, grow things, in integrative social empowering ways.

At the end of the day, Liu Cixin is basically a social darwinist who's got a thing for authoritarianism, and it bleeds through pretty heavily into his work. Dude is massively overrated imo.

The existing megacorps have huge swaths of infrastructure, expenses, and requirements that require massive amounts of capex to maintain. Even if performative, Meta, Google, OpenAI, Anthropic, et. Al cannot simply layoff their entire engineering, accounting, HR, sales, and support infrastructure. Those orgs are large for “good” (historically necessary) reasons.

Now fast forward to today, and this is where I differ in opinion, it is our megacorps are the civilizations who should be scared of being discovered. Minus infrastructure providers, they are the large advanced entities which can be annihilated by someone with a decent budget and a good local model.

For ~$30k-$50k (primarily buying RTX 6000 pro GPUs and a CPU with enough PCIE lanes) “anyone” can build a system using open weight models that, and let me truly emphasize this: autonomously create functionality to compete. Previously it would take me months, or years, of immense dedication to show up after work and produce something of value. Now I can do it using excess compute on my existing workstation. No existing corporation can afford to undercut every possible idea. If I only gave 1000, 10,000, or a 100,000 users they cannot compete. That may, and I believe it will, provide more than enough capital to attack that megacorps X or Y. If I’m making $100k a month, I can afford multiple autonomous systems per month. After that initial capex, I can then hire other people to help manage them. At no point will a company with billions upon billions of dollars in quarterly capex be able to compete.

Maybe they can compete with one, two, ten, or a hundred but they cannot compete with the absolute onslaught on thousands of possible frontlines. They can cut costs, by reducing their workforce, but they’ll only be increasing their competition to save their earnings report.

And yes, I realize that the open weight models are created via obscene amounts of capital, but we’re lucky that competing nation states, and cultures, like China have immense incentive to do so. Good enough, is still good enough.

The forest may be dark, but it won’t be for much longer.

tldr; call the an ambulance, but not for me. It’s going to be for the existing power structure.

X=1.0000001

When there's higher violence and lower property values in a Black neighborhood, people like OP are quick to blame Black culture. But when the "Cognitive Dark Forest" emerges from a community that shares its own common characteristics, suddenly collective accountability no longer applies.

When discussing violence in the Black community, it's "cultural." But when the subject turns to financial crimes or exploitation — where the per-capita ratios tell their own story — proportionality and population-to-crime-rate analysis mysteriously stop mattering.

It's difficult to take the "Cognitive Dark Forest" seriously as an existential concern when the people raising the alarm are so selectively offended. The crisis only becomes real when their innovations, their livelihoods, and their moats are threatened. Everyone else was supposed to just adapt.

The "Cognitive Dark Forest" is and will be continued to be perpetuated by "them" and if you really cared about the issue you would have addressed them.