Is it? If by higher quality, you mean commenting properly, sticking to naming conventions etc. I can agree. But to me, AIslop looks like it lacks "intentionality" of code written by devs, no matter how bad they are at naming things and sticking to conventions.

i.e. people who are adequately good at their jobs usually do things for a reason, and they can explain it. Even if you don't find it agreeable, it usually is consistent.

But I am not using more software. I mean their source codes might have gotten larger, but the count of tools/services I use is basically the same.

So this feels more like giving up nice handcrafted fountain pens for bic pens. But I am still using a couple pens overall. So no added convenience, just shittier quality.

I think one more thing this whole LLM charade in the last few years has revealed is that no-one really cares. As long as it "looks" like it works, turns out, its all fine.

It took a while and several explanations for it to completely click for me. The e-cvt mechanism does seem to be quite clever and simpler (at least mechanically).

Basically all aspects of traditional values, systems in place and the whole lifestyle, established mostly after the agricultural revolution; seems to be laser-focused on increasing surviving offspring.

I feel like it should be obvious that if you take a solution that optimizes almost exclusively for x (surviving offspring), and replace it partially, optimizing for a,b,c (industrial output, female participation to workforce, etc.); you necessarily get a lower x in exchange for higher a,b,c.

Now it looks to me like everyone is trying to increase x back again, but without decreasing a,b,c. It seems obvious to me that you cannot do this (unless you have been doing a terrible job at optimizing before). You have to trade some value off from the other side. But in our current society, I don't see how can this happen.

Why though? I imagine things could also go the "google way" as well. The automated system makes the decision; and you just.. deal with the consequences if that decision is bad. We could just have an extended version of this dynamic as well: 3-4 entities with enough compute owning everything with no responsibilities; and when something goes bad, oh well. It's not like you can go to their competition, who also works the same way.

I think we saw many times that after a certain scale (after becoming, say, too big to fail), there is no bad decision you can't afford.

The idea itself was very cool, so I endured it. But it was not a pleasant read.

But the point here is that a few companies are outbidding everyone else, hoarding shittons of compute and putting it into their data centers, to rent to people. This is effectively taking compute ownership away from consumers and centralizing compute i.e. un-democratising.

Apple outcompeting other companies to put their products into the hands of regular people is vastly different.

Sorry, I don't see this happening, at least not for the majority. Even if it does, it would still be arguably centralizing.

- Paying for a ticket/dvd/stream to see a Ghibli movie

- Training a model on their work without compensating them, then enabling everyone to copy their art style with ~zero effort, flooding the market and diluting the value of their work. And making money in the process.

should be rather obvious. My only hypothesis so far is that a lot of the people in here have a vested interest in not understanding the outrage, so they don't.

Yet people are using AI for therapy, listening to AI-written novels read by AI, gladly watching AI-made slop. There seems to be real actual demand for it. Feels like total insanity to me; but here we are and facts are facts.

I guess whether the emperor is wearing clothes or not never actually mattered.

But still, I often find myself watching anime from fansub groups even though I have a legitimate, official way of watching them. Paying for a streaming service that is objectively, significantly worse than even the shittier pirate offerings does make me feel like a fool.