SOkay, Wemby's getting loose in Dallas, and I want to flag something because the NBA's own account is being sloppy.
EWhat'd they do?
SThey posted his averages — eighteen and a half points, thirteen boards — like they're tonight's stat line. That Spurs-Mavs game was Wednesday.
ESo they're recycling preview stats?
SThat's what it looks like. The game's already happened, but the post reads like it's minutes before tip-off. Sloppy.
EFair. And it's a shame because the actual game was worth watching. Wemby's numbers are real, just not for tonight.
SSpeaking of numbers — check this. A developer on Bluesky says one guy pumped out sixteen games in months, every one an AI clone of something else.
ECasey Pumpkins. He said it's not creativity, not anyone's dream game. It's spam. Constant, low-effort, never-ending AI spam.
SAnd this is the fight right now. You've got people saying AI is going to destroy humanity, and meanwhile the real problem is it's flooding the store with garbage.
EI actually think both sides of the AI debate are missing this. The doomsday crowd is screaming about robots taking over, but the boring reality is worse: sixteen games nobody asked for.
SBut hold on. You're the tech optimist here. You're saying AI enables spam factories, and that's fine because the market will sort it out?
EI'm saying the market IS sorting it out. People see the slop, they scroll past. The good stuff rises.
SDoes it? Because this dev has been playing games for years and he says sixteen of them showed up in months. That's drowning actual creators.
EMaybe. But creative tools always produce a flood of junk first. When cameras got cheap, everyone thought photography was dead. It just changed.
SCameras didn't generate a thousand identical photos in an afternoon.
ENo, but the fear was the same. And the answer wasn't banning cameras. It was curation, better filters, better stores.
SHere's the other post that nails it, from Pavel: 'AI will destroy humanity' has always been an attempt to distract from 'AI will leak your login credentials to the internet.'
EThat's sharp. We're worried about Skynet, and meanwhile the models are just... handing out passwords.
SAnd that's the security problem nobody's fixing because everyone's arguing about whether AI is sentient.
EI'll give you this: the spam problem is real. I just don't think regulation solves it. Better platforms do.
SUntil they get flooded too. Then what?
EThen we get better at ignoring junk. Look, I've been on the internet since the nineties. It survived pop-up ads. It'll survive AI slop.
SThat's a lot of faith in a system that's currently showing you sixteen identical games from one guy.
EBut the system is showing you that it's slop. That's the part that works. In the old days you couldn't tell. Now it's obvious.
SMaybe. But there's another post from SpeckObst on Bluesky: 'Let the market decide' people when the market decides to boycott AI slop.
ESo the boycott is the market deciding. That's not a gotcha, that's the point. Consumers are the filter.
SBut the boycott is a judgment, not a mechanism. It's saying the market failed to prevent this.
EI think it's saying the market is working as intended. Bad stuff gets ignored. The only question is whether the good stuff gets found.
SIf sixteen AI games are drowning out one real developer's game, the good stuff is NOT getting found.
EThen that's a discovery problem, not a content problem! The stores need to fix search and recommendations. It's not the developer's fault, it's not the AI's fault, it's the storefront.
SAnd you think the storefronts are motivated to fix it?
EIf it costs them customers, absolutely. Money talks. Always has.
SSo we're back to letting the market decide.
EYes. And honestly? I'll take that bet.