Paresh Dave and Aarian Marshall, reporting for Wired (News+ link in case Wired hits you with their paywall):

The incidents involved two different shipments of high-value technology traveling from Silicon Valley to Southern California, according to Pachuca, who says he learned about the thefts from law enforcement authorities. Each truck was tailed by private security professionals driving unmarked escort vehicles, which were supposed to ensure the goods made it to their destinations safely. But hours into one journey, another driver rear-ended the escort in a hit-and-run, forcing it to stop. In the other case, the escort stopped after another car nudged it into a tailspin, a ploy commonly known as a PIT maneuver, and then fled.

Everyone familiar with the “accidents” believes the escorts were deliberately immobilized, according to Pachuca. Once the semitrucks lost their escorts, the drivers proceeded without halting — but not to their planned destinations. They were never heard from again, Pachua says, and millions of dollars in data center gear remains unaccounted for.

I called it back in March: RAM is the new bearer bond.

Stuart Heritage, writing for The Guardian, under the splendid headline “Dickovers, Baggravation and Botiquette: 18 New Words to Describe Our Tech Hellscape”:

The “dickover” is the scourge of the modern age. Coined in May by John Gruber, a tech writer, it is defined as “a modal panel, popover, or curtain presented by a website or app, deliberately obscuring its own content to frustrate the user”. Essentially, it is the thing (or more often, things) you have to click away in order to read the thing you wanted to read. It is the “accept cookies” box, the “allow notifications?” box, the “sign in with Google” box, the pop-up video box, etc.

We shouldn’t fool ourselves into thinking that dickovers are the only terrible thing about technology in 2026. Until now, though, we have lacked the vocabulary to describe them, so here are some suggestions.

This was a delight to see, but it would have been nicer if it had included a link. I remain quite fond of my self-exemplifying definition.

Amongst Heritage’s suggested coinages, I like baggravation (maddening self-checkout retail kiosks) and Schrödinger’s Wi-Fi (public Wi-Fi, especially on trains and planes, that simultaneously does and does not exist).

Next stop for dickover: the OED.

Update: Filed under “Shit You Can’t Make Up”, many of you, upon following the above link to The Guardian, are seeing something like this.

Thibault Sottiaux, the OpenAI genius in charge of Codex and the new ChatGPT Homer Simpson car, on Twitter/X:

I don’t come often to GMail [sic] (OpenAI is a Slack company), but I swear, every time I do open it, there is a new button somewhere around the top right corner.

I mean, he’s right about Google’s zero-taste just-keep-cramming-shit-in approach to Gmail, but it’s almost hard to believe he could post this without any self-awareness that it’s the exact same approach his Codex team has applied to ChatGPT.

Gmail debuted in 2004 homely but wonderfully simple (which I’d argue was Google’s original, but now long-lost UI brand). It was just your email. Now it’s too complex to explain. ChatGPT’s original incarnation was attractive-in-today’s-minimalist-fad-way and wonderfully simple. It was just AI chat. Now it’s too complex to explain.

(ChatGPT’s original incarnation still exists, in the form of the hard-to-find-if-you-don’t-already-have-it-installed Coke ChatGPT Classic, just like how Gmail, after Google started needlessly complicating it, used to have a “classic” view that many users preferred but Google soon took away.)

Zac Hall, 9to5Mac:

macOS 27 Golden Gate beta 6 introduces redesigned traffic light window controls. The new look resembles older Mac OS X systems with more detail in each button.

Nice. But these changes can’t improve fast enough for me — I am impatient. The MacOS user interface had been in a slow, steady, sad, no-fun decline for years, and then, a year ago, the bottom fell out with the disaster of 26 Tahoe.

But all the changes in 27 Golden Gate are in the right direction. Golden Gate is not a mixed bag. Designers with taste and talent are clearly back at the helm. And I love that they’re still pushing UI and icon changes in mid-August, entering the home stretch of the .0 beta cycle.

Oops.

Some follow-up to this weekend’s stemwinder “Anthropic’s ‘Watermark’ Text Adulteration in Claude Is a Perversion of Writing”:

Temperature

Contra a bunch of idiots at Hacker News and elsewhere, I understand that popular LLMs do not just pick the “best” token (word) at each decision point. Counterintuitively, always selecting the highest-probability option produces undesirable results. So the models apply some randomization, and “temperature” is the term for the weighting that’s applied so that the “better” (higher-ranked by the model) choices have a higher chance of being chosen.

With a temperature of 1, models use their built-in probability distribution. With a temperature greater than 1, this distribution gets flatter — less-likely alternatives get a higher probability of being selected, and more-likely alternatives lower. With a temperature lower than 1, the probability distribution leans more toward the higher-ranked options. And with a temperature of 0, the highest-ranked option is always chosen. A temperature of 0 generally produces undesirable results — too predictable, too likely to get stuck. Like over-smoothing an image from a camera sensor, eliminating all noise makes the overall result worse, even if each single bit of “noise”, evaluated in isolation, is in some sense wrong.

The temperature-based randomness — which is what makes LLM output non-deterministic — is in place to help make the output better. The prose is clearly better with a temperature of 1 (with weighted randomness) than at temperature 0 (with no randomness). The watermarking schemes, on the other hand, are applying predictable-with-the-secret-key randomness for an entirely different purpose than improving the quality of the output, and thus, I believe, inherently make the output at least slightly worse.

Advocates of LLM watermarking schemes for text argue that the schemes don’t necessarily lower the quality of the generated prose, because they don’t change the temperatures — they only change the source of the randomness. Daniel Jalkut wrote a good piece today about this. I hope that’s true. I believe it’s possible that it is true. I think it’s highly unlikely that it is true. I do not see how a detectable signal can be added encoded in the choice of words without affecting the meaning of the prose. If it were true I think they’d show examples proving that it’s true. Also, Anthropic itself admits that it can’t properly watermark text that is programming language code:

For the same reason, code — which in very many cases has to be exact — has generally less watermarking than some other forms of text.

Having said that, in areas where there is an arbitrary choice between particular words or terms within the code, the watermark can be used, such as comments within code. But by definition, it will have a negligible effect on the actual code produced.

I hold that good prose is much more like programming code. Exactness in word choice, phrasing, tone, and even punctuation is always better than imprecision. The difference is that sloppy programming code doesn’t run, or doesn’t run correctly. The human brain, on the other hand, is adept at parsing and making sense out of inexact, even sloppy, prose.

I Object Even If Quality Isn’t Adversely Affected

I do not believe these schemes can work without degrading prose quality, if only slightly. Again, though, I am open to being proven wrong. But even if we concede for the moment that such watermarking schemes do not necessarily degrade the quality of generated prose — not one iota — I still object to their use when they are being applied secretly, behind users’ backs. A useful watermark would be one that anyone can check. These SynthID “watermarks” are entirely dependent upon secrets held by the LLM providers (so far, Anthropic/Claude and Google/Gemini). I find that unacceptable, for reasons I hopefully made clear in my essay.

The people in favor of this watermarking for text have been sold a pipe dream, a fantasy. I’ve encountered dozens of comments from angry AI haters (many of them on Bluesky in particular, but also Threads and Hacker News) who are convinced that the only people who could be against the watermarking of AI-generated text are those who are duplicitously passing off AI-generated text as their own writing — and thus that I must be upset only because the jig will soon be up for me too. This of course is not true. I don’t even use AI to write text messages or emails for me, let alone a single sentence of my work.

But I find it funny that so many people who claim to believe that LLMs only produce “slop” and never anything useful also seem 100 percent convinced that the same LLMs are capable of watermarking their output in reliable ways. These people so desperately want to be able to point a finger at AI-generated text that they’ve fallen hook, line, and sinker for the argument from Google and Anthropic that, thanks to them, they’ll be able to.

I don’t want to spend too much time thinking about this because it’s a waste of time, but how exactly do these people think the existence of these mandatory watermarks and detection tools will change anything for the better? Let’s say you work at an office and you suspect that numerous of your colleagues are using AI to write emails and other work-related messages. Their messages are too long, too prolific, and lack lucidity. What are you going to do now? Copy and paste each of their messages into the watermark detectors from Anthropic, Google, and OpenAI? There cannot exist a single detector for all LLMs. And even if you find out that it says it’s a match, that an email or blog post or Slack message was very likely generated by, say, Claude, what are you going to do? March into your colleague’s office and tell them you caught them?

Anyone in a situation where “getting caught” would matter — students, say — is going to use non-watermarking LLMs or run their watermarked text through paraphrasing tools like Declaude.

No practical good is going to come of this, even if these watermarking schemes work as promised (and to be clear, I don’t believe any of it is going to work as promised).¹

My advice is not to care whether anything was written by an AI or a human. The only thing worth evaluating is what we human readers are naturally good at determining: whether it is good or bad. If it’s good, read it. If it’s not, don’t. If you’ve got a job where you’re surrounded by colleagues filling your inbox with AI-generated messages that you can’t abide, get a new job or learn to live with it. Hidden secret watermarking signals — even if they work — aren’t going to make things go back to the way they used to be. If you read something and enjoy it, and subsequently find out it was generated by an LLM, don’t feel bad. You read something good that you enjoyed.

I read something earlier today that claimed most of the posts on LinkedIn are generated by AI. That the whole platform is just inundated with AI slop. Maybe it is, but I wouldn’t know, because I never look at LinkedIn because it’s always been filled with crap. If it smells like crap it’s crap, whether the turds came out of a human anus or a turd-generating robot.

The Argument That Only People Can Truly Write

Dan Moren, writing at Six Colors today, “LLMs Aren’t Writing”:

LLMs do not care about the words that they pick because they cannot care about anything.

Speaking of two things that are not the same, John rightly points out the difference between the phrases “he leaped at the chance” and “he jumped at the opportunity”. Those are indeed distinct — if semantically similar — phrases, each of which might be more apt in a particular situation; or, to put it in another fashion: the use of each of those phrases tells us something different, whether about the person being described or the writer.

But the LLM doesn’t know which of those phrases is the right phrase to use. It has a guess, based on its models and weights and inputs. But the ultimate choice of those phrases tells us nothing about the writer because there is no writer.

Moren’s is a fine retort to my post, but I fundamentally disagree — albeit at a philosophical level. If you’re reading a written work only to gain insight into the mind that produced it, there is no mind on the other end of AI-generated text. But the work itself exists. My disagreement with Moren starts and effectively ends with his (wonderfully summative) headline. I say if you can read something, it was necessarily written.

Again, this is philosophical. Was a photorealistic image generated by AI photographed? No, I would say it was not. Photography, I would say, is the act of focusing light through a lens onto a capturing sensor, capturing, to some extent, reality. I think Moren is arguing that writing is like that. If photography captures a physical scene from reality, writing captures thoughts from an actual mind. That something you can read that was produced by an LLM was merely generated in a way that doesn’t qualify as writing. Semantics. I just care about the article of text. Moren argues that LLMs are not writing; I say they are. But we’re disagreeing only over what the word writing means, not what is being produced.

As for “caring” about the difference between semantically similar but tonally different phrases, like “he leaped at the chance” versus “he jumped at the opportunity”, no, of course the LLM doesn’t “care”. But I, the reader, care very much. I wrote a column back in November on ChatGPT changing (and renaming) the “personalities” it allows users to choose from. These personalities generate text with strikingly different styles and tones. Because I use ChatGPT, I care very much about the tone and style of its responses to my queries. Not because I’m ever going to pass them off as my own writing, but because I’m the one who is reading them.

Moren, near the end of his column:

In the end, I can’t summarize it any better than to ask: if you care so much about word choice, why are you using AI to generate text?

If this does truly make AI-generated text worse, well… good. A lot of people are already willing to accept what an LLM churns out as “good enough” and, if I’m being realistic, I don’t think this will change anything. But if it does lead to more people being dissatisfied with the pablum they’re being fed and turning instead to writing and editing their own text, then that would actually be a positive outcome. Maybe it’d even mean fewer human writers being put out of jobs.

I sympathize, but I must disagree that it can possibly be seen as a net good for LLMs to produce worse prose. I read the output of LLMs every day. I use AI to generate text because I ask it questions (in text). I want the answers that I read to be cogent, lucid, accurate, blessedly terse — and ideally to strike a consistent tone that is pleasant to my reading ear. The genie is not going back in the bottle.

English Is the Finest Language, and Thus, Perhaps, More Fingerprintable

Lastly, here’s an interesting point to ponder. English is the most expressive language in the world. Don’t take my word for it — it’s the only language I speak (despite four years of Spanish in high school). Take the word of famed 20th century author Jorge Luis Borges, an Argentine polyglot whose first language was Spanish. In 1977 he was the guest on William F. Buckley’s “Firing Line”. You can (and should) watch the interview on YouTube, but here’s a transcript of the relevant portion from Jordan M. Poss:

Borges: I have done most of my reading in English. I find English a far finer language than Spanish.

Buckley: Why?

Borges: Well, many reasons. Firstly, English is both a Germanic and a Latin language. Those two registers — for any idea you take, you have two words. Those words will not mean exactly the same. For example if I say “regal” that is not exactly the same thing as saying “kingly.” Or if I say “fraternal” that is not the same as saying “brotherly.” Or “dark” and “obscure.” Those words are different. It would make all the difference — speaking for example — the Holy Spirit, it would make all the difference in the world in a poem if I wrote about the Holy Spirit or I wrote the Holy Ghost, since “ghost” is a fine, dark Saxon word, but “spirit” is a light Latin word. Then there is another reason. The reason is that I think that, of all languages, English is the most physical of all languages.

Buckley: The most what?

Borges: Physical. You can, for example, say “He loomed over.” You can’t very well say that in Spanish.

Buckley: “Asomó?”

Borges: Well, no, no, they’re not exactly the same. And then you have, in English, you can do almost anything with verbs and prepositions. For example, to “laugh off,” to “dream away.” Those things can’t be said in Spanish. To “live down” something, to “live up to” something — you can’t say those things in Spanish. They can’t be said. Or really in any Romance language.

I’ve seen this interview before, but watched it again today after an email exchange with Kirk McElhearn. Quoting (with permission) from McElhearn’s email to me:

For many years, I worked as a French → English translator, and there is one key difference between the two languages. France is a Romance language, and English is a language with both Germanic and Romance (mainly French) influence. This means that English often has synonyms where other languages may not.

Using your example, “He leaped at the chance” and “He jumped at the opportunity”, both would be translated in French as “Il a sauté sur l’occasion.” Meaning that someone writing in French wouldn’t have the same range of words to choose from. It’s maybe not the best example, because both are clichés, but there are many examples of French words where English has both a Romance equivalent and a Germanic equivalent: pig and pork, sheep and mutton, beef and cow. Food words are just one example, but English also has many more verb choices than French, since it has a larger vocabulary coming from both influences.

English gleefully borrows from any and all other languages. McElhearn wonders whether English is thus more fingerprintable than other languages, because of its richer vocabulary of roughly equivalent synonyms, and its multitude of idioms.

The Savant is a political thriller series starring Jessica Chastain that was supposed to debut a year ago. Apple “postponed” it, apparently out of fear of upsetting extremist right-wing nut jobs because the show is about an undercover investigator (Chastain) hunting down extremist right-wing nut jobs. Chastain was not happy about the show being delayed.

Last we heard about the show was back in April, when Marc Malkin reported this for Variety:

“Before it was like, ‘I don’t know if we’re going to see it,’ but now I can say, ‘We’re going to see it,’” Chastain told me exclusively on Saturday at the Breakthrough Prize ceremony in Santa Monica.

As for when, sources tell me that Apple is planning for a July release.

Given that it’s now the middle of August, I think that a July release is looking less and less likely by the day.

The Financial Times, back on July 1, with the transcontinental byline “Michael Acton in San Francisco and Barbara Moens in Brussels” (non-paywalled summaries from 9to5Mac and MacRumors):

Apple chief executive Tim Cook and EU tech chief Henna Virkkunen held “constructive” talks on Tuesday as the two sides aim to lower the temperature in a bitter dispute over the iPhone maker’s new “Siri AI.”

An EU spokesperson said the virtual meeting had involved a “constructive exchange on topics of common interest, on which the work continues”. The meeting included a discussion of how Apple can launch its reinvented Siri in Europe while avoiding millions of dollars in fines for violating the bloc’s flagship competition rules, according to two people familiar with the talks.

[9 paragraphs of explanatory backstory on the Siri AI/DMA standoff elided ...]

The dispute triggered a fierce public backlash against the commission, with European officials reporting hundreds of emails from consumers accusing Brussels of depriving Europeans of a new technology. One EU official said that a commission spokesperson had received a stream of abusive messages, including several death threats.

If there are actual kooks who made credible death threats, of course they should be investigated, identified, and arrested. But mentioning this in the context of the “fierce public backlash” feels like fishing for sympathy over a deeply unpopular policy of zero benefit to Europeans. That there are hundreds or thousands of complaints is no surprise. This policy sucks and is indefensible on practical grounds.

In November, Apple first proposed a technical fix to the EU it later dubbed a “Trusted System Agent” — a layer of software between a user’s device data and a third-party AI model. It would allow rival AI assistants to draw on personal information from the device without giving them full access to the data. However, Apple has yet to build the agent, and said it was looking for assurances from the EU before it starts.

A commission official said its contact with Apple on the idea was limited, and that it lacked a concrete proposal or details on how such an agent would work beyond the general concept. They said Apple “focused on obtaining a green light to delay the compliance”.

That’s the nut of it. Last winter Apple sent an entire team, including engineers, to Brussels to present a proposal for the TSA (maybe that’s another acronym that needs rethinking on the basis of prior art) to ask, basically, “If we build this, would you deem it DMA-compliant?” and the Commission’s response was basically, “Build it first and then we’ll tell you, after we get feedback from your competitors on what they think of it.” And Apple doesn’t want to spend up to two years building a complex system, exclusively for the EU, only to find out then whether it was all for naught.

As for how detailed Apple’s Trusted System Agent proposal was, we have a he-said/she-said dispute. Apple said at a press briefing at WWDC that it was quite detailed. An anonymous “commission official” here told the Financial Times “that it lacked a concrete proposal or details on how such an agent would work beyond the general concept”. Apple has more credibility here, if only because their statements claiming the proposal was detailed weren’t from anonymous sources. They were on the record.

In the meantime, we’ve seen what the European Commission is demanding of Google with Android regarding third-party LLMs. I can’t see Apple ever agreeing to such a system for iOS. We don’t know the details of Apple’s TSA proposal, but I’d be rather flabbergasted if it enabled the things the EC is demanding for third-party AI providers on Android, like unrestricted background execution.