vor_

Sounds like a great way to avoid alcohol addiction, prevent drunk driving deaths, and save countless generations from being negatively impacted in one way or another by alcohol.

Using a client-server model for single-player allows it to lean on that system for replaying state changes.

> But it's also been anti-Javascript, anti-cloud, anti-social-media, anti-crypto, anti-React, and so on.

It was never any of these things, and you're misremembering if you think it was. There's never been a mono-opinion held by some all-encompassing hivemind.

You've been complaining about Hacker News for years.

When you use the term "luddite" in the way you do, you reveal that you aren't aware of who the Luddites actually were. Luddites weren't anti-technology; many of them were experts at using advanced machinery. What they opposed was the poor quality output of automated factories and the use of machinery to circumvent apprenticeships and decent wages.

As for your promise of a great leap at some vague point in the future, that's such a widely-mocked AI industry trope at this point that it's a little embarrassing you went there.

Who still buys from iTunes? This is likely bot-driven.

It's definitely still hypocrisy.

I'm sorry, but you're acting obtuse if you pretend you don't know why they're being called that.

This is total misinformation.

That's cringy.

I wouldn't characterize the story as a hit piece; the misquotes didn't distort his position. What happened is the LLM accurately summarized his position, but they weren't actually his words in the quotes.

> How many "I deleted the prod database" stories have you seen? Humans do this too.

Humans do it accidentally.

> If you actually read the words used in Steam AI survey you'll know Steam has completely caved in for AI-gen code as well.

And if you actually read the article, you'd see it addressed that.

> Yeah, exactly. And LLM help developers save time from writing the same thing that has be done by other developers for a thousand times.

Like a library?

> It disappoints me that technologists are so skeptical of this technology rather than exploring what it is and why it might be different to what exists today. It's fun! thats the takeaway: it's FUN.

It's most likely fun for you because it's novel, and for a lot of skeptics, AI novelty has long worn off.

> Also - study the code of the likes of Carmack. Consider that he produced the likes of the quake engines in only a couple of years. Reflect long and hard on the raw simplicity of a lot of that code.

There's a tendency to ascribe the entirety of id's technology to Carmack. Michael Abrash, as one example, was a major factor.

You have a pattern of bringing up immigration in response to stories or comments that don't mention it.

Are you really reviewing 30-40k lines of code a day?

And that divide has been around for much longer than twenty years.

I take issue with this. Knowledge like connecting to a remote server via SSH or explaining what DNS is have ALWAYS been niche topics. The article claims these are things you learned in the first week of "seriously engaging" with a computer twenty years ago, and that's just false.

Respectfully, I find this to be an unwarranted positive reaction to have toward this situation. What other action could Ars possibly take as a journalistic business? The quotes are indisputably false. This is hardly a praise-worthy action to take. It's the expected and required action.

With regard to editorial review, an editor didn't catch the error. The target of the false quotes had to register on Ars and post a comment about it. To top it off, more than one Ars commenter was openly suspicious that he was a fake account. Only when some of the readers checked for themselves to see that the quotes were indeed falsified did it gain attention from Ars staff.

What alternative action could he possibly take? He's owning up to something indisputable.

That's a poor mea culpa. It begins with a preamble attempting to garner sympathy from the reader before it gets to the acknowledgement of the error, which is a sleight-of-hand attempt to soften its severity.

Several of the subscribers in the comments are so eager to praise Ars for "catching" the error and being honest by retracting the article, as if that's not an expected journalistic standard. They're so happy to have a reason NOT to be upset. This wasn't even caught by Ars or any of its readers. The guy being misquoted had to sign up and post a comment about it.

Another red flag is that the article used repetitive phrases in an AI-like way:

"...it illustrates exactly the kind of unsupervised output that makes open source maintainers wary."

followed later on by

"[It] illustrates exactly the kind of unsupervised behavior that makes open source maintainers wary of AI contributions in the first place."

The comment calling him a bot is sarcasm.

I don't know. The novelty of LLMs faded very quickly for me.

Is this list AI-generated?

With that much time and effort, it seems inefficient compared to just writing the code yourself.

These endless promises of something better to come are so common that it's become a meme.

> But I think hackers and garage coders see the value of “vibing”

That's a massive generalization.