WhyOhWhyQ

Sounds like robust criticism is having an effect. Why would you not be happy with the situation?

I actually hate AI in my core, to the point that if it gets too much more advanced I'll likely be in existential crisis, so don't attack me on those grounds. Given it exists, I'm going to find what's good about it though. I do think the problem of AI existing has to be confronted. Maybe one solution is what the human does is produce specs like the HTML 5 one, and what the AI does is implement it in software.

This kind of thing really should not be reposted (have duplicate posts I mean). I assumed a second nuclear scientist was murdered when I saw the headline.

I wonder how people are able to stay functional while being online. I'm in 2 states. (1) Very productive and joyful. (2) Extreme dysfunctional and commenting on HN and Reddit.

I think it would be interesting if professional engineering becomes more like producing formally correct documents for the AI to implement.

Isn't this in contradiction to your blog post from yesterday though? It's impossible to prove a complex project made in 4.5 hours works. It might have passed 9000 tests, but surely there are always going to be edge cases. I personally wouldn't be comfortable claiming I've proved it works and saying the job is done even, if the LLM did the whole thing and all existing tests passed, until I played with it for several months. And even then I would assume I would need to rely on bug reports coming in because it's running on lots of different systems. I honestly don't know if software is ever really finished.

My takeaway from your blog post yesterday was that with a robust enough testing system the LLM can do the entire thing while I do Christmas with the family.

(Before all the AI fans come in here. I'm not criticizing AI.)

Okay how do you want to solve that? If it's by making the schools better I'm all for it. Why is it that the people who love guns vote to defund the schools though?

I agree. His first and second game are based on deep themes and unique concepts. He explores the medium of video games in new ways. The selling point of this game seems to be "largest puzzle game ever". I'm excited to see if there are deeper ideas once I play it though.

One of Blow's favorite games is Steven's Sausage Roll. I personally didn't enjoy it because the intellectual content of that kind of puzzle is, as far as I can tell, exploring a large tree of sausage roll states. And while I had a few aha moments playing it, as far as I can tell the way you do that at the end of the day is just to try all the possible states.

Interesting. Being in that world was deeply captivating for me. Every time I've played that game I've experienced a jolt of creative drive.

I give Blow a little benefit of the doubt just because spending all of your money on your small business and seriously facing the risk of failure is pretty stressful. I'd be a lot meaner than he is if I were in his situation.

Can a small business succeed in that game?

Sam Altman provides ChatGPT for everybody. You seem not to be reading what I've written.

Well it's been interesting talking to you. In good faith, I honestly cannot conceive of how arming the population prevents tyranny though. You give the example of Iraq and Afghanistan. Presumably you're saying the tyranny was the US occupation? Weren't these groups armed not before, but as a result of first (I believe) soviet and then American occupations?

Are there examples in modern times of a stable society consisting of a heavily armed population such that as a result of this tyranny has been curbed? Americans are the most heavily armed population in the world and it seems that tyranny is measurably setting in right now. The stability seems like it was higher in the beginning of the 20th century too. The 60-70's and now are the most unstable periods I believe, and the number of guns has only increased. So I don't think the US would be a good example.

In good faith, I cannot see how arming civilians reduces tyranny in modern times, unless your model actually is Afghanistan and Iraq. In those cases it's not that all civilians are armed. There are armed groups. That's not a world I want to live in though, anyways.

You did misread my post. My argument does not say that at all, and I cannot see how it possibly could. My argument is that reducing the number of guns would reduce the number of gun deaths.

And..? People also hate ChatGPT even if you don't.

Do you think everyone in the world thinks exactly the same way as you do or something? Some people actually enjoy exerting their talents to create things.

You can misread what I wrote and argue against all that strawman all day if you like.

You haven't even represented the true content of the 2nd amendment so there's nothing to talk about here. The 2nd amendment is about militias, not "give everyone and their toddler access to massive fire power at all times".

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Tell me where that says guns should be available to deranged person who wants one. Everyone should get a hand gun, a rifle, and a shotgun, and make it double.

If a government were run by quakers, should the population require the same level of armament as if it were run by Attila? Perhaps by creating better governments we could reduce the need to arm populations.

I just don't see what arming citizens is going to do against a militaristic government.

The more fundamental human right is the right to not be blasted by an angry teenager who's been reading crazy things on the internet. In the hierarchy of human rights, that once has precedence.

Why is it that only our country needs to be armed, but none of the others do? Do Germans need to be armed? Do Indians need to be armed? Maybe you could argue that Chinese people need to be armed, but every Chinese person I've met seems to like their government right now and is content with the levels of surveillance. Maybe arming the Uyghurs could have helped but somehow I doubt it.

Jonathan Blow is one of my personal heroes, but he does seem to be living 5 years behind politically (he spends a lot of time ranting at the woke crowd, who seem nowhere to be found anymore anyways). That's probably a good thing. I doubt he's as addicted to the internet as the rest of us. He's said some odd things in interviews in the last couple years though.

I wanted to substantiate this, but I couldn't find the clips (which do exist... I just want to get on with programming and close hn for the day.. not succeeding). I did find that Jonathan Blow tweeted "Nature is healing" after Trump won, so you can get an idea for where his politics are from that. (Still love the guy, even if politically he's your angry uncle.)

We just need to reduce the number of guns. I've not met a 2nd amendment supporter who understands this basic idea. They are always convinced one of the following retorts should be the end of the conversation (they also proudly think you've never heard these cliched arguments):

- They have knife stabbings in China. (Yes. A gun is more lethal.)

- A bad guy can still get a gun. (Yes.)

- Hand guns are more dangerous than rifles. (This means let's reduce both.)

- The gun doesn't kill people. People kill people. (This means let's reduce how many people have guns.)

- Mass shootings aren't the majority of gun deaths. (Let's reduce the total gun deaths and mass shootings then.)

Come up with as many ridiculous retorts as you like. If you had reduced the total number of guns, most of the shootings could not have happened.

I think it's a scapegoat, but I want to give the scapegoaters a chance to show their asses, and I mean show whatever study they've got to see if there's anything there.

I do want to pick up Go. I'm also interested in learning Zig, but I'm worried about employability (no knock on Zig, it looks pretty cool).

Anyway, sorry if any of my comments seemed harsh. I always appreciate your posts and comments.

Who cares if chatgpt can write my essay if writing my essay is no longer worth doing?

Do you think programming Doom from scratch in 2025 would give the programmer the same sense of satisfaction and material security as it did in the 90's? Maybe technology progressing actually devalues the rewards for your outputs?

And saying "chatgpt" is pretty rich considering it's not at all clear at this point whether the societal benefits outweigh the negatives.

Is the gun situation hopeless in America? As far as I can tell, we just need to reduce the quantity of guns. Somehow 20% of the country takes that idea as an existential threat, even though not doing so is a material threat to real people.

If it's actually a mental health crisis, then how do we solve that one? Especially with what the Republicans are doing right now?

And you think people who don't understand the software telling people who do they're doing it wrong is an outright positive?

I see that your release is GPL 3.0. Are you worried about LLM's effectively laundering your source code a year from now? I've become hesitant about releasing source code since LLM's, though I do use Claude heavily while programming to make suggestions and look for issues etc.., but I'd be interested in hearing your perspective.

Technology actually devalues your talents and forces you to adopt new talents.

The mentality I actually have goes beyond zero sum. I get zero and Sam gets all. Tell me why that's wrong.

What's the benefit in giving free labor to Sam Ctrlman beyond what he's already extracted? And are they just going to steal whatever good apps get submitted?