> AIslop is of higher quality than devslop on average.

Is it? If by higher quality, you mean commenting properly, sticking to naming conventions etc. I can agree. But to me, AIslop looks like it lacks "intentionality" of code written by devs, no matter how bad they are at naming things and sticking to conventions.

i.e. people who are adequately good at their jobs usually do things for a reason, and they can explain it. Even if you don't find it agreeable, it usually is consistent.

Is it AI that lacks intentionality or your prompts?

Just remember we are comparing slops. If you care about your code it really doesn't matter if you write it manually or with the help of a glorified typewriter.

it can't be bad - if it's bad you must be using it wrong

It can't be good, you aren't seeing the slop

Passing judgement on the schadenfreude aside, I don't think its a community moderator's responsibility to make sure the violator's attempts are cost-efficient.

I think the point is not difficulty but rather recklessness. I don't think other large players lack the ability or the deep pockets to do the same, but they might be lacking on the recklessness department for whatever reason. That reason, whatever it may be, might be the interesting part here.

> We’re so so far away from tools here that are anywhere near being trustworthy and accurate. And yet we (including myself) are chunking out code after code. It’s so bizarre.

I think one more thing this whole LLM charade in the last few years has revealed is that no-one really cares. As long as it "looks" like it works, turns out, its all fine.

Convenience trumps quality.

Bic pens. Disposable razors. Whipped cream in a can.

Add LLM code to the list.

Seems correct. Weird thing is, every single piece of software that I use feels like it got shittier in the last couple of years.

But I am not using more software. I mean their source codes might have gotten larger, but the count of tools/services I use is basically the same.

So this feels more like giving up nice handcrafted fountain pens for bic pens. But I am still using a couple pens overall. So no added convenience, just shittier quality.

“Looks like code. Feels like code. Works (mostly) like code. It’s code”

There are other, more focused (also arguably better at explaining) videos on explaining how it works. Here is one: https://youtu.be/dxmxIsoV_Xo

It took a while and several explanations for it to completely click for me. The e-cvt mechanism does seem to be quite clever and simpler (at least mechanically).

I tend to view this as purely an optimization problem.

Basically all aspects of traditional values, systems in place and the whole lifestyle, established mostly after the agricultural revolution; seems to be laser-focused on increasing surviving offspring.

I feel like it should be obvious that if you take a solution that optimizes almost exclusively for x (surviving offspring), and replace it partially, optimizing for a,b,c (industrial output, female participation to workforce, etc.); you necessarily get a lower x in exchange for higher a,b,c.

Now it looks to me like everyone is trying to increase x back again, but without decreasing a,b,c. It seems obvious to me that you cannot do this (unless you have been doing a terrible job at optimizing before). You have to trade some value off from the other side. But in our current society, I don't see how can this happen.

>Someone needs to be involved in decision making, with real stakes if those decisions are bad.

Why though? I imagine things could also go the "google way" as well. The automated system makes the decision; and you just.. deal with the consequences if that decision is bad. We could just have an extended version of this dynamic as well: 3-4 entities with enough compute owning everything with no responsibilities; and when something goes bad, oh well. It's not like you can go to their competition, who also works the same way.

I think we saw many times that after a certain scale (after becoming, say, too big to fail), there is no bad decision you can't afford.

And how is a colony on mars necessary?

I meant it was not necessary for the Antarctica station to be autonomous.

It’s about doing a test run there before we send people to Mars that have no backup plan when something goes wrong.

The Apollo missions had no backup plan. Neither did many great exploration expeditions in history.

Unless you don't own the data centers yourself, you only get what they allow you you to. And those gatekeepers, lawyers and licencing agreements; while certainly not perfect, did let people monetize their intellectual work. Also, I think it is incredibly naive to think the owners of the compute and the energy won't play the hardest gatekeeper the world has seen, when the conditions become right.

I think the problem will be with enforcement. To be honest I don't see any way to stop this kind of thing from happening. I predict the slow decline of open source projects, sadly.