Been scrolling through some heated discussions about OpenAI’s announcement of an “adult version” of ChatGPT, and honestly, it’s got me thinking about how quickly we’re sleepwalking into a surveillance state disguised as convenience.

The whole thing started with Sam Altman’s typical corporate speak about having “mitigated serious mental health issues” - which immediately set off my bullshit detector. When has a tech CEO ever genuinely solved a complex societal problem with a software update? It’s like saying we’ve cured loneliness by adding more emoji reactions to Facebook posts.

Nearly a million people have signed a petition against the UK’s proposed digital ID scheme, and frankly, I’m not surprised. What started as half a million signatures has exploded past the 800,000 mark and keeps climbing. When you see numbers like that, you know something has struck a nerve.

The whole thing reminds me of conversations I’ve had with mates here in Melbourne about the MyGov digital services rollout. Sure, it’s convenient when it works, but there’s always that nagging feeling that you’re handing over more control than you’re getting back in return. The UK situation feels like that, but dialled up to eleven.

Well, this is awkward. OpenAI’s ChatGPT just casually breezed through one of those “I am not a robot” CAPTCHA tests, complete with the cheeky commentary: “This step is necessary to prove I’m not a bot.” The irony is so thick you could cut it with a knife, and frankly, it’s got me questioning everything we thought we knew about online security.

I’ve been following the discussion around this development, and the reactions are fascinating. Some folks are making jokes about welcoming our robot overlords, others are genuinely concerned about what this means for internet security, and quite a few are just relieved that maybe someone (or something) can finally solve these bloody things consistently.

The online discussion about someone ditching Google Photos caught my attention this morning. It resonated deeply with my own journey of reducing dependency on big tech services, though I must admit I’m still taking baby steps in that direction.

Reading through the thread, I was struck by how many people shared this person’s revelation about self-hosting. There’s this persistent myth that running your own server requires enterprise-level infrastructure or a computer science degree. The reality is far more accessible – you can repurpose old hardware and build something meaningful with it.

Just when you thought the tech industry couldn’t get more bizarre, here we are watching a drama unfold that would be rejected as too far-fetched for a Netflix series. The latest revelation about a DOGE staffer’s previous dismissal from a cybersecurity company for leaking secrets reads like a plot from a rejected Silicon Valley episode.

The sheer absurdity of putting sensitive government systems in the hands of individuals who couldn’t pass basic security clearance checks is mind-boggling. Working in tech, I’ve had to jump through countless hoops just to access relatively mundane corporate systems. My junior developers need thorough background checks just to peek at our codebase. Yet somehow, we’re watching people waltz into positions handling potentially sensitive government data with apparently less vetting than what’s required to work at your local Bunnings.

Everything started with a simple thought: “I’ll just set up Plex on my NAS.” Famous last words. Looking back now, I can’t help but laugh at my naivety. That innocent decision has spiraled into what can only be described as a full-blown obsession with self-hosting and digital independence.

The catalyst was frustration with streaming services. Remember when Netflix was the only game in town? Now we’re expected to juggle half a dozen subscriptions just to watch our favourite shows. Even then, content appears and disappears at the whim of corporate licensing deals. It’s maddening.

Remember when we used to joke about not knowing what goes into our hot dogs? Well, it turns out we’re equally clueless about what goes into our electronics. Recent revelations about US companies being in the dark about their chip sources have got me thinking about the broader implications for our digital security.

The situation is both amusing and terrifying. Here we are, living in an age where we’re increasingly dependent on technology, yet half of US companies don’t even know where their chips come from. That’s like driving a car without knowing if the brakes were installed by a certified mechanic or your neighbour’s teenager.

Reading about the US government’s recent approval of $3 billion to remove Chinese telecoms equipment brought back memories of conversations I had with colleagues years ago. Back in 2015, while working on a government contract, we were already discussing the potential risks of foreign-made networking equipment. Many dismissed these concerns as paranoid, but here we are.

The cybersecurity landscape has shifted dramatically over the past decade. Working in IT, I’ve watched the gradual evolution from “buy whatever’s cheapest” to implementing zero-trust architectures and carefully vetting hardware suppliers. It’s fascinating how what was once considered conspiracy theory territory has become mainstream security policy.