tweeks

Also not a fan to say the least.

It's cutting my programming work in half right now with quality .NET code. As long as I stay in the lead and have good examples + context in my codebase, it saves me a lot of time.

This was not the case for co-pilot though, but Cursor AI combined with Claude 3.7 is quite advanced.

If people are not seeing any benefit, I think they have the wrong use cases, workflow or tools. Which can be fair limitations depending on your workplace of course.

You could get in a nasty rabbit hole if you vibe-code too much though. Stay the architect and check generated code / files after creation.

No need to attack me like that when I'm just sharing my viewpoint.

I'm not that outspoken about whether it is fair or not to train on publicly visible data. As that is like having a set of brains look at the same data, but on steroids.

I do feel, however, that large companies making money off that inspiration input seems skewed. But that comes down to the question, can you look at public work and then ask for money for the work you create yourself afterwards. As you surely build on inspiration.

Well, in many other systems you have an overarching ruling layer that sets laws and is able to enforce them from a top level.

That is precisely the reason why those systems can be relatively stable. As you just have a very large group of people following the same set of rules.

In a sense everything every artist makes is inspired by other people's art and general life experiences. We humans only have some extra sensory channels and brain paths to map that inspiration through, so it "feels" more original.

I'd argue our creation of art is just a couple of levels more complex. But at its core its just external stimuli followed by some internalisation that enables us to create art. But we needed the aggregated input.

Which does not mean that we can't disapprove of literal copies of other people's work. But I think we should be very aware of the fact that it's more or less a complexity scale.

I like the idea of anarchism, but I see it as more of an ideal world view than an actual stable reality.

To support this, every group member of every group must almost unanimously support the concept. When resources or safety in an area become scarce, it's easy for some groups to evolve back into another power structure to take care of their own people.

It's really difficult for me to imagine everybody on this planet getting along with this. But I'm certainly interested in other viewpoints.

For a minute I thought the dogs were running around devastated by the wildfires. I imagined them racing around in full panic with seeds shaking off their backs, intensifying the wildfires.

I need to sleep.

There have been studies that claim there is a max on what money can buy you in terms of happiness. Before it was said to be 70k (of course depends on the country), now it might be 500k.

Well, not that I approve of the practice, but you could find site logins that the email is used in, breaches that it's been in (potentially finding (old) passwords).

With that info, if not for identity theft directly, can be used for fishing and profiling.

I'm quickly going to create an AI named "No Gen".

Maybe he is over a thousand years old, don't you see the wrinkles?

This is a brilliant description; the feeling OP has is probably on a way more abstract level than most of the comments here are thinking of.