There’s nuance here though, LLM’s actually do a better job of code that looks like it should work.

You get an unskilled junior in the mix, their code is obviously bad.

You get a semi decent LLM with a competent harness in there and you get a mix of code that works and code that nearly works.

There should be competent peer review either way, but the effort for each is potentially an order of magnitude different.

Then add on top that the LLM can churn them out way quicker than a junior could possibly achieve and you have a recipe for a huge review burden.

If multiple people are continuing to miss a point you think you’ve made, perhaps consider if you’ve properly communicated your point before moving directly to pretentiousness.

The best orientation for capturing sound the ear canal is to keep the ear straight from lobe to tip. (across the pitch axis at least, that’s the rotation that enables nodding).

As you pitch forward or backward you start to capture less and less of the sound across the plane the brain expects sound to be coming from.

If you have your head pitched backwards by~ 70-90 degrees (as if you were looking directly down your nose at someone in front of you) you will struggle to hear/understand what is being said, especially from directly in front of you.

Perhaps there’s a metaphor in there somewhere, maybe even tree related, as that seems to be the theme.

Good luck with your imaginary forest.

That’s a particularly pretentious response to a reply that was subjectively factually correct.

Though expect it’s difficult to hear what’s actually being said with your head tilted so far back.

edit : I’m not the person to which you were responding, in case that wasn’t clear

oh damn, i’m stealing that last one.

I mostly agree, but there is a tradeoff here between effort and resource usage

Do you spend the extra x months dev time to go from 800Mb to 200Mb?

how about another x months to go from 200MB to 100MB?

100MB -> 80Mb? 80Mb -> 67Mb ?

and that’s only memory footprint, not performance, test coverage, infrastructure etc.

We’ve swung way in to the “800Mb binary ?, meh, they all have RAM to spare” (looking at you specifically fucking electron shells) and i fully agree we should be way more on the side of resource usage optimisation.

Optimising for deadlines and effort costs is also a consideration, if we don’t acknowledge and address that as part of the conversation, it’ll be seen as gold-plating or “perfect is the enemy of good”.

Yes but you wouldn’t actually need to make your clone very different for the copyright to be entirely different and then surely you wouldn’t get sued?

Are you confident enough to bet 6-12 months of dev time and resources(possibly lawyer consultation fees) on that assumption ? because up until recently that’s what someone would need to do to find out.

It might be fine, but the threat of litigation is a part of the deterrent.

But also you can’t really copyright UI beyond the design itself, the functionality is free game as far as I understand.

As with all of these things, it’s region specific.

However, game mechanic patents and copyrights exists and are litigated regularly.

In broad terms this is already covered.

If you made an exact clone of Photoshop by hand you’d get sued into oblivion, and that would be effective because of the barrier to entry ( in time and resources ) you’d need to get to that point.

Meaning you’d be betting all that upfront effort/resource on the/a major corporation either not caring, or not being able to mount a reasonable litigation strategy.

Not many actors would be willing to risk that.

The difference here is that the barrier is now much lower and it tangles up a whole bunch of other potential issues around the legality of vibe code.

Regardless of how it shakes out it will almost certainly be a set of rules that only really apply to the peasants.

"If the penalty for a crime is a fine, then that law only exists for the lower class.”

FLCL.

And if movies also count “Grave Of the Fireflies”.

ah, i see.

that sentence as a standalone makes no sense, with the context it’s still borderline but i can see how you got there.

that…doesn’t make any sense

If you only see things that conform to your beliefs what need is there for anger ?

For the compsci industries at least, it’s a productivity boost with moderate to extreme consequences in the middle to long term.

Not that that is a problem for CEO’s and companies that work quarter to quarter, but it will be a problem in 5-10 years when they have no senior workers to pick up/fix the problems that LLM’s introduce.

Or for the particularly dim-witted few in the short term who throw money at a problem they don’t understand while ignoring the people they are paying to advise them, thinking they can remove the “unpredictable” human element.

Unless, of course, the LLM’s improve so much in the runway each company has left, so as to eliminate these issues, i think it unlikely, but we’ll see.

It’s called fingerprinting and yes.

It can be much more insidious than is widely known but the real use comes from the aggregation of data from many sources, over time.

Basically Google’s playbook, across many/all companies.

They have not.

They have provided an IOU from the bank of “trust me bro, this shit’s gonna moon” same as everyone else in that circlejerk of stockmarket destruction.

and the other side has said :
“sure bro, we’ll set you aside a 100 million future rams” *wink*

while announcing this big “sale” they have completed to boost their stock price.

It’s fucking monopoly money to them and it’s going fuck everybody

No, you define it.

If im asking you it’s because I don’t understand your viewpoint , how would me defining it help with that?

Im seeing a wall of text here so I’m going to split them up into something more coherent.

Should an employee who advocates for abortion rights be able to be fired because their employer doesn’t like the optics of their statement?

Should an employee who vouches for a particular political candidate be able to be fired for it?

The answer to both is that it’s a legal issue, my personal beliefs don’t really factor in to the legal outcome.

I think freedom of speech isn’t freedom from consequences so consider the (sometimes legally viable, if not morally) consequences of your actions and act accordingly.

I think we can both agree that a person who advocates for the genocide of a people should be punished, but where do you draw the line?

Thats a very rigid position to take on something that has significant subjective nuance.

I’d evaluate on a case by case basis and make a decision based on what I can live with.

As much as I don’t really care for corporate interests, there are real consequences for companies that continue to employ people with controversial views; why would they want to continue to employ those people when they could win back public favor by firing them?

No idea, not sure how it’s relevant but I don’t generally care enough to have an opinion I’d be willing to defend.

Im not being dismissive, I genuinely don’t give corporate PR tactics that much of my headspace unless I have no choice.

I don’t think I could define a line between what’s “accepted” political speech that’s protected against employer reprisal and what’s not. Unless we go old stand-bys, such as calls for violence, which are easy to evade. I’m not suggesting this is an easy or even a possible problem to solve; all I meant was that think employees should be protected from firing for reasonable political statements. What “reasonable” is defined as is a much more complicated question, and I concede I don’t have an answer for it.

Agreed

I wasnt looking for what “acceptable” political opinions consist of, i was wondering how you defined that category in general.

I ask a variation of this question a lot (check my history for examples).

Im not looking for a fight im just bad at understanding ambiguity in some contexts.

I think people should be allowed to make political statements outside of a work context without risking their jobs—but with our current societal norms siding with corporate image concerns, this does seem in-line with the norms of that approach.

Define “political statement”.

Because it looks like you’re putting “this is just like beginning of the holocaust”, “non-whites don’t deserve human rights” and “let’s seriously consider not having a secret police” in the same bracket here.

A statement being a political position doesn’t (or rather shouldn’t) automatically shield you from the other meanings of that statement and writing that off as all being “corporate image concerns” is insidious.

I didn’t say i didn’t like it, i said it wasn’t mandatory to use it.

Your comment (and the context of this post) implied active usage, which is what i was responding to.

If you want to come at it from a “there is no ethical consumerism” point of view, you might be right that it is, or will be, everywhere.

There is still a distinction between the choice to actively use it and the pseudo-passive background knowledge that it might have been used as part of something in your daily life…

Like the knowledge that modern consumer electronics supply chains have a prominent core of slavery and exploitation doesn’t make buying a phone the same as owning a slave.

“It’s already everywhere, so you might as well use it” isn’t a good catch-all policy and i don’t think it’s a good approach to this specific scenario.

But you do you.

AI is here to stay. It’ll never go away, unless there is no more electricity on the planet. So, we should all come to terms with it and use it the best way we can.

Or choose not to, just because it’s there doesn’t make it mandatory or even a good idea.

Im not sure of the general context here, but in the UK gypsy was mostly used to ( derogatorily ) refer to the Romani.

Also commonly called “travelers” due to their nomadic nature.

As with a lot of derogatory colloquialisms its usage has mutated/changed over time and differs between geographic areas.

Modern usage is generally aimed at the groups of people who nomadically move around in large caravan convoys, they may or may not descend from (or identify as) Roma.

They have a poor reputation.

If you’ve ever seen the movie Snatch , the group that brad pitt is a part of is one example of “gypsies”.

Best I can tell, they are “Irish” gypsies but many different variations exist.

Thats some premium triple-distilled trolling right there, congrats

Edit : I want going to ask, because I didn’t want to ruin the magic but I can’t help myself.

How do you pack it all in like that?

so concise, its almost a haiku.