My main thesis here is that this isn't something you have to (nor can) do alone. And there are others who probably already have the ball rolling. Joining a larger cause can create a better effect than creating a narrative in your head that corporations are all powerful and paid off your representatives.

Do this for some 3-10 years and there will start to be national movements and pressure for federal bills addressing this. Assuming we don't just kowtow to fascism as we are now in my country.

Their workers, customers, and probably some local governments. They might even say it themselves at times.

> How does this compare to what you do for a living?

I make video games. There's always some sausage but I like to think I'm helping to bring joy and spark creativity, not simply make a billionaire richer.

Given my lack of full time work, I'm at least sure these last few years I'm not doing the latter directly.

You don't need to tell me anything. Nor vic2 versa. You don't fight a corporation with reasoned debate, you need more broad tools. Customer demand. Regulations. Competition.

The big mistake here is trying to desensitize the people into thinking they have no power.

Don't threaten my communist soul with a good time.

>Everything has a downside attached.

Yes. Let's regulate that, please.

>The point is never "Let's stop this because it's bad for the planet", but "Is the net benefit worth the cost?"

Sure. The answer is 'no, it isn't '. These frontier models purposefully chose the most power guzzling, moat digging approach and it was not necessary whatsoever.

> but there are things we ought to stop doing long before we come for AI.

Sure, let's get to it. As well as with AI at the same time.

That random 20 year old video of some middle schoolers doing a flying kick and breaking a vending machine? Yeah, just popped up on my feed yesterday.

I've read different testimony.

You're not getting my point, and it's not hard. I disagree with this statement.

>producitivty is simply proven for almost every engineer on the above point.

I've read otherwise.

Yeah, that's the marketing pitch. Much easier to fall into that than really think and approach how you perform a task.

En masse, I argue not. More productivity for engineers would not be met with mass layoffs if engineering production was why value was being added. On the contrary, other industries have had to hire back talent becsuse companies were too aggressive cutting people and needed that work to be done.

But I'm not an oracle. I can only speak for what I see today and won't predict tomorrow. Especially in these trying times.

Even if people could find the tools, they won't seek it if a one button solution can come to them. But we can't outcompete Instagram in a prompt, nor some popular app.

Or you simply take for granted the bloodbath the next decade will be before we come to proper talks of this. I don't think that is something to handwave unless you have your billionaire bunker ready.

I mean, it's a huge issue and is still happening. It will be talked about until properly addressed.

Even ignoring the shift to token based costs, the opportunity costs of throwing everything onto your "competent developers" isn't free. They still need time to review and correct output on top of whatever else they were doing in their day to day. And they probably aren't getting a pay raise either, so how long until they use that bullet point to jump jobs?

Well that's where we're seemingly at an impasse, no?

I don't even like the term "good vibecoding". The term was implied as a means to just let the computer type its own code and "go with the vibes". i.e. you have no deeper idea on how it works underneath.

Now, AI-assisted coding? It can be good. It can be a rush job. But the idea is that LLM's are in the passenger's seat, not the diver's. Much smaller chance where you have no idea where you're going since you're at the wheel.

But if I can clarify my point. It's more that I'm trying to say "Company promises A is happening and B is the necessary consequences to achieve it".

I do not believe A is happening but B is occurring despite that, in order to achieve hidden agenda C. Though in this case, C is not that hidden since every other article has them blabbing out loud about "wow it's going to be so amazing when C happens!"

here,

A = AI is making us more productive than ever

B = This will cause impacts on jobs and the economy as a whole as we realign what labor is

C = Companies make more money than ever as it works towards eliminating labor on massive (90+%) levels in order to maximize profits and moating the idea of knowledge itself