Obviously nothing solid to back this up, but I kind of feel like I was seeing emojis all over github READMEs on JS projects for quite a while before AI picked it up. I feel like it may have been something that bled over from Twitch streaming communities.
Agree, this stuff was trending up very fast before AI.
Could be my own changing perspective, but what I think is interesting is how the signal it sends keeps changing. At first, emoji-heavy was actually kind of positive: maybe the project doesn't need a webpage, but you took some time and interest in your README.md. Then it was negative: having emoji's became a strong indicator that the whole README was going to be very low information density, more emotive than referential[1] (which is fine for bloggery but not for technical writing).
Now there's no signal, but you also can't say it's exactly neutral. Emojis in docs will alienate some readers, maybe due to association with commercial stuff and marketing where it's pretty normalized. But skipping emojis alienates other readers, who might be smart and serious, but nevertheless are the type that would prefer WATCHME.youtube instead of README.md. There's probably something about all this that's related to "costly signaling"[2].
There’s a pattern to emoji use in docs, especially when combined with one or more other common LLM-generated documentation patterns, that makes it plainly obvious that you’re about to read slop.
Even when I create the first draft of a project’s README with an LLM, part of the final pass is removing those slop-associated patterns to clarify to the reader that they’re not reading unfiltered LLM output.
It drives me crazy. It happens with Claude models too. I even created an instruction to avoid them in a CLAUDE.md, and the miserable thing from time to time still does it.
the cost of labor is shared the the working class as well , it is not just tha capitalist class that pays for labor that labor cost is in the final cost of all the goods and services you use. These robots make life better, if you don't want to buy a robot that is your choice but do not take the freedom of others to buy ,use make and modify robots.
You're entirely missing the point. Unless you can build the robot in question and the infrastructure that supports it's ability to operate, you will never own one. You will be a renter of hardware and services and you will be subject to an externalized market controller who can—at will—arbitrarily raise the costs of operating said robot.
People already basically do this - big twitch streamers and YouTubers get overwhelmed with being sent random stuff, there’s tons of videos where they open a bunch of them up. It’s not a living room, but it’s not far off the concept.
I’ve noticed this anxiety on steam reviews too, people seem to stress out if there isn’t a continuous growth of a game’s player base, like there’s a totality that we all need to be striving for, even in a federated space, even in a game’s player base, otherwise any shrinking indicates a spiral. Not that they aren’t real (the spirals) but there’s an aspect of putting the cart before the horse here.
Agree completely. These laws are either a wedge for broader surveillance or a massive compromise on everyone else’s rights to catch a subset of a subset of users.
reply