eudamoniac

> And it's other people's opinion that the word "bigot" refers to people who call transgender women men.

That's fine, people can call me that if they want to

> History is full of backwards thinking that seems insane in retrospect.

Sure, and I'm not saying historicity makes me right, just that I didn't pull the opinion out of thin air like it's a crackpot theory; most people in the world today and throughout history agreed with me. I have essentially 0 Agreeableness in the big 5 so any argument about social pressure in present decade USA doesn't sway my opinion.

Not really in this case because the label given to these people is socially constructed. It's not 'reality' that they are or are not their proclaimed gender, just as it's not reality that they are or are not pretty. Saying that there is some objective reality of their prettiness or ugliness doesn't make much sense either way, in the same way.

It's my opinion that the words man and woman should refer to the biological sex, not the person's desired sex/gender, so I use the words in that way. Obviously some people feel strongly about using the words in the opposite way. That's okay, but I'm just not going to use them that way. Neither of us have a stronger claim to "observable reality", but I think I at least have a stronger claim to historical/traditional normalcy.

Everyone is aware that that is what the left "really means". You have not elucidated anything for anyone. A lot of people just disagree with your premise that the pregnant person should be, for any reason, called a man.

Thank you. Very tired of the financially illiterate option dogma I see constantly here.

Literally every time this is posted you see a few or more people jump out and say "no actually Bleak House is impossible to understand and it's written terribly and it's a dumb study!" Which I think means that while literacy levels are declining, people's perception of their own level is not. We have forgotten what high literacy is meant to look like. The original HN thread was depressing.

The topic is "the author could be a professional writer." I'm not allowed to say no, she couldn't? I wouldn't have mentioned AI if not for that.

And these calories are in the water supply? No, the fat people choose to buy and eat that food. I'm on a 700C deficit right now, it's not very fun, but it works because I have the discipline to not order a pizza.

We've entered the "AI is good and inevitable and only pretentious people would write their own words" phase of the forum.

That seems completely sane and I am happy for the people of Japan that they get to enjoy such a law.

Also, almost everything comes to PC now except Nintendo, so there's even less incentive.

I remember when the Democrats were for the working man and they had my vote. Now... they aren't and don't. How did this happen...?

I listened to this album about a dozen times trying to like it over the years, but it's just so repetitive I could not like it. I think you could probably cut the runtime in half and not lose any discrete musical parts.

Gatekeeping is required in any group that wishes to maintain any kind of quality. I run a book club; if I let in any random r/books poster (as an example) the discussions would become shit and the good members would leave. Ask me how I know. Now I aggressively gatekeep things when I can. It angers people, but it's worth it.

The Overton window of companies selling products that the user is manually buying while intentionally bypassing all existing safety measures? I don't understand how you can blame Google here.

They are not supposed to be "on par" with average employees, the visa is supposed to be for exceptional talent that cannot be hired in America. There is no shortage of domestic average devs, so these average h1b devs ought to be leaving.

As soon as I saw that ad I knew Nike was not going to be "cool" for much longer. I switched to Brooks after that.

Violence works, and it's increasingly coming to be understood that voting no longer does...

This is like the "Now everyone can just 3D print little widgets they need!" sentiment. Approximately no one is going to do this.

No, they don't. But to the layman they do. Most people are unaware that you can get what is to them an impressive 3d game scaffold from the Unity asset store in like one hour. You can literally have a 3d man running around an open world with camera, lighting, shadows, run animations, in like 5 minutes. This is a very impressive feat if you have no idea about modern game engines, which 99.99999% of people do not.

As an amateur game dev who knows some amount of things, honestly, not coping, I have not seen anything come out of AI game dev that would have been more than like one month of human dev work. And obviously, games take a lot more than one month to make...

It is because English is an ambiguous input unlike a high level programming language. The output cannot help but be wrong sometimes when the input is ambiguous. See my comment here https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49491797

Determinism isn't the issue; it's that the prompt does not contain enough information to know the correct way to do the thing, even if it did the thing the same way with the same inputs every time.

I don't like this inevitability framing. It's not true of other actually dangerous things. "There is no sane world where we can stop drugs/nukes/guns/CP, even if every single chemist/physicist/metallurgist/pedo were to vanish tomorrow, it would only be a stopgap [thus we should just let everyone have those things]." Yes, those things will exist in some highly restricted or illegal contexts, but that doesn't mean any of them need to be in the workplace or accessible to every citizen. Usage and access and development could be heavily restricted in just the same way. You don't think AI is dangerous enough for this comparison to be sensible, but I'm not so sure.

Likewise, arguments that other countries will have it therefore we must have it, are specious. Some countries have nukes, we don't let every country have them, we certainly don't let citizens have them; some countries produce CP, we don't let citizens access it; some countries have millions of guns among citizens, we don't let the guns cross the border. All this is to say that it would not be infeasible to broadly ban AI in most contexts. Obviously this won't happen in the current political climate, but it's not a law of the universe that AI pervading daily life is inevitable.

For some of us, "enjoy life" necessitates having some care and craftsmanship in the work we're doing 40 hours per week. People liked this job. Now it's becoming just a job.

Imagine a Michelin chef who previously invented delicious menus but whose boss has declared he now can only serve microwaved Sysco food. The revenue for some reason hasn't decreased. Why should he care about his "skills" if he's still able to make money, pursue hobbies, and enjoy life? I think that should be obvious here.

What happens when the biggest feature that can be touted is concrete objective metrics about bugs/uptime/quality-stuff? Can't slop your way to having the "crafted with love and care, no bugs in production in the last 2 years" feature.

More to the point, we currently share a society with many people of a violent culture, which makes directly shaming them dangerous and unwise. This was not always the case. The death of shaming is largely related to the increased daily proximity to violent subcultures who do not fear consequences.

All he's saying is when Swift gets on stage and her drummer needs to pee, he's going to have to hold it instead of walking off stage in the middle of the song. Sometimes jobs require periods of required availability.

This reminds me of Trump hysterics. If someone actually believed that Trump was going to end democracy and become dictator for life and kill all minorities etc, he would behave a lot differently than everyone saying that behaves.

> If you think LLMs are a fad that will just go away if you wait long enough, then you need to just remove yourself from this industry. They're not going away, for better or worse, and this kind of work is fundamentally changing.

They don't have to "go away"; managers just have to stop requiring their usage. In a sane business they will care about output, not tokens. If OP cannot keep up his output because he refuses to use it, sure, fire him. But in my experience the good devs can still keep up. Your post is only true if AIs improve enough that no developer can possibly keep up without them. That is not today, and maybe not tomorrow.

As a fellow contrarian, I applaud your resolve. I was constructively dismissed for refusing the COVID vax a few years ago. But I think in this case where there was no concern about output, it would be better for you to just pretend to use it. Then you would soon become the most/only knowledgeable dev, be able to leverage that into promotions or new jobs, etc. I know it's distasteful to pretend to believe what you don't believe, but this might be a serious enough matter to justify it.

I went through interviews recently; I told everyone what I think they wanted to hear about my AI usage based on their demeanor; I got a new job; I pretend to use AI at this new job. Either we're right and AI mandates get walked back, so we're in a good spot, or we're wrong and we need to hold onto our jobs for dear life.

I agree and I keep control, but I'm pretty sure AI is not faster than no-AI when I keep control. By the time I know what changes I want and how and instruct it how to do that and it thinks and I review the output, I could have written it.

> It's long been my experience...i've not touched an IDE in well more than 10 years

It's long been that your experience is outdated. A modern IDE will refactor C code just fine, and emacs is a pale shadow of a proper IDE. I understand you are proud to be using an old tool and doing things "the old fashioned way" but you are just using an objectively worse tool for this thing you're talking about throughout the thread. Find and replace is not the correct way to rename a method or variable for obvious reasons.