And what sort of economic system do you imagine will be in place to support billions of people being able to just play Go all day long? How do you imagine the large capitalistic global powers transitioning into that state?

This has AI fingerprints all over it and it was clear to me too. The fact that not only do people not notice this, but also that the comment pointing it out is dead and I can’t even reply to it, is sad/scary/funny. The internet of people is literally dying before our eyes and HN just flags anyone helping to sound the alarm.

It’s interesting to note that this is not a new phenomenon. If you read writers from the past, they were always comparing the body or the brain to whatever the modern machine, or idea of a machine, was at the time, whether a steam engine or automata.

The logical conclusion under the popular axiomatic framework of materialism, for sure.

But there are other possible logical conclusions depending on your philosophical foundations, e.g. the brain could be a receiver for consciousness which is translated into our worldly experience from somewhere else.

Not exactly accounting, but ChatGPT (whatever the paid model was in March) told me that paying down principal early would have virtually no effect on interest over the remainder of the loan. It was confused by the fact that it was a short balloon with payments amortized using a 30 year schedule. I did the math by hand to check and told it it was incorrect and it gave me the classic “oh yeah, sorry about that”. It’s the type of thing where for someone that is knowledgeable about the domain, it wouldn’t pass the sniff test. I am not sure if LLMs have a sniff test.

I can’t imagine how hard this will hallucinate when there are layers of accounting, tax codes, etc. But who will notice when it sounds so convinced it is right?

This sounds like a strawman to me but I’m not well versed in feminism. Do you have examples? On the topic of science, isn’t the criticism more that women were largely ignored or misrepresented in scientific studies? This doesn’t have to be because the authors were “idiots”.

> Shaming individuals doesn't seem to be productive or helpful.

First, none of us have any power to "tax it more" so this is a dead end of discussion. Second, people have agency and we can hold them accountable socially for negative actions even if they are abiding by the current laws (or tax regime). This happens all the time, because laws don't fully align with morality in a culture. Suggesting that we should leave such things to the sole discretion of the economy and taxes describes a strange unhuman-like society that we don't live in.

This thread is about vibe coding _without_ looking at the code.

But read the same link from above: https://github.com/huseyinbabal/taws/blob/2ce4e24797f7f32a52.... LLMs leave temporal comments like "// Now do X", or "// Do X using the new Y", as responses to prompts like "Can you do X with Y instead?".

or below: "// Auto-refresh every 5 seconds (only in Normal mode)". I would guess this comment was during a response to a prompt like: "can you only auto-refresh in Normal mode?"

Sometimes there are tautological comments and sometimes not: https://github.com/huseyinbabal/taws/blob/2ce4e24797f7f32a52...

``` // Get log file path

let log_path = get_log_path(); ```

This is another signal to me that there is less human influence over the project.

No, none of these are a smoking gun. Also none of this means it was completely vibe coded. To me personally, the worrying part is that these patterns signal that perhaps human eyes were never on that section of the code, or at least the code was not considered carefully. For a toy app, who cares? For something that ingests your AWS creds, it's more of a red flag.

Edit: changed the language a bit to sound less sardonic. My comment is more about LLM signals than a judgment on LLM usage.

What you are describing is if we are on the right side of the curve. But is there any evidence that this is true?

When I read Sowell, someone who I imagine would be a champion for this cause, he cites the 1920s as his evidence that trickle-down works which doesn’t inspire confidence. If there is no modern evidence, why are we even entertaining this theory today?

IMO, a less presumptuous criticism would be phrased like "if you did X then benefits Y would happen", or "if you haven't, consider X", or even (the least presumptuous - make it a conversation!) "have you considered X?", rather than "you should do X".

How do you know that?

It's funny that the same party that likes to warn of "you will own nothing and be happy" is now defending economic policy that will decrease material wealth, but it's ok because it is "good for you" to practice having less.