But they own this version instead of renting it. And it’s been released for free to the world.
That’s a way that the “worse” version is better to some people.
Also, assuming this person used $200/month subscription to some robot, and they used 5 days of of their quota, the money comes out about even after the first month or two, no?
My AI dream (that I’m living happily) is getting to focus on the details that I find interesting and ignoring all the boilerplate details that modern software requires.
I feel that this is because people have been reinventing the wheel a lot in IT.
A lot of innovation that finally lands in programming languages has been done decades earlier, but now it's mostly awkwardly bolted on existing languages and frameworks.
I really enjoy working with Gleam which is a rather boilerplate heavy language. However most of the work is managed by a really well built LSP. If you're writing a strongly type language it's easy to programmatically manage all of the boilerplate. You could you an LLM but why bother when it's a so formulaic.
Yeah, like imports in Java too. Any IDE lets you type List<ctrl-space> and it imports java.util.List - or java.awt.List if you select that one instead!
That's not what's really being discussed here though. Since it's already automated, you don't need to automate it with AI.
To further onto this, humans could technically simulate Turing machines themselves but they don't.
Efficiency and finding the right abstractions and tradeoffs is literally identical with making new capacities and capabilities. If all of your systems were truly "run by AI", we wouldn't have systems. Systems are systems because the AI uses well developed tools and protocols that humans have put together. It's a stable capacity.
You said what I was thinking. AI can do the things I always found mind numbing and tedious, but because I did it already early in my career, I know when to intervene because the agent is not doing it correctly. I think that is the OP's point.
I think about LLMs in software today as attempting to provide a similar role as compilers in terms of translating high-level thoughts into low-level details.
The only problem is that I actually trust compilers.
I hope we can save “jobs aren’t supposed to be fun” for stuff like undertaker and grief counselor.
My feeling is making things should be mentally stimulating, and as many tedious parts that can be automated should be, so we can spend precious human thought on thinking instead of recitation.
I don’t know what you mean by the last part. Do you mean programmers depend on busy work to eat or the users depend on the human touch on the boring details?
Saying jobs aren't supposed to be fun is akin to saying life should be dreadful. Work tends to be around half of your waking hours, usually your best and least tired half too. If anything we should be striving to make all kinds of work more enjoyable.
Some of us just wouldn't work if it wasn't fun. I'd let myself starve in the streets. (I have some experience with starvation from an eating disorder phase in my twenties, it's only unbearable if you have to work).
I like how you ignored the second part of my post. I specifically included it because I knew someone would respond like this to the first part. I think it's actually feasible when you have no other options - it's my retirement plan anyway.
If you’re paying the $100/year to publish to the store you also get access to Xcode cloud, which you can point at a repo and it will build snd archive for you to distribute to testflight. I opened xcode to test locally in simulator the first time but haven’t had to since.
Using godot iOS export.
For regular old native ios dev replacing Xcode i don’t think i would do it.
It's a weird flex to insist that the titles should always be extremely descriptive. It is already meaningful for the respected audience. Otherwise you can endlessly argue that a florist may not understand what "terminal" and "emulator" are, therefore it should be more descriptive for an occasional florist vising HN. For anyone who doesn't know what .el stands for, they'd click, see it's about Emacs and if not interested - close the tab and forget about it. Takes maybe a second. Not even a smallest imaginable deal - not big at all.
> Cars should be able to interface with any phone without having to subjugate themselves to Google and Apple. Because this is a perverted inversion of control.
A lot of lost media used to be considered garbage before it has gotten completely lost. Culture is always worth preserving, at least for historic purposes.
Let’s take all these games as great artworks - why don’t their creators have the right to destroy them?
All my own art is derivative schlock, so maybe I’m biased, but I don’t see how the viewer/consumer whoever has any say in the matter. The show is over when it’s over.
Should be compel musicians to record every live performance and make those available to people who couldn’t make it to the show too?
What if someone was in the bathroom during their favorite song, should we compel an encore?
> Let’s take all these games as great artworks - why don’t their creators have the right to destroy them?
Because they sold them. They put it out in the world. If they just made it and then immediately destroyed it, wonderful! But they didn't.
And, also, their creators are not a monolith. They were worked on by hundreds of hands. The production company shouldn't get to unilaterally make that decision.
> Should be compel musicians to record every live performance and make those available to people who couldn’t make it to the show too?
> Because they sold them. They put it out in the world. If they just made it and then immediately destroyed it, wonderful! But they didn't.
They sold a pass to play the game while it was open. Just like a swimming pool or a buffet.
Just because we got an executable software instead of a wrist band doesn’t change what it is.
Is the naming convention the sticking point here?
Did we really think it meant “all you can eat until the heat death of the universe”?
> And, also, their creators are not a monolith. They were worked on by hundreds of hands. The production company shouldn't get to unilaterally make that decision.
Why not?
I have never had a say as a developer or designer of other software when the company turned off products, how much we charged customers, what the SLA was etc. etc. etc.
I signed a contract to do a job on a thing. Regardless of how much pride I took in my work I understood the license it would be distributed under and what my role was.
We can form guilds or join coops if we want a say. Labor has pull before and during the work. Get it in writing. After the fact we’re fucked. Welcome to earth. Sucks here but we make do.
> This is this and that is that.
But this is that. They sold us a concert ticket. We checked the checkbox next to the EULA. Nobody made us do it.
I get the ick from this kind of game it so I stopped buying them, except for when I do. Just like I stopped eating Doritos.
I don’t expect something that comes in a colorful crinkly bag at gas station to be healthy and I don’t expect a game sold by some big studio to not be ripping me off.
The idea of interacting with lawyers and politicians to solve the problem of “some of my luxury goods are a bad value” never crossed my mind.
> Let’s take all these games as great artworks - why don’t their creators have the right to destroy them?
Because the only reason they received copyright protection in the first place (which is a severe limitation of everyone else's free speech) is to encourage them to contribute to our culture by making the games. You don't get to destroy artworks after the fact that were commissioned and fully paid for.
I cannot explain how offensive this is to work of people who work on these games. Years and years of my life working on some incredible AAA games and you call it garbage because it's always online. Like, you think all the effort, all the actual art, music, writing, lore, world building....all of it garbage, because the game is online only? Do you think WoW is garbage and "art" in quotes?
I mean, it's the internet, you can have whatever opinion you want. But imho this is a particularly nasty and unkind opinion.
He thinks AAA games are garbage, not because they are online but because they are AAA. Similar to people's opinions about Marvel films and other high budget productions.
I’m calling it garbage because the content is boring and the gameplay is tired for well over 99 out of 100 games I see.
The music, visual design, dialogue and “world building” of most games (indie and AAA) is trite recycled junk that without the budget would be indistinguishable from the output of a high school drama club (at best).
That’s before we talk about the cynical stuff like the always online, the loot boxes, the decontenting, the Day 1 dlc, the lack of physical disks you can share with friends or sell to GameStop, the bugs, the prices, etc. etc. etc.
I have failed at enough art and software myself to totally appreciate how much effort it takes to ship something even on the level of the crap that most games are. That doesn’t mean I think that makes them precious and people should be compelled to preserve them. Slop is slop regardless of if it was made by a human or a robot.
People put a lot of effort in to a lot of things that yield boring and or unethical results all the time, I don’t know why people treat games as some special case.
How about a “stop buying games” movement where people just don’t buy this live service garbage?
It’s all shovelware. It’s all the same crap over and over. There are plenty of non live service games being released every day, buy those instead. If a game is actually important to people they’ll figure out a way to play it (as people did with WoW classic before classic).
The idea that we should spend time and energy to regulate the big studios (who will just find loopholes anyway) instead of just supporting the indies who are making good stuff is wild to me.
The classic SKG example is The Crew. Where is the indie recreation of the Continental USA to drive around? Indie games are great, but let's not act like art is fungible.
I don't like the idea of "they will just find loopholes anyway", that seems defeatist. "We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas."
I wish people started thinking of good regulation as a technical problem as much as it is a social one.
EU tried to ban tracking cookies. Anyone could've seen the result coming (every site now disrupts your reading). The defeatist attitude would've been right there.
I don't see how games won't just charge you a $0.01 "subscription" that lasts 5 years or various other such sidesteps. it'll just make everything more annoying.
I'll keep buying whatever games seem fun to me. I rarely play a game more than a year or two, they become stale and boring to me. I genuinely, genuinely do not care if the game stops working in 12 years time. Could not possibly care less.
