krapp

>Democrats are to timid to deliver any form of justice

You misspelled "complicit."

That's just "the dictionary."

>These events(amateur ones anyway) usually have a comic sans flyer made in word with some clip art pumpkins, let's be realistic.

No they don't. I've seen fliers and billboards for haunted houses for years, not a single one has had comic sans fliers made in word with some clip art pumpkins.

>The art and the flyers shown in the article look great.

No they don't. They look exactly like every other piece of AI generated "art," which is to say, aggressively mediocre.

It is certainly something that an amateur could have come up with, but I strongly suspect that had a human being done so, you wouldn't be calling it "great."

First, most AI generated art and graphic design isn't attractive. It certainly isn't more attractive than what amateurs have always come up with. I know AI enjoyers don't want to admit it, or don't care, but where aesthetics are concerned it does actually matter what people think and most people don't like it.

Second, and more importantly, graphic design (like programming, game development, video production and everything else AI enjoyers claim to be "liberating" from "the gatekeepers") was already available to the masses. Often the only gatekeepers are imagination and effort, and if AI enjoyers don't want to put in either, it isn't surprising the results are so often ugly and mediocre.

The writing isn't on the wall until Artcraft is

1) As stable as Photoshop.

2) Competitive against Photoshop among professionals.

Until it hits the first point, which it hasn't yet, it's just slop. AI enjoyers don't care how broken it is and will use it anyway just because it's AI generated but everyone else will stay away, especially most pros.

If it can't hit the second point then at best it's just another image editing app, and those already exist. Adobe isn't afraid of Krita or Photopea.

>Or are they just not gonna bother checking?

They're not going to bother checking. It simply isn't going to be possible for humans to review code in the future where all code is being written by machines, and not having all code be written by machines is not an option.

Hell in the future LLMs probably won't even work with "code" at all, just bytecode directly, using some format created by and optimized for LLMs. Why even bother with text when no human will ever lay eyes on it?

>We are gonna see some Knight Capital level fuckups shortly.

Yes, but humans fuck up too so it doesn't matter. Future go brrr.

>If you don't like that AI companies train on the code, well, the whole point was that you can't really control what people do with the code you send them other than directly copying it without the same license, because that makes it nonfree.

Which is exactly what they do. LLMs don't respect licenses or attribution. So your assertion that the rise of AI assisted software doesn't affect free software is incorrect - it completely disregards and undermines it.

It also adversely affects the ability of people to exercise freedom over that software. LLMs serve as a proprietary middleman controlling the management, generation and distribution of code and humans are constantly being pushed out of the loop, having no direct access to that code, and being unable to learn from it or edit it without an LLM.

Yes you can still create and use free software but it becomes a problem when everyone is only ever training on your code and no human ever contributes anything back.

Weird, AI enjoyers have been calling the game for years. We're already supposed to have achieved AGI and already be in the midst of the technological singularity. The tipping point was when AI solved the Navier-Stokes problem. All human created art, media and software development has been declared dead a dozen times over.

An LLM is not a person, and as such cannot "bear responsibility."

But it accurately describes how most people use AI for code generation. For every person doing careful, meticulous testing and only using AI to incrementally generate code they personally understand and that they personally test and validate - to automate the "boring parts" - there are ten thousand "lol model go brrr" coders who don't care, and don't want to care. Who just let Claude chew on their prompt and burn tokens for a couple of days then push straight to Github.

When AI coders in general care about anything more than the "vibe" and no longer consider touching the code to be beneath their contempt, we can stop calling it what it is.

> Dictator here implies the power, outside of human control. Why would you be against that?

Absolute power, itself, is the problem. It doesn't matter if a machine wields it, or humans, or God Almighty. Humans are not property.

> Unless, you want the freedom to have more power than other humans, or the freedom to take their resources. I cannot see a justification against it.

That you can't even comprehend an argument to the contrary which doesn't imply the other party is morally corrupt or evil in some way is very troubling. As is the absolute faith you place in the benevolence of "ASI" versus any human agency. Your argument seems fascistic to the core.

I'm glad I'll probably be dead before the world you describe arrives, if it ever does.

Any political position with absolute, unchecked and centralized power reduces the populace to little more than slaves, without rights or self-determination outside the whim of the dictator. "power over the individual for the group's well being" doesn't describe dictatorship, it just describes the concept of a state.

It doesn't matter whether the master chooses not to abuse their slaves, the evil is in the institution itself. Or to quote CS Lewis:

    Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.

>For example, you want to steal the group's resources, and the dictator has power over your actions and forbids it.

That's just a law. We don't need dictators to make laws against theft. We already have such laws.

There is no such thing as a benevolent dictator. It is a contradiction in terms.

I would assume that even if theoretically Trump did serve as VP, in the event of the President's death he wouldn't be able to step in and they would just go up the line of succession. He would remain VP indefinitely.

I assume that's how it's supposed to work. Who knows how it would actually work? SCOTUS might just decide it's fine because the Constitution doesn't explicitly say otherwise, or something.

What felonies? Per SCOTUS nothing he does in office is a crime. Also he can simply pardon himself.

You're moving the goalposts now because your original claim was that "dem aligned mass media _did_ completely bury" the story "to steer the election."

Your hyperbolic and partisan language makes it obvious you aren't simply a neutral observer, and implies that you had a horse in that race, and you're still mad that he lost.

Or else you aren't American, in which case your investment in the Trumpist narrative is just kind of pathetic. Like Americans giving a shit about the British royal family.

>I would think the general audience here is of a higher caliber than low-class cultures whose values and education can't rise above profanity.

My person in deity "enshittification" is a technical term of art around here, and "Gimp" is both a popular graphics software and a sexual fetish term.

No one besides children and people with low emotional IQ care about such things.

I heard about it before, during and after the election. It was everywhere, it just never mattered as much as you wanted it to.

Why are you blaming Biden for setting a "precedent" you admit wouldn't even matter?

And Biden didn't even set a precedent. Presidents have been pardoning people since George Washington.

>This is a good chance to remind people that laws can be changed. Including how pardons work by allowing Congress to override a pardon.

That would require a Constitutional amendment, and that won't happen. It would require too many states to be willing to give up what amounts to absolute power to nullify their own crimes should their party win the White House, or defend themselves from political retribution by the other party. Remember that was the whole justification for SCOTUS granting the President immunity from all criminal acts while in office - the threat that Biden prosecuting Trump would just lead to an endless cycle of recriminations and prosecutions of the Executive by the other party.

A Constitutional amendment also opens up the possibility of litigating any part of the Constitution, including the Second Amendment. For that reason alone every red state would oppose it on principle.

>This is all very clearly outside the bounds of the intent of the pardon power.

All that matters is the text of the Constitution and intent means whatever the Supreme Court says it means, and they don't seem to have a problem with it.

America was founded on vandalism and violence, and Americans used to be proud of that. What happened?

It would add noise. Most projects posted here are already AI assisted or AI related, and all of them will be soon enough, once everyone interested in anything but AI gets driven out.

Hacker News is an AI forum now, and it's best to just get used to that.

No, clearly I'm not asserting anything of the sort.

I don't understand. Do you think that the No Kings movement has access to a time machine?

If you "simply create functions with granularity similar to PHP's features" you're basically re-implementing PHP from first principles. The advantage of PHP over C is that you don't have to do that. A lot of PHP is just wrappers around C anyway.

And yes the fact that it's easy to serve a website from PHP is a big part of its value, all else aside.

>can we lay it off already and start thinking and caring about thinking again?

No. We're going to accelerate as fast as we can until we either ascend to godhood or else fall off the cliff like Wile E. Coyote. As long as no one looks down everything should be fine.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

No, that isn't what moderation is, at all. That doesn't even negate my point.

A common bad faith political tactic is an attempt to derail conversation and reframe it around linguistic pedantry, to discredit an activist movement by pretending not to comprehend its rhetoric. The same thing happened with "Black Lives Matter" and "Defund the Police." Instead of talking about actual issues, all of the oxygen was taken up with futile attempts to litigate the specific meanings of these terms.

Why would you add an open source license that requires attribution when the LLM you use doesn't respect such licenses, and none of the LLMs that train your code will respect yours?

I mean, why even pretend to participate in the FOSS community like that?

They aren't trying to think critically, they're trying to ragebait and "own the libs."