It's easy, it's fast and it gets the point across. Quality is only encouraged socially, people don't really care that much about quality. Rather people have 100 things they care about in their lives - an app for their groceries, a small game of their own idea to show to friends and play, a piece of music about that one time their group of friends got drunk and went into the mountains to fight a bear that in the end turned out to be some old granpa's cow. And only one or two which are important enough to spend the effort to find a quality product.

For software - the places where hard identifiable metric matter... Sensors, weapons, performance, networking, etc. They won't be replaced by AI's any time soon but so many other types of product imo will be assimilated by the machine. All desktop apps for regular people, all websites for blogs, posting, sharing. Probably most IoT related things in your own home

It is hilarious that the machines will first devour the industries that need more feelings and ideas rather then raw precision.

In general responding with a statement that assigns a quality to someone's work and effort is not appropriate. You can say "That information is not correct" if you want to be assertive but saying "You have not researched or read the correct information" is doing more then correcting information and becomes personal.

I've seen a lot of people, myself included have trouble with this distinction. But I have found it to be an important part of being "considerate" of others and being charismatic to them. People really react differently to the smallest of nuance in tone and wording regardless if they are adults. (I'd actually wager adults react much more strongly to that nuance due to having more experience to tell the nuances apart)

Very uncomfortable truth (imo) for many developers who prefer to find abstractions and general all encompassing advice. I have found that the correct placement of functions in files/classes is a "sense" that is improved solely with experience and is never truly complete. It is after all about communicating intent to other human beings for which there are no hard rules.

I think it is odd to say that something is mathematical, when all things can looked at through the lenses of mathematics.

Also for tasks that have clear indications of varying degrees of success. Like throwing a ball in a basket. Yes absolutely computers and AI will in time do them better than humans ever will.

But for music once you make a song that is perceived as "good" or "not bad", there is no such thing as better or worse, it becomes entirely subjective. So I do not know if it is possible for anything to be better than something else. For composers and music makers we often assign celebrity status and perceive some greater than others, but really the music some create is not better than the rest.

Maybe AI will be able to demonstrate technical prowess beyond human ability like be able to instantly write down all 15 sounding notes in a given beat in a song. But it does not make sense for it to better at creating music than humans in general.

After I learned to program I noticed that feeling of "game" sense can be developed for programming as well. When I am debugging something or looking at some code, I just "feel" stuff about the code, like the feeling of being reading through a function that is obviously doing that X thing. You just know without reading it whole. And you know where and how it is used without seeing it before hand. This is really enchanced for code that is written in a style that you are used to.

I believe all skills develop such an extra sense and the satisfaction from using it is really high. I think a lot of people refer to this as intuition but to me particularly it feels like something that is part of the sensations of my body.

As for intelligence I honestly believe the mind uses whatever tools it sees fit for a task. Sometimes when you think about a problem it is through words, sometimes it is through visuals and sometimes it is just felt.

Well I didn't do a "real" hardware design - only remapped all of my keys so that I press shift as least and possible to not curve my left wrist.

And the small hardware adaptation of taking two keyboards and using one for each hand, because who has time to make their own ::)

But the reason we ask ourselves if AI genereted X in masse is legal or not is not about how things work, but what their impact is to living human beings. Laws are about protecting humans.

I don't think most of the replies on SO mention this directly, they mostly focus on how this will impact the site's quality negatively. But really you are correct that people don't like being used as training data and imo the "arguments" everyone are making against AI disadvantages on SO, on art sites, on wherever else are pretty much "excuses". Quoted because even if they are correct they are just excuses for the core much more ethical issue - humans don't want to be replaced. Being replaced by a machine is even shittier. Being replaced by a machine that exploited your own hard work against you even more so.

In a real world example if my boss hired a junior whom I must mentor with the sole purpose of me being fired and replaced so he can pay him less. Well that would be considered very unethical even though it does happen and many workers do put up with it. Yet the current AI movement is that on an unprecedented scale and to the people being replaced it must feel like a massive bitch slap in the face.

To me it seems like an extreme expression of power and it's bizzare how many people are fine with it.

It's crazy to me how I have memories of AI discussions from years back where this crucial difference was well known and acknowledged. But right now it feels like half the people are turning a blind eye to it on purpose.

"The worth of anything – an idea, an activity, an artwork, a relationship with another person – is determined pragmatically: things are good to the extent that they are instrumental, with instrumentality usually defined as the capacity to produce money or things.".

We are trying to explain the purpose(!) of somethings that are not instrumental/useful through the lense of how it became that they are useful sometimes. While the examples of the book writer and that punk bands solitary "useless" activity are great they are immediately followed with the example how they produced something out of it.

It's so full circle that it is ridiculously funny. Our culture is soo usefulness driven that you can barely ever put down those lenses even forcefully.

I've seen others and myself included try to sync them when solving some problems. Just because it is so natural to believe it possible to do. Then you find out you are running circles.

Honestly for the use cases I've met Redis has only made sense to be used as a cache for performance or message bus. Your primary data store is gonna give you the other guarantees of backups, consistency etc...

Unless somebody usew it as their primary store, but everybody chooses their own religion I guess.