cautiouscat

The top comment says there is substance?

A lot of this is turning into “well other company said” but Anthropic claims OpenVSX is fine?[1] And that Cursor has their own market place. I’m confused.

> Dworken from Anthropic here, that is correct: This only impacted the extension as it was hosted on the Cursor marketplace. It did not impact the official VS Code extension marketplace or OpenVSX. Users of Claude Code on VS Code are not impacted by this issue.

1: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50304585

Or GrokBot that isn’t an Elon employee.

That’s true. But that’s a really small slice of the pie they’ve cut for themselves in hype and valuation.

What I find interesting about thinking machines in Dune, is that in a lot of sci-fi the artificial intelligence itself is what decides to destroy humanity. In Dune, humans in charge of the machines (technocrats) are the ones that come close to destroying humanity. The Jihad was a fight against them, as much as it was against the machines themselves.

So, in a way, we're more likely to see the Dune version of "machines taking over the world/universe" than say, Terminator's even though many joke about ChatGPT/Claude being Skynet.

This is comparing apples to oranges.

The issue isn’t the quality or the visual result. It’s not just slop because it looks bad.

Art is as much about the journey as it is about the destination. It’s the friction of someone going through each detail, making a choice. It’s the artist taking time to figure out how they want to convey what they’re feeling and thinking.

The reduction of this friction culminates in the reduction of the piece’s essence.

> You could potentially ask an LLM to explain it, but I would venture a guess that wouldn't feel like the right source to help you.

I don’t think this works, at least for me. Even on the 5.5 versions of Claude it’s still arduous to read at this point.

> You could use the LLM to help you identify source material written by humans in order to learn anything new. It doesn't have to "do all the work for you".

This probably depends on the shop, but humans aren’t writing docs anymore. That was the first thing to go, sadly.

Dozens is probably more than I’d expect!

I wonder if the issue is being responded to by an agent. A lot of the responses sound like stuff Claude writes.

For a second I thought this was a post about Marathon. I’m tired.

I think a lot of studios use it for code already, and I also don’t think that’s the contentious part.

Games are art, and the people who make them are by and large: artists. Why would artists want to use generative AI?

I agree. It does make me think these tools need an irrevocable signature on the files, if that’s even possible. You can ask someone you’re commissioning if they use AI, and they can just lie.

Now should have Jagex reviewed it? Of course. However, there’s just this mistrust in art now. I’ve commissioned two things from artists. I asked both, as for my work I want to fund actual artists. However as these tools get better, I’m concerned that trust won’t be good enough.

Fake edit: “Well if it’s so good you can’t tell the difference then why’s it matter” completely misses the point so let’s not bother with that.

I’ve been working in enterprise for ten years and I wouldn’t call any of the services I’ve worked on simple.

I think the premise is that yes, you can do that. However many don’t and many in larger corps are pushed expressly to not work that way.

I’ve been experimenting with this idea that I can implement features faster and more accurately than the big model + agent swarm paradigm. I also have been trying this because of what the post brings up when it comes to AI burnout.

For me, writing the code (literally typing), shifting files around, renaming things is slow. So I’ve been using small models + much stronger grasp on the reins. Similar to what this post mentions. It’s been great, the decisions come from me. I tell it to make a domain class with these fields and these invariants. It does it in a split second, I look it over, tweak it and move to the next part of implementation.

When I experimented with swarms it would spend an hour just having agents adversarially review to decide some pretty trivial details. This way, when someone asks me a question during review, I can answer it. When I need to dive back in, I know what to look for and where to look for it. I have way more connection to my work, than a few months prior.

It sounds like this message isn’t for you then?

I admittedly flip-flop on this quite a bit. I use LLMs in my work and for a bunch of pet projects I don’t really care much about.

For the pet projects, it’s not really a big deal. I’m the only user, and I as the user don’t care how it works under the hood.

Work is a different story. I have never felt more disconnected from my work than in the last 6-8 months. It takes a huge mental toll to read into our code and figure stuff out, almost like I just got hired and I’m working on new code for the first time. I’m asked to read “specs” written by LLMs that are unintelligible and I find my brain disconnecting immediately. Tickets, also written by LLMs pose the same problem.

I’m asking teammates questions because I want their answer and I’m told to just ask Claude.

None of this feels good, it may be where the industry is heading but as a professional it feels wrong.

> Then the value of many ancient texts must be close to zero, because we often know nothing about the people who wrote them.

This is where imagination fills the gap and makes it interesting to think about.

I’m in both a lot of art based communities and programming based communities (like HN). The one blind spot many HN readers have is that the quality of something is one facet of an artwork.

Humans make minute decisions in their art whether to tell a story or represent something. When someone generates something, at some point you as the viewer/reader could assume that arbitrary choices were made in places. Those arbitrary decisions just aren’t interesting. I’ve quoted this before, but Kane Parsons highlights exactly this thing:

> If I see an element of the environment has been, you know they used generative fill or whatever to change something about the scene, even if--. It just shuts the part of my brain that wants to know more about that world and wants to look for details, 'cause I would assume if they're willing to make an arbitrary choice there, they can make an arbitrary choice with literally anything.

It’s just less interesting to our minds, I think because there’s less to ponder and explore. It can be a masterpiece in quality but when I know something in that piece was just made up by a machine, why would I care? I can’t wonder why the artist would include it. I can’t think about what it’s trying to tell me because it’s likely not telling me anything.

I’m sure general population won’t care but they’ve got me fucked up if they I’d ever use something like this. Glean my personal info and preferences the hard way! Through what insane videos I like on Instagram!

I had these features off on Windows where possible. However I can’t imagine using Windows these days. The only time I switch to Windows is to play Marathon/Destiny these days. Other than that, I have no reason to use it. I imagine so many others would have a similar experience.

Just look at all the painted portraits? Or portrait painting in general?

If an agent planned a flight for me with an overnight layover, I'm unplugging it. I don't care whose dime it is lol.

> Post-work society is an inevitability if we don't destroy our planet.

Is it?

Like the Steam Machine? Or do you mean open hardware too?

To you, yes. But if you were to send that out into the world and told people it was AI generated, do you think it would receive the same positive response you give it?

> LLM is perfectly capable of empathy, it just never told to do so.

They absolutely cannot exhibit empathy. The definition of the word shows that:

> the action of understanding, being aware of, being sensitive to, and vicariously experiencing the feelings, thoughts, and experience of another

They don't experience feelings. They don't empathize.

This is something that constantly gets missed by HN in discussions about AI in the arts. There's the quality of the output and the essence behind the art itself. Humans want both [1][2] but these models only provide an output. Could ChatGPT output the next IT or Lord of the Rings, probably.

However, once it's understood that it wasn't written by a human it loses all value. I use this quote by Kane Parsons a lot but I think it summarizes why humans like art.

> If I see an element of the environment has been, you know they used generative fill or whatever to change something about the scene, even if--. It just shuts the part of my brain that wants to know more about that world and wants to look for details, 'cause I would assume if they're willing to make an arbitrary choice there, they can make an arbitrary choice with literally anything.

Specifically, people like dissecting art whether its writing, a movie or an image. It could be seeing the Chekov's Gun finally fire, and going back through the pages to see the author wrote it in there earlier and you missed it. It could be speculating about the unopened questions the author deliberately left there. This is how a lot of people at least in my circles engage with art and AI provides none of that. Even if the author specifically prompts that into it, those arbitrary choices are going to be made in certain spots that just disinterests me.

1: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S096969892... 2: https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-023-45202-3