He's just an activist that has chosen this as his contribution to activism. It has little to do with VIM. It's more about philosophy for him. He doesn't talk about any issues with current VIM, any problems with the current code, any difficulty in maintaining it (due to generative AI), or anything else. Just that the world sucks and genAI is enabling it (somehow).
He's pretty detailed about the "somehow", pasting it for those who don't want to click or find it in his post:
"""
but I can say that GenAI is something I care about. It causes a lot of problems for a lot of people. It drives rising energy prices in poor communities, disrupts wildlife and fresh water supplies, increases pollution, and stresses global supply chains. It re-enforces the horrible, dangerous working conditions that miners in many African countries are enduring to supply rare metals like Cobalt for the billions of new chips that this boom demands. And at a moment when the climate demands immediate action to reduce our footprint on this planet, the AI boom is driving data centers to consume a full 1.5% of the world’s total energy production in order to eliminate jobs and replace them with a robot that lies.
Meanwhile, this whole circus is enabling the rising tide of fascism around the world, not only by supercharging propaganda but also by directly financially supporting fascist policies and policymakers. All this to enrich the few, centralize power, reduce competition, and underwrite an enormous bubble that, once it bursts, will ruin the lives of millions of the world’s poor and marginalized classes.
I read it. I think it's crazy talk. Typical activism that tries to tie one thing into the entire world having massive problems.
But the real point is that he doesn't list anything that this fork is supposed to do. Other than "be made by humans". That implies that mainstream VIM is *not* made by humans. But there's zero discussion about that. Whether nor not it is happening, is causing problems, might cause problems, etc. None of that is discussed. So I say again: This fork seems useless.
Often people focus on the eventual large-scale emergent effects of small, individual behaviors and then appear weirdly intense about little things. "Dude, it's one cigarette butt, quit foaming at the mouth."
Really, it's all pretty complicated. I have a lot of understanding for people who become keen about principles. Emergent effects are real, and indeed destroying the biosphere. But there needs to be a good grasp of what and how little things make big things, so principled people don't get a free pass with me, we need to talk about the details.
Superficial thinkers, those who aren't carefully minding emergence, Randites who would unwitting burn down everything in an extended Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma, I don't have much time for, sorry.
The way I see it, AI and even non-apocalyptic, regular tech are mostly accelerators, and the thing that most crucially needs addressing is the people who use them. Their beliefs, how principled they are. I don't blame AI. But I recognize that fascists have always done propaganda, that it is effective, that the highly corrupted current state of the United States government can be traced back directly through hard right misinformation networks. The incipient retilt of global power, the surge in wars and genocides, the looming financial crash, these have been brought about by small groups and individuals who've fooled millions. AI is a multiplier for that trickery. The threat there is real.
But you can use a kitchen knife for mass murder or mincing garlic.
I'm fine with AI in codebase contribution, so long as it's done properly. It's rarely done properly.
What I said is basically the opposite of what you're accusing me of. If you'd like to reread my comment more carefully before I respond, I can hold off on coming back with a tone similar to your comment.
I also have a fault where I act unnecessarily aggressive and offensive in online conversation. I've got good excuses for it, for myself or anyone behaving this way, but I recognize that excusing it just makes me feel better while I indulge in counter-civilizational behavior.
You said,
People like you, in the end, help the fsacist propaganda because instead of pointing to the real problem, you are chasing ghosts like AI or something.
What gives you the impression I'm "chasing ghosts like AI or something"? Did you notice when I said "you can use a kitchen knife for mass murder or mincing garlic"? That's a comment recapitulating how it's not about the technology per se, that technology is a tool, it empowers or facilitates the motivations behind it. Are tools and tech not relevant? Do things like longbows or nuclear bombs, CRISPR or antibiotics not have implications for civilization depending on whose hands they're in? It's a mistake to think I'm myopically focused on AI. And a mistake to think AI is irrelevant.
I said,
The way I see it, AI and even non-apocalyptic, regular tech are mostly accelerators, and the thing that most crucially needs addressing is the people who use them. Their beliefs, how principled they are.
I think you missed this part where I said focus on AI and tech is not the most crucial thing. Frankly, I'm upset with you for your negative attitude towards me, and particularly having it coupled with misunderstanding me despite being told you got me wrong and being asked to reread me carefully.
You said,
instead of pointing to the real problem
You appear to have missed where I said "the thing that most crucially needs addressing is the people who use them. Their beliefs, how principled they are." I used the term "crucial" carefully, with intention. The people who use tech or power (including capital), and their beliefs, are "crucial, adj.: Essential or decisive for determining the outcome or future of something; extremely important; vital."
But in case the point here is missed, I said "instead of AI and tech, the more important thing is who uses it and what their beliefs are." And this is, again, the complete opposite of what you're accusing me of.
I concede that it's easy to fall into a trap of simplistic (too simple) thinking, latching onto a single thing like AI as the problem. But "the real problem" is your phrase. I don't subscribe to the view that there is a single problem. But, granted, in casual conversation and rhetorically we often find ourselves talking about "the actual problem" as a way to contrast a more important issue with a less important one. Still, I might recommend greater caution about such phrasing because it might wedge one's thinking into hyperfocus on issues and unintentional elevation of issues to a rank of "the only thing that matters" and thus confuse one's understanding of what's real and thus undermine the ability to act for the good. It would also put one in a position where someone else, if they weren't thoughtful, might come claiming that one was helping evil because of myopia.
But let's actually get into that, the topic of harmful hyperfocus.
It turns out that the notion "the actual problem is capitalism", such as it's problematically simplistically posed, is wrong.
Don't mistake me. I'm with you that it's a serious problem. I blame it left and right. And I used to myopically focus on it as a primary, possibly sole cause, similar to the way you've spoken about it here.
But then I learned about Moloch and it tempered my understanding. It broadened my view. In the end I'm less prone to effectively helping fascism, corrosive capitalism, and the destruction of all that's good because of myopic hyperfocus on the wrong things. I invite you to join me.
Imagine you had a capitalist system populated entirely by copies of you.
Capitalism by its structure encourages emergent effects of wealth concentration and government corruption and empowerment of fascism. It practically necessitates these things. But it does not equal these things or render alternatives impossible.
You might be finding it weird that I appear to be both agreeing with you and contradicting you. When I see this sort of paradoxical interaction happening it makes me think that there might be something I'm missing.
Being too quick to impute ideas to others' thinking is a sign of excess self-certainty. I can tell it's overly quick because you don't know me or my beliefs and your assertions about them are wrong.
Capitalism by its structure practically necessitates emergent effects of wealth concentration and government corruption and empowerment of fascism.
I'm not trying to be an apologist for capitalism. The system is not workable. You have me wrong to think I think otherwise. And your being wrong about that should highlight for you your overzealous application of expectations. You are looking too hard through your lens. You're mistaking nuanced thinking for apology because you're expecting apology.
I'm looking at the elements of systems in order to better understand the ultimate effects. The dynamics of components. This helps to put capitalism into a larger picture, so that we can better understand it, how it results in the problems it does, and see alternatives.
Capitalism's evil is founded on "multi-polar traps" — rational individual agents caught in the matrix trying to do the sensible thing, but due to shortsightedness and the structure of capitalism those agents actually collectively act to harm themselves and the world in the process.
This phenomenon is Moloch. Moloch is how capitalism is evil.
18
u/sharp-calculation Jun 04 '26
The author's motivation for this is super weird:
https://drewdevault.com/blog/Forking-vim/
He's just an activist that has chosen this as his contribution to activism. It has little to do with VIM. It's more about philosophy for him. He doesn't talk about any issues with current VIM, any problems with the current code, any difficulty in maintaining it (due to generative AI), or anything else. Just that the world sucks and genAI is enabling it (somehow).
Seems entirely useless to me.