At this point, 'person who is popularly thought to be intelligent thinks AI is conscious' should make you question the first part, not endorse the second.

[1] https://ewtn.co.uk/article-famous-atheist-richard-dawkins-sa...

I think this is a very rosy view of programmers, not borne out by history. The people leading the vibe coding charge are programmers, rather than an external group.

I know it's popular to divide the world into the technically-literate and the credulous, but in this case the technical camp is also the one going all in.

The Lord of the Rings is about lots of things. Some of those things are orcs. When I say that The Lord of the Rings is about orcs, I'm not saying it's made by orcs, or that orcs were used to distribute it, but that orcs are something discussed within the text.

Similarly, when I say that The Lord of the Rings is partially about authenticity, I'm not talking about the way in which it was written, but the contents of the work. Authenticity is a theme in the books, discussed within the text.

[0] https://www.opensourceshakespeare.org/views/plays/play_view....

[1] https://www.etymonline.com/word/data

I'm not talking about the provenance of the work, but the content of it.

The people who want LotR merchandise do so because they care about LotR.

I'll agree with that incredibly-hedged claim, sure. I'm not against efficiency at all.

As before though, it's not the only consideration. It would have been even more efficient to give all the people with a copy of Girl with a Pearl Earring a blank canvas, or even nothing at all, but that would be missing the point.

This is not a very high standard for art.

Particularly not in this case, when the current art is a reference to, and for fans of, art that was all about authenticity. It's also art on a product that is very much not aiming for the 'just get it done' market.

If all I care about is the destination, then sure: use the most resource-efficient method. In this and in every other situation where there are other considerations, reducing everything to efficiency is absurdly reductionist.

Has your output kept pace with the code? Because months in hours means, even pushing those ratios quite far, to be years in days.

Has your roadmap accelerated multiple years in the last few months in terms of verifiable results?

If software development speed has doubled, then we should be seeing not just an increase in apps being released, but an increase in product output from the big players too.

It's tedious because the insistence doesn't seem to be matched by much observable change.

> This whole "Yeah, well let me see the proof!" ostrich-head-in-the-sand thing works about as long as it takes for everyone to make you eat their dust.

People will stop asking for the proof when the dust-eating commences.