Nice critique of the Resonant Computing Manifesto. I found the manifesto distasteful, but largely because of how it incorporates AI. My own impression felt knee-jerk to me, but I didn't bother digging any deeper, so to that end this post satisfies. -> Why I Didn’t Sign the Resonant Computing Manifesto: The Foundations Need Work

I did sign it, despite it having a few problems, because in general I want people to row in that general direction and I am happy to support even if it does have some gaps I could nit pick on (and I did) https://bsky.app/profile/larkworthy.bsky.social/post/3m7fiek5whc2y

Thanks for sharing this critique @Ivan Reese! I was similarly bothered by the AI mentions in the manifesto. This critique does a good job of articulating many other issues I agree with as well.

@Tom Larkworthy related 🙂

I only became aware of the manifesto when Wesley posted their own criticism, which I very much agreed with: https://notebook.wesleyac.com/resonant-computing/ I was a bit surprised there were a lot of people I recognize and respect as authors/signatures. Directionally it seems fine, but it just doesn't... add much concrete value? Which I feel is what Wesley was pointing out.

It feels a bit rude sometimes to do a close reading of a text that is not very rigorously thought through, but I hope that the authors are able to appreciate that doing this sort of reading is taking their ideas seriously, and I hope that they are willing to take their own ideas seriously enough to consider them.

I discovered the manifesto via this thread. First impression: well-intentioned but naive. The critique cited by @Ivan Reese points out the missing politics, and Conway's law explains why you can't ignore the politics and focus on just the tech. Top naiveté: "In the era of AI, whoever controls the context holds the power. While data often involves multiple stakeholders, people must serve as primary stewards of their own context, determining how it's used." There is no way an individual or small team can control the context of its AI usage, assuming the latter means LLM here. LLMs live in the world of Very Big Data, by technical necessity.

While I agree that it is naive, I do get “Marxists plotting to icepick Trotsky” vibes from these reactions. Somehow it's easier to be vocal about people with whom you have 80-85% overlap than your complete enemies?

"We, the signatories of this manifesto, are committed to building, funding, and championing products and companies that embed these principles at their core." who is building, where? who is funding? how do I get the funding? who is championing? where?

@Mariano Guerra Unfortunately, where software is concerned “form follows funding”, and the current environment mostly funds things that VCs think will make them richer. If you feel like dedicating your life to a hobby project that has the properties you desire, you're free to do that, but there's no guarantee anyone will care 🤷‍♂️

that's why I ask where is the building and the funding the manifesto mentions, hard to align the manifesto and the current incentives, ask mozilla 😄

Manifestos belong to the realm of idealists. Funding (at a scale that matters) belongs to the realm of pragmatists.

Mozilla fell prey to poorly designed internal structure that allowed a few bad actors to seize power. The money river from GOOG could have used for very good things, but ended up lining the pockets of incompetent leadership ☹️

Thinking of my old favorite again: Conway's law. What organizational and governance structure would actually support the development of "resonant computing"? With the latest news from Mozilla, I see another wave of hope for Servo liberating the Web from corporate greed. But what does the Servo Web site say in its headline?

Servo aims to empower developers with a lightweight, high-performance alternative for embedding web technologies in applications.

Empowering developers writing apps isn't really aligned with the goals of humane tech, resonant computing, and whatever other labels exist in this space. Its history with Mozilla Corporation, and its current attachment to the Linux foundation, also says "corporate tech". However, I know nothing about how the Servo team/community (which one fits better?) actually works. I even wonder if Web governance, with central control by the W3C, is actually robust enough against corporate takeover to support humane tech. So far for organizational structures that don't work. Which ones do? Personally, I'd bet on small protocols and small tools that implement and bridge multiple protocols. No organization big enough for corporate takeover to be able to harm the whole ecosystem. But do we have actual examples of approaches that seem to work?

Most things have cycles and seasons, but most end poorly (software projects, communities, nations, species)

I'm pretty okay with death. Wouldn't call it the bad ending.

agree with the sentiment in this thread. to me this manifesto is [just] another idea in an already overflowing dumping ground of unexplored ideas. please, no more ideas. we have enough. if i ever give my again, I'll add it to the list

The Manifesto promises to fix everything that’s wrong on the internet right now. But you look at the authors and the signers, you’ll see the same guys who caused the present problems. These guys made it rich on the Torment Nexus and they’re now claiming they can fix it.

I don't know most of the people who signed the manifesto. For how many of them (approximately!) would this criticism apply?

I don't know them all either, but from the ones I know I see people who work at GitHub, Notion, Lux Capital, and also a self-described LLM allocate. From that sample I'd say... most of them, if only by association. There is something a little rich about this manifesto coming from GitHubbers and Notioners and VCers

I thought we loved Maggie Appleton, she is first signature

we do! :D

@Maggie Appleton also reports that she has great success whipping up moldable personal software using LLM coding assistants, which might be why she is more bullish about those possibilities than most of us are 🤷‍♂️

i don't doubt the technology's usefulness for technological problems! but the response i linked warns against using a technological solution for a non-technological problem.

From the manifesto: “For decades, technology has required standardized solutions to complex human problems. In order to scale software, you had to build for the average user, sanding away the edge cases. In many ways, this is why our digital world has come to resemble the sterile, deadening architecture that Alexander spent his career pushing back against. This is where AI provides a missing puzzle piece. Software can now respond fluidly to the context and particularity of each human—at scale. One-size-fits-all is no longer a technological or economic necessity. “ This is, if I understand it correctly, in keeping with the position that others have stated that AI tools can enable people to create the small, personal, moldable systems they require without being trapped in one size fits all software produced by megacorps. Those who believe this argument in turn consider this a potentially emancipatory technology. The piece you linked says that this is all nonsense because LLMs can't do that. I'm pointing out that some of signatories have lived experiences that cause them to disagree with that assertion.

a technologist (like myself) building personalised software for myself is very different to building software that other people can mould on the fly. the former was always possible, now it's possible at even faster speed. the latter remains hard: not because of technological problems. "JUST DO WHAT I MEAN" is not a technological problem. i'm not here to convince you though! i do find it funny how defensive people get about LLMs though

Again, I do not personally believe these claims will work out the way they think they will. But I am trying to understand their beliefs and treat them as human beings worthy of my compassion rather than throwing rhetorical stones at them for violating in-group norms

of course i do too jack i'm sharing harsh feedback not calling for their death lol

> Software can now respond fluidly to the context and particularity of each human—at scale. A lot hinges on this sentence. I think the sentence is dubious, even without the "at scale". I don't think the lived experiences in question fulfill the first half in ways that non-AI tools fail to. I think AI is making easy things easier and hard things harder. "I vibe coded my own workout app" is something a person would say, but I think all the people actually saying that know enough about coding that they could also have just coded their own workout app. And nobody is using AI to free themselves from Apple's walled garden or fix Notion's buggy editor.

@Jack Rusher Thinking about your 80-85% agreement... AI is such a polarizing topic that disagreement on that aspect alone probably counts for more than its importance in the overall argumentation. I see AI polarization as a major communication obstacle these days. I have seen professional research scientist refuse to talk to one another because of opposite views on AI. I have never seen something similar on any other form of disagreement.