I kinda thought so since it has that look to it. Blue'ish theme, rather dense, small fonts and things with borders.

Don't get me wrong, I don't mind AI being used here, quite the opposite, I'm sure without it this would never have existed in the first place. Just find it interesting that there is a certain pattern to AI-generated websites.

One fantastic usecase for me just recently was writing up a concept for an authentication daemon. With codex this is like a conversation where I pick from the suggestions, cross reference them with normal web-search and decide on a final draft which I then discuss with colleagues.

This "conversational" planning with integrated web-search (aka plan mode) is insanely useful. Also reviewing already written code with AI is purely beneficial in my opinion.

In my opinion the main caveat of AI is, you eventually have to be smarter than then tool. So for example if Codex suggests I should use tech-stack X then I must research and fully understand why this is actually good and still have to compare to other solutions. I think this is where the problem lies, some people skip this step which leads to so so many problems, and that's fatal. You MUST be smarter than the AI after your conversation and fully understand and be able to critique what it said.

If nobody in the meeting actually cares that the feature isn't getting finished, then the meetings value is rather small.

An interesting thing with ibuprofen is that at the regular dose of 400mg it inhibits pain but if you take 1600mg it doesn't inhibit much more pain than the 400mg dose, but the inflammatory effect does increase significantly. A lot of people don't know that and take too much thinking it scales linearly.

This should be the header of the website. I think the core of all these arguments is people thinking they ARE laws that must be followed no matter what. And in that case, yeah that won't work.

I think the most important principle above all is knowing when not to stick to them.

For example if I know a piece of code is just some "dead end" in the application that almost nothing depends on then there is little point optimizing it (in an architectural and performance sense). But if I'm writing a core part of an application that will have lots of ties to the rest, it totally does make sense keeping an eye on SOLID for example.

I think the real error is taking these at face value and not factoring in the rest of your problem domain. It's way too simple to think SOLID = good, else bad.

That's how I view it. You should design your application such that extension involves little modifying of existing code as long as it's not necessary from a behavior or architectural standpoint.

Take my Liquid Glass for example, you simply won't be able to match the look in an electron app in practice.

Ofc if the result is the same it doesn't matter how, but in reality it's almost impossible to imitate the look and capabilities since it would require a Herculean effort to keep feature parity.

An Electron app that draws all its components mostly like the native controls will still not be native and have the same integrations etc. that native apps usually get.

You could get close but some things like for example "ctrl+f" search have native widgets that work different/look different that an electron app realistically won't have. Or for example you will never get the same liquid glass materials that macOS uses in an electron app.

So yea, native in my books means using the platform native (UI) apis. On Ubuntu for examples thats GTK, on Windows its.... idk at this point, WinUI? and on KDE it would be Qt.

The more this signature is necessary the harder it becomes to deny issueing it to somebody.

I don't see how this changes much compared to nowadays. You can already require an ID for all kinds of these and the government already has total control over those. So what changes? China manages to ruin the lives of the people illegally born under the 1-child-policy for decades already, all without systems like eIDAS.

You can't protect yourself from authoritarian regimes with tech or good policy since those will just get ignored. Look at Trumps war with Iran, where did Congress agree to it?

I'm not a fan of these systems either, I also think software should be open and no vendor lock-in should exist. But I don't think this will change much to be honest.

This should also clarify the complexity issue.

> The comments within do not represent “the Rust project’s view” but rather the views of the individuals who made them. The Rust project does not, at present, have a coherent view or position around the usage of AI tools; this document is one step towards hopefully forming one.

So calling this "Rust Project Perspectives on AI" is not quite right.