peepee1982

5000 years ago was pre-capitalist and if they had struggled getting food on the table and had explosives, they might very well have done the same.

In a world where all wealth accumulates at the top and leaves the bottom in precarious conditions, perversions like these are inevitable and could be resolved by treating human needs as priorities and make sure everyone has their needs met, which with todays productivity we could easily accomplish if we all worked together instead of against each other.

  People have a series of rationalizations. People say for example that science 
  and technology have their own logic, that they are in fact autonomous. This 
  particular rationalization is profoundly false. It is not true that science 
  marches on in defiance of human will, independent of human will, that just is 
  not the case. But it is comfortable, as I said: it leads to the position that 
  "if I don't do it, someone else will." 
  
  Of course if one takes that as an ethical principle then obviously it can serve 
  as a license to do anything at all. "People will be murdered; if I don't do it, 
  someone else will." "Women will be raped; if I don't do it, someone else will." 
  That is just a license for violence. 
  
  Other people say, and I think this is a widely used rationalization, that 
  fundamentally the tools we work on are "mere" tools; This means that whether 
  they get use for good or evil depends on the person who ultimately buys them 
  and so on. 
  
  There's nothing bad about working in computer vision, for example. Computer 
  vision may very well some day be used to heal people who would otherwise die. 
  Of course, it could also be used to guide missiles, cruise missiles for 
  example, to their destination, and all that. You see, the technology itself is 
  neutral and value-free and it just depends how one uses it. And besides -- 
  consistent with that -- we can't know, we scientists cannot know how it is 
  going to be used. So therefore we have no responsibility. 
  
  Well, that is false. It is true that a computer, for example, can be used for 
  good or evil. It is true that a helicopter can be used as a gunship and it can 
  also be used to rescue people from a mountain pass. And if the question arises 
  of how a specific device is going to be used, in what I call an abstract ideal 
  society, then one might very well say one cannot know. 
  
  But we live in a concrete society, [and] with concrete social and historical 
  circumstances and political realities in this society, it is perfectly obvious 
  that when something like a computer is invented, then it is going to be adopted 
  will be for military purposes. It follows from the concrete realities in which 
  we live, it does not follow from pure logic. But we're not living in an 
  abstract society, we're living in the society in which we in fact live. 
  
  If you look at the enormous fruits of human genius that mankind has developed 
  in the last 50 years, atomic energy and rocketry and flying to the moon and 
  coherent light, and it goes on and on and on -- and then it turns out that 
  every one of these triumphs is used primarily in military terms. So it is not 
  reasonable for a scientist or technologist to insist that he or she does not 
  know -- or cannot know -- how it is going to be used.

-- Joseph Weizenbaum

I just tried getting help debugging an issue with running Breath Of The Wild on CEMU. Claude chat refused.

ChatGPT didn't care and just gave advice.

There is mention of GLM 5.2's poor web search capabilities, but I see that as a harness responsibility.

I've set up my own SearXNG instance on my VPS and integrated it into Pi alongside the webfetch tool, and GLM 5.2 has so far been great at finding things. I asked it to give me the current news from an Austrian online newspaper that's difficult to parse because of its aggressive ad overlays. Both ChatGPT and Claude failed in their native chat apps. GLM 5.2 in Pi was clever enough to search for the RSS feed and gave me a detailed overview.

The lack of vision is a real shame, though. I've implemented workarounds in Pi that are okay, but they're not as good and the whole experience feels awkward.

If a commit is written by AI but reads as authored by a human, the developer has done their job and nothing will be flagged.

If commits written by AI wouldn't be substantially different, there would be no need to reject them.

So I agree with you that it won't discourage AI-based coding. But that's not even the intent.

Your comment is jarringly out of place, which is why it's getting downvoted.

Similarly, the Western idea of Stoicism seems to focus mostly on controlling or even suppressing your emotions (at least on surface level), while the Stoicism you rightly call "Roman" (thanks for that, btw) is much more holistic and more of an ethical framework.

I'm definitely jealous of the free time homeless people have. I just don't want to make the choice for my children to be homeless with me.

I'm curious: how will it replace e.g. lawyers? Will judges be replaced as well? Juries?

Yes! That's what I've been doing at work for the last few weeks! And while it doesn't appear to be super fast, I'm already pretty certain that the next round of testing will come back with fewer unexpected issues because together with my agent and the right usage, I was already able to catch stuff that I would have missed otherwise.

Also feels much better than pure vibe-coding (which I still do for personal projects that aren't mission critical for anyone).

I don't think you are misunderstanding how models work, but I think the parent comment meant that the training of the models should push them to include attributions in their native output so they will more likely do so without reinforcement through the harness.

Our sports teacher in high-school would tell us to stand straight. Then he would shove us from the back a few times. The foot we would stop ourselves from falling would be our leading foot (for snowboarding). So if you catch your fall with your left foot, you're regular. Otherwise goofy. Don't know if that's a safe bet, but it seemed to work out for us back then.

OTOH: I am convinced I can't snap my fingers with my right hand and never will because my specific mix of handed-ness makes it impossible for me to do so, no matter how hard I try and practice. No problem at all with my left hand.

I write with my left hand but play guitar right-handed. I don't think it had any effect on my playing, because I think I'm a naturally right-handed guitar player. Here's a list of things and whether I do them right- or left-handed:

  ┌───────────────────────────┬───────────┐
  │ Activity                  │ Hand      │
  ├───────────────────────────┼───────────┤
  │ Baseball (Bat/Catch)      │ Left      │
  │ Hold Spoon                │ Left      │
  │ Soccer                    │ Left      │
  │ Tennis                    │ Left      │
  │ Throw Ball                │ Left      │
  │ Darts                     │ Left      │
  │ Write                     │ Left      │
  ├───────────────────────────┼───────────┤
  │ Bow and Arrow             │ Right     │
  │ Hold Fork/Knife           │ Right     │
  │ Play Drums                │ Right     │
  │ Scissor                   │ Right     │
  │ Shoot Rifle (Nerf Gun)    │ Right     │
  │ Skateboard/Snowboard      │ Right     │
  │ Use Mouse                 │ Right     │
  └───────────────────────────┴───────────┘

Basically, the only reason I call myself left-handed is because I write with my left hand. All in all, I have no idea if I do more things left handed or right handed.

I agree, but the reality is that most people work to make a living, not to have fun. If you enjoy your job because you mostly get to write code in a tight feedback loop instead of doing the "hard" work of planning, writing and reviewing specs, balancing customer requirements, and the lot, you have a very privileged life. And those jobs are probably going to get fewer now.

It's kind of sad. But on the other hand, I am glad I don't have to write every little line of code myself *on top* of having to do all the other stuff.

I don't feel the need to justify my salary, since I'm simply lucky in that regard. But I'm pretty sure you couldn't do my job just because you had access to a coding agent. Most of my time at the office is spent discussing high-level architecture and strategy, ideas, customer requests, backward compatibility, safety, security, quality assurance, etc.

Writing the actual code is a significant part of that, but the codebase is so complex that even Opus 4.7 and GPT-5.5 struggle with it without being fed a *lot* of context and constraints. And even then, they need a *lot* of steering due to making bad decisions that only someone with an intimate knowledge of the theory behind our software is able to catch.

I can only assume that people who think coding agents can completely replace an actual developer mostly deal with trivial software regarding both scope and the type of customers they serve (individuals instead of big companies in industry).

True. I missed that.

What's the point then? Special conditions for data retention/non-training policies?

I agree that it's "more art than a science", colloquially speaking. But I would still not call it art. Not by a long stretch.

I think most of us agree that writing code can be expressive. But I don't think that alone qualifies you code as art.

I have written code myself that I deem beautiful and expressive. But I'm also a musician, and making music (and listening to it deeply) has given me such intense, mystic experiences, that they dwarf anything I've ever experienced writing code. It's also much harder to make good music because it requires a kind of courage and psychological constitution that is simply not required for writing code.

I think that's the main thing many people who've never seriously made art or aren't deeply involved with it on an emotional and psychological level are unable to grasp.

I don't mean to be mean, but I don't think you understand what Art is. For example, I don't consider a picture of a woman being happy next to a cake art. That's a decorative artefact. And I don't really consider myself a connoisseurs, nor do I particularly care about details or art style.

I'm not trying to be pretentious or precious about art. But I consider the process of creation to be as much a fundamental part of art as the resulting artefact. If I can't contextualize a work of art to a human's inner life - be it implicitly or through knowing about the artist - it's not really art to me.

Artistic code can be a work of art. But only if created by a human (in a way that humans make art), and I think the same principles should apply to it as any other medium of art. But that kind of code is so rare and insignificant compared to all other code being written and published, that I don't think it's worth watering down the discussion with it.

I would only consider AI generated output art, if the way to get there were a substantial artistic expression.

So I think visual arts and music fall in a different category because it's much more artistic, unconstrained, and personal by nature than code. Even if that difference sits on a spectrum. But on that spectrum they're worlds apart.

I struggle explaining my point of view better and hope I manage to get my point across at least to some extent.

Having said all that, I do consider training LLMs on other people's code without compensation wrong as well. Just not as wrong as I do with other stuff.

I'm pretty sure OpenAI and Anthropic are overpricing their token billed API usage mainly as an incentive to commit to get their subscriptions instead.

If you want other people to know whether you're being genuine or sarcastic, you'll have to put a bit more effort into your comments. Your comment just adds noise.

Because code is fundamentally not a creative work the way art is. Code "just" has to be correct, even if that correctness has demanded to come up with ideas. And as a software developer you usually get paid a nice salary to write it, no matter if you're typing it yourself or generate it with an AI.

Art can't be generated. We can only generate artefacts mimicking art styles. So far we have no AI generated images that are considered actual Art, because Art's purpose is to express the artist's intent. And when there is no artist, there is no intent.

I have to stop now, but I guess you can see where I'm going with this.

I think it would obviously better for society.

If the dataset weren't valuable, big tech wouldn't depend on it to train their models.

I don't care about getting a millionth of a cent as an artist (which btw is a number *you* just pulled out of your imagination). I care about them paying a fair share instead of pocketing it, so the money stays in circulation instead of creating a new class of technofeudal lords.

Serious question, as someone who started his professional developer career as a RoR developer in 2012: Isn't vibe-coding top for straight up CRUD?

I'm not trying to be glib. The thing that seemed magic to me at that time was all the scaffolding that Rails provided with a few simple commands, making it possible to quickly build something that let the user authenticate and enter and display data. Sure, Ruby itself and the culture around it back then was also great and will always have a place in my heart. But the whole convention-over-configuration and scaffolding thing, that was what I liked so much about it, and I never found that in any other language/framework combo in a way that felt as smooth.

But now, I use AI for scaffolding, and for my side-projects often never have to touch code.

So why would I choose something for a CRUD application that might give me headaches down the road, when there's a possibility that the app might morph into something less conventional, when I could use *any* language/framework that's not as rigid and have the scaffold be built by AI?

I get it if you enjoy actually writing code. But I don't quite get the benefits if the goal is to have something working quickly and be able to potentially build it out to something that is not served that well by RoR.

The whole world ... Some companies ...

What is it, man?

[flagged]

I'm not interested in analog summing myself, but I think you're missing the point. It's not about "better" summing. You want more euphonic summing. Analog audio processing often comes with artefacts that give the signal sent through it a more pleasing character, for whatever reason (phase shift, saturation, channel differences between left and right, transient modulation, slew rate, power sag, etc.).

I personally think analog summing is a waste of time, because the differences are too subtle to be worth the investment in setting it up. But that's just my opinion. Some people are really into it (Eric Valentine comes to mind).

Just wanted to point out that in the context of audio equipment (both professional and audiophile) "sounds better" often means "sounds worse but more engaging". Just like a polaroid picture often evokes more emotions than a photo taken with a modern digital camera and a great lens.