thunky
You don't know how much they cared. You also don't know if they reviewed the README before publishing, or if was a mindless one-shotted PR that nobody looked at. The word "gate" isn't a smoking gun here, other than to prove that the reader uses AI a ton and is ironically now triggered by it. If your criticism was more substantial: targeting the content rather than the use of a trigger word, then I might agree. But you haven't done anything but project your own bias.
You've likely shared code written by OpenAI and don't mind subjecting other to it. So why should technical docs be different?
I think you're fighting a losing fight trying to get people to waste their time hand-writing tech docs just to avoid triggering over-sensitive Claude power users because they saw the word "gate".
But even better: if Claude's output is so torturous, they should probably just stop using it altogether rather than thumbing their nose at other people that use it.
So what you're saying is: because you've used Claude so much, you don't want other people to use it. And you reject them for using it.
A bit hypocritical don't you think?
1) it creates dumb incentives
2) it gives the govt more levers they can pull, which leads to more corruption and worse outcomes
The U in UBI stands for universal. That means that former truck drivers (aka the unemployed) get it but also everyone else to include CEOs making millions. The expectation is that those with other income will give back their UBI and then some via taxes.
This is better than policies that create stupid incentives like in your example.
Tech and automation exists to drive the marginal cost of labor toward zero. It's just happening faster now.
> (your labour included)
Right, it's disrupting you now instead of just dumb people.
Obviously yes. I mean have you seen what entertains us? And have you seen what a TV ad looks like? It's not a high bar and this is way above it.
Btw your comment is anti-ai slop. Slinging mud with no real criticism or even a personal observation to be found.
And yes, I read it and I stand by what I said. From TFA:
When I go to a new restaurant and see an AI-generated menu, I’m disappointed. When I see an AI-generated flyer for an event, I’m annoyed and much less likely to go.
To me this is silly. The event is the draw, not the way the flyer was created or the amount of effort that went in to it.
Most people in this thread probably use AI all day to do their job for them. But god forbid a haunted house not hand-craft their flyers.
How about we let this part time business focus on entertaining it's visitors rather than wasting time virtue signaling to hypocrites.
Perhaps this is a sign that this function isn't necessary.
I know this happens but it shouldn't. If the client doesn't know what they want then they shouldn't be wasting money on developers.
It's pretty bad inside the bubble too.
You're still thinking like a dev following traditional dev processes.
More like: "Claude do X".
You're thinking like a developer that needs to build and deploy software for other people to use, rather than as a user that wants to do something.
It is relevant because you're the one that wrote the script to automate it.
Sure, it works for you. But it doesn't work for everyone else, which I think was the other person's ideal when they said:
Imagine just dropping .md files to your server and having a working website
They didn't literally mean your server.
So then you don't just drop a .md file.
This is not what I said and you're being rude. I'm saying that I don't understand the grief being expressed for the loss of a hobby. Because as I explained, computers can't invalidate hobbies.
> Sounds like I got suckered into arguing with an AI yet again.
Nope. I'm a human and didn't use AI for anything I wrote. But thanks?
A computer programmer, on the other hand, is paid to produce something. They aren't entertaining anyone (except themselves). The act of producing code doesn't matter to the person that wants a binary. The binary is what matters. So if a computer can out-program a human, then the human is in trouble. So it's different.
But, nothing is stopping a human from programming for entertainment purposes. And nothing is stopping humans from being entertained by watching other humans program, maybe competitively. Like chess, or basketball. Or from getting together and solving programming problems. Then it doesn't matter that a computer can run circles around them, and nobody can tell them to stop doing it.
I get it, though. Younger people in tech should be worried.
But I don't really understand the "grief" by people who say they're losing their hobbies. Like the top comment in this thread: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50158159
If people stop being interested in human-played chess, then yes he's out of luck. But that could happen with or without computers. Same for football and anything else.
So I don't think this analogy works either.
Look at Andrew Luck.
Why can't it?
People get together to do a ton of "worthless" things together for no good reason other than for the enjoyment of it. Like chess, basketball, book clubs, board games, video games, popdarts, etc.
In theory, but not in practice. Instead, somehow we ended up writing essentially the same app over and and over, usually without reusing libs. You know because this time we'll use vue, or svelte, or phoenix, or htmx, or go, because this time we actually know what we're doing. so gotta start from the ground up and figure out how to store a row in a db as if we haven't done the same thing a million times before.
And that all under one roof. Now multiple that by thousands of roofs.
At least the devs were having fun and making good money writing all that code.
So is the US.
He probably knows he'll be quickly forgotten once people wake up and stop giving him oxygen. And how sad is it that he still has to work overtime at his age.
And people still do it anyway. Which is great. Because it's still useful, and valuable. Just not necessary.
If you want a wooden dresser, buy one.
Nobody does woodworking because it's necessary.