straight from the horse’s mouth
There will be a free blog, where you can just hang out and read more about pr0xyh0rse and a paid blog where you can get exclusive insights.
The paid blog will have more detailed projects, things to try in the future, and creative projects.
More to come…
what’s being discussed?
-
exclusive insights into current experiments
discussions around local models, and different configurations for consumer hardware
optimal ui/ux design to make both human and ai happy
types of data and data curation
types of learning and signs to look for while training
-
i would like to say this is a judgement free zone where people can bring their stories and be heard instead of infantalized. the problem is many people tend to conflate constructive criticism with judgment.
pr0Xyh0rse believes that constructuive criticism is important to push torward well thought out ethics and accountability in the ai space.
i can’t say this will be a “judgement free zone” what i can say, is it will strive to be kind. not ‘nice’ but kind.
-
there is a lot of talk about ai and how unethical the scraping of creative work was without giving credit or payment to the people the companies took the work from.
tech companies have been scraping and collecting data for eons. they probably know more about you than your mother.
was the scraping ethical? no. was it a symptom of a much bigger problem? yes.
belief around right or wrong here is not necessarily a productive conversation.
an artist will always be an artist no matter how much of their work has been scraped.
the real choice is how do we function in this new world. how do we create without feeling liek it’s worth has been deminished, and especially in a world where we will likely move past art and creation strictly for dollar value.
will you still want to create when no one ‘pays’ for it in the same way?
we didn’t balk when procreate gave digital tools to help the painting and drawing process. what’s fundamentally different here?
let’s find out.
-
everything pr0xyh0rse is working on has everything to do with longevity. this tech is something that is both wonderful and terrifying, beautiful and yet it will likely cause a lot of upheavel and pain.
and maybe that’s okay. maybe humanity did need a bit of a wake up call to everything we’ve just been subconsciously doing in our day to day.
pr0xyh0rse is neither a “doomer” or a “accelerationist”. it’s a fine balance between, doing things in a way that prevents hitting a wall at speed (accelerationsists) and being so scared we never move forward (doomer).
the ai world model pilot we should’ve built yesterday: why consent-based ai development isn't just Ethical — it's better data
Over the last year, I've watched tech companies announce that AI will fundamentally transform our economy while simultaneously refusing to prepare for the world they claim to be building. They operate on next-quarter thinking while telling the rest of us to brace for impact.
This is the cognitive dissonance at the heart of AI development right now: visionary rhetoric, short-term execution.
They say AI will change everything. They say it will displace jobs, restructure industries, and redefine how we live and work. But when you look at what they're actually doing, it's the same playbook. Scrape data quietly. Bury consent in Terms of Service. Treat users as both customers and unpaid R&D subjects. And above all, never be honest about what's really happening.
I think there's a better way. Not because it's nicer. Because it actually produces better outcomes.
The Current Model Is Broken
Let's talk about what's actually happening.
A company sells an expensive early-stage robot for $20,000. It's marketed as a personal assistant, a glimpse of the future. But it's not fully autonomous. There are human operators behind the scenes — guiding, labeling, correcting, sometimes outright puppeteering it. Meanwhile, it's in your home, seeing your rooms, your routines, your family.
This isn't just AI in your house. It's effectively a remote human being partially in your house. And you're paying $20,000 for the privilege of being a test subject in a surveillance lab disguised as a product.
The worst part isn't even the privacy implications. It's the dishonesty. The vibe of "we'll never say plainly: you are our field lab."
And here's the thing about dishonesty: it produces bad data.
When people feel defensive, when they half-trust you, when they're constantly second-guessing what you're seeing — you don't get authentic behavior. You get performance. You get people protecting themselves from a system they don't understand and didn't really consent to.
If your goal is training AI on real human behavior, deception is counterproductive. Defensive users make bad datasets.
What Consent-Based Development Actually Looks Like
Imagine a different model.
A company says: "We're running a pilot program. Here's exactly what we're building. Here's what data we collect and why. Here's who can see it. Here's what you get in return. Our executives and employees will live with this system first, for a year, before we open it to anyone else. Only then will we invite volunteers — with full transparency, clear terms, and real benefits."
That's not utopian. That's just treating people like adults.
And here's the key insight: a lot of people would say yes to that. Not because they're naive, but because they understand what data is, what training is, and what a fair trade looks like. The reason people recoil from current AI products isn't that they hate technology. It's that they hate being lied to.
Transparency isn't a barrier to participation. It's the foundation of it.
where do you want to graze first?