The end result is private entities taking money out of the system at some stage, and it doesn't shield you in any way from government incompetence or malice.

Perfect on a hot day for a cold one.

> Culture wars are sadly one of the biggest inhibitors of progress

People pay more for works by famous artists or specific artists despite there being artists who can replicate their style exactly.

So having someone discount AI art or what they think is AI art isn't a new phenomenon, just an extension of the existing norms

So extended clarification on the "belief shaping morality" point.

I hold no issue with it, until one person's belief driven morality impinges on another persons own autonomy, you're free to act on your own life and person based on your beliefs but using that belief system as a weapon to cause others harm or reduce their autonomy as a person is where I draw the line.

It isn't worse, objectively the end result is favourable even if the "driver" for it is not (to me).

I accept your counter point that at a macro level society requires a set of checks and reinforcement to bias individuals towards social good behaviour, community enforcement is obviously one and religion can be another.

But I would argue that while the state legal framework is secular it encodes some moral principles that society has agreed on such as murder, theft, harming other physically or otherwise etc.

I also hold no issue with others holding beliefs that shape their morality, I just reject the argument that people without a god cannot have innate morality or a secular morality (a common refrain).

There's 4 at least

Seeing eye believer feeds the needy

Non believer feeds the needy

Non believer doesn't feed the needy

Believer doesn't feed the needy for some reason or another

That said I never said it was worse, I asked how it was better than "the state" acting as an all seeing eye for the masses.

We created it for ourselves and at its core is our social nature and the ability to feel Empathy for other humans/creatures.

Now I lead with that because there are historical cases for both religious and non religious people committing horrific acts, both groups having whatever form of "morals" and still those acts happened.

Morals based on the idea of an all seeing eye are also questionable at the root, if you only do the "right" thing because you fear consequences then how is that better than the government, police etc acting as a your personal moral compass except to extend the potential punishment beyond the current perceived lifetime.

It's tiring in a different way, but without the flow state or "high" of solving a particular problem in a clever or intuitive way.

Some days I enjoy shipping a change that would never have been greenlit for the sprint points it would have required, other days it's like herding cats and I'm tired with nothing to show for it.

Problem is there's no such thing, monopoly powers, government subsidies, inter-company issues, contracts.

All these things can mean that a less functional, more wasteful and less productive organisation performs (in the sense of the metric that companies care about , line go up) better than a 4 day week startup.

Not to mention the hallucinations

Stop trying to make browser llms happen, they're not going to happen.

One merged pr is a unit of change, at the end of the day the steps you took to produce it aren't relevant to others.

My opinion of course, I'm open to understanding why preserving individual commits is beneficial

Blockers: gravelly clay is a pita to dig with a shovel