glimshe

I can think of "Ten little Indians" by Agatha Christie. I haven't read it in years so I can't remember the quality of the writing. What I do remember are the plotline ideas, some of them completely novel when it was first published.

If that had never been done, you could arguably prompt your way into something fresh and interesting with a good AI writer.

Not literature, but still a valid choice for the genre.

Many people here complain that AI writing is bad. And I agree with it, AI writing is boring and its distinctive tone is now associated with unpleasant thoughts for most people including me.

But I'm curious about how people will feel when AI writing is good and impossible to differentiate from a decent journalist-level writer, including with tooling. Then what? Are people going to stop reading?

I'm trying to separate the part of the argument related to "this writing is bad" from "this was written by AI".

I personally don't care if AI is a writing instrument for a human who's signing off on the content, as long as the writing is good and the source is legitimate.

Just look at these offices compared to the drab monstrosities we have today, even at the supposedly cool and trendy tech companies...

Get an issue of Scientific American from the past few years and compare with one from the early 90s. It will become obvious why Scientific American no longer has readers.

The tech sector is one of booms and busts. Humans tend to extrapolate the present into the future but often these extrapolations are wrong due to unforeseen factors. I was around in the dotcom bust and many people thought the profession was done and "that time was different".

I think most Brazilian, as other Latin American, voters would rather be a bit more like the US and less like what the left has delivered to them in the past decades.

I know 5 Brazilian people in the US and they are all voting for Bolsonaro. Apparently the Lula dude has been in power for 12 years (not in a row). No wonder they want him gone.

The failure comes exactly from GPL because it wants to tie well-meaning people to a hard contract which they are generally not willing to agree with.

Sometimes people just want to make a little money on the side and not conquer the world. If a BSD open source project can help people sell a proprietary product, there's now a new stream of income in the community that could be partially reinvested in the project's core. GPL is excessively ideological and only makes sense for a narrow set of scenarios.

Please note that I'm not against GPL at all. Without it, I don't think we would have Linux and many other projects. What I'm against is promoting GPL to every scenario, which essentially kneecaps the community to protect against a hypothetical greedy large corporate entity.

GPL shouldn't be the default license when someone thinks of open sourcing their project. They should first consider MIT/BSD/etc and only pick GPL for reasons that are specific to that project or industry.

How cheap are code migrations nowadays? Vibe-migrations, you mean?

A substantial percentage of AI criticism can boil down to some form of gatekeeping. Maybe AI can't draw a true Scotsman but many will still enjoy the result.

Fun game to vibe-verse. The r/decomps and r/recomps on Reddit are exploding with major projects like this daily. It's a breathtaking pace. It seems that everybody is trying to do it before AI companies stop subsidizing their products for good.

Wow.

Parents, take note on how childhood experiences influence people for the rest of their lives...

Server components won't do. The model for protecting their IP will be streaming games. Maybe AI would be able to produce the game just from a video, but unless the video includes every single aspect of the game, that would be a lossy process.

Your acquaintances aren't changing their minds because the arguments are weak. Both the article and your comment assume that the only mode of interaction for natural language is a very high level description of programmer intent.

You can interact with AI and say "code me a calculator" or "now declare a array of booleans to map to each of the keys in the UI and set the corresponding array position to true when the key is pressed".

These commands are written in natural language at such different levels of abstraction that is hard to put them in the same bucket. It would be fair to call the latter an imperative language with the LLM in the role of a compiler. That's very similar to how I use AI.

> They might want to be somewhere their children can afford once they become adults

This one was a major factor for me when I escaped from California. I could afford to live there, but my kids would have a hard time following my life path for a number of reasons. I moved to a state where the family as a whole could have a future.

So true. It's dangerous to form world views based on "What HN thinks". This is the best community on the Internet IMHO but we're a very tiny slice of the population. "Real people" tend to not behave like us.

I think people can make robots walk, but it's really expensive and not particularly useful if most of what the robot does is walking.

When I read the title, I thought this was a joke and the article would just say: "Think by yourself".

Although that's arguably way superior to AI-style reasoning.

My experience is that while other regions have a lot of users, my revenue is still 90% from the US for a location-agnostic product.

In the vast majority of cases, Asia and SA won't touch your product if you don't have deep familiarity with their markets, their idiosyncrasies and have a competitive business model there. Getting folks in these markets to pay isn't easy, friend.

And that's why we keep having these conversations in English on a US site about products made by US companies.

And on every misstep and their correction, the same people will be defending them. Like "icons on every option is so much more intuitive", just to argue the exact opposite a couple of years later.

One of my favorite game companies ever. But it had already been "shut down" in practice after the acquisition.

If you have a wireless mouse, you will certainly feel this delay. Back in the day, you likely had a wired mouse.

Additionally, lots of modern games have micro fluctuations in frame rate if you don't have a solid gaming PC. These can make the game feel unresponsive.

There's very little understanding of business operations on HN, especially outside the tech echo chamber. The "software will eat the world" mindset.

Based on HN comments, every company would be running Gentoo and developing line of business applications in Haskell or OCaml.

My teenage son summarized Mistral in one sentence:

"Mistral is so bad, it's the only model my school doesn't bother to block"

It's now clear what the problem is with vibe coded remakes, remixes and games in general.

This looks very interesting. But in the past couple of days I saw at least 5 interesting vibe coded games worth, in theory, spending hours on. There's no way I could consume this amount of content.

Secondly, when I say "looks interesting", I mean that based on graphics and descriptions, it looks promising. Before AI, the visual quality was a great proxy for effort, and we could reasonably assume that the effort was spread around graphics, sound and gameplay. If not equally, gameplay would get at LEAST a bit of attention.

Making good games requires attention to small details. And I have no idea if the author cared about these details at all. Maybe they did, maybe they didn't.

With so many alternatives and the loss of quality proxies, the rational choice is to, unfortunately, pass.

I'll add to it. The classic answer to your objection is "but as a species we'd have sooner or latter 1 billion steps worth of intellectual capital". Today someone gets to an intermediate result worth 1 million steps, tomorrow another million and so on.

But there's no guarantee that such "low IQ" intermediate steps exist. We do well with many classes of problems because of divide-and-conquer. But not all problems can be solved through divide-and-conquer.

For a rough analogy, see how AI plays chess and intermediate board positions often don't make sense to us. Imagine now an enormous chess-like game played in an enormous chess board where a match lasts longer than a lifetime and none of the intermediate steps make sense to any human.

I know what they are saying but it's really difficult for me to separate their job-preserving and peer-acceptence instincts from their opinion. I don't see how it couldn't be biased.

I remember a recent "100 hundred mathematicians on AI" post recently. Some of them appeared truly excited even if the majority wasn't. Who's right? Who's biased? I don't know.

I was going to write a technical reply but my high schooler son just happened to summarize it in a great one liner:

"Mistral is so bad, it's the only AI my school doesn't bother to block"

That was quite the stereotype. I grew up loving programming, assembly, hardware hacking and spend a portion of my career doing those things. I was also a top Math student at the state level in school.

I then became a manager because I like mentoring people and using interpersonal skills to achieve things. And I really like using AI for coding.

Please stop this argument that every (or even most) software engineers is an introvert who loves the code typing part of the job.

Mistral is an embarrassment and clear proof that Europe needs to review its mechanisms for growing and retaining tech talent.

With such strong human capital, both in quantity and quality, Europe should in theory be competitive with US and China in AI.