Okay, well if you’re going to be like that, I’ll talk to someone else:

An artist’s job is to pull together research, resources, history, knowledge, opinions, their own fluency in the language of the medium they’re using, and a bit of inspiration, and turn that into something interesting, or cool, or flashy, or thought provoking.

AI generation, even for the concept phase, skips 90% of that effort.

You can’t fabricate something with AI and then re-make it by hand later because these are two halves of the same process. By the time the hands are involved, there is very little left for them to do.

You don’t see the use in an artist viewing an approximation of the finished product

I don’t because that’s not what artists do.

Artists are not people who bring nearly finished projects over the finish line. And if your finished project does not look anything like your nearly-finished AI assets, what are you actually using them for?

Your absurdly strong pro technology fervor is actually blinding you from seeing this normally.

To get a model ship out of a bottle, you either need to reverse whatever method got it in there, deconstruct the ship, or break the glass.

To get concessions out of your masters, you have to able to think like this.

Life continues as it was, or you build another. That’s kind of a silly question.

And this is something you have to do instead of breaking them? The policy pen must be held in both hands while writing, I take it.

Haha!

You know, you get a pass. Not that you agree with me, I don’t know that yet, I just wasn’t expecting that heel turn.

to shit on the efforts of others.

The efforts of AI, you mean.

Truthfully, I wonder if we even need that guy’s 20 years any more. Maybe he should retire.

I am a strong believer in the power of shame. Republican racists must be taught that their options are either to bend to my will or shut up permanently. I don’t really care if they agree with me or not.

Now, that’s pretty provocative. I am not presently mounting rifles at LLM users. But, I do think it shows that I have more determination than you do.

Every library my team has ever included in a project has gone through rounds of evaluation to make sure it is 1. publically trusted, 2. well tested, 3. and still in active development. I have no idea what this has to do with mindlessly copying code.

so you invent your own code/algorithms for every project?

If you’re going to submit an algorithm that isn’t maintained and you don’t know how it works, I’m not merging your pull request.

it’s better not to publish open source code because somewhere down the road, you might make a decision that some crowd doesn’t like

I see we’re going with the “woke cancel culture ruined comedy” argument.

Mate, if you’re going to take your ball and leave over the slight possibility that you might have to answer to some criticism one day, you’re not really living in the civilized society that I do. It seems kind of pointless to even talk to you.

They will obviously stop saying they use AI, much like republicans pretend they’re not racist. So?

I call the both of them cowards who refuse to stand up for what they supposedly believe in.

How do you propose they should have taken them? Like, just lifted them in the night while the cops were busy jerking off?

We’re just gonna pretend the pre-LLM time period didn’t have people mindlessly copy paste code into all of our known projects?

No, IEatDaFeesh, that’s something that first-years do. Are you a first-year?

This specific developer is not the only audience to this behavior.

that it’s better not to stick your head out and publish open source code

I like the implication that open source code must include AI, and so the only recourse is to reject… all open source projects?

You know, we had a FOSS without AI like ten years ago. I’d prefer to keep that one.

No, I think they disagree. Or at least, I don’t mind treating them as such.

From sudoer:

Basically what they are saying is just praying > praying + smoking > just smoking.

This is the basis of the entire argument. What I see them doing is hyperfixating on an alleged flaw as a rhetorical tactic to defeat you.

I want to be clear: the point being made by the A and B versions of the smoker’s question is… obvious. It’s framing. Framing is a very well understood concept.

When I challenge people on grounds like these, I appear friendly, I make it explicitly known that I agree with the broader point, I offer alternatives that would make the point better, I refrain from damaging the rhetorical momentum (that is, we shouldn’t be bickering with each other because, to an audience, we should be a united front), and, I dunno, a fifth thing I’m sure I’ll come up with later.

If sudoer doesn’t disagree with you, they are still acting in opposition to you, which is 1) inconsiderate, and 2) demonstrates very poor social skills.

This was really funny to read.

I don’t know if you’ve ever heard it said, but really argumentative people are sometimes so “smart” and ready to go to bat that they end up suplexing their own IQ into a pit, and actually end up stupider than the average person on some issues.

I don’t think sudoer realizes it, but they’re arguing against, like, the concept of a seedy car salesman. Or, the tactic of acting sweeter than usual to get your dad to do you a favor. Or I guess just being manipulative in general. It’s really bizarre.

Hm, I guess that makes sense. I have a friend who behaves a little like that.

Well, I’m sorry it took decades, but I admire your hard work. :)

I’m just asking out of curiosity: why do you think you care so much about the negative comments?

I am one of those people that shrug it off, and if I were to try to rationalize my emotional armor, I’d say that the places these matters of taste and disagreement come from, like psychologically, are often not you’re own fault and wouldn’t really be fixable even if you tried.

But, I wonder if that might be missing the mark. The futility of trying to appease people who are unappeasable might actually have nothing to do with it.

Palantir is trying to abuse a Swiss law to intimidate any negative coverage of themselves. This is a SLAPP suit. The headline is just fine, actually.

Switzerland’s right of reply law exists so people can correct factual errors, not so corporations can force publications to run PR copy because they didn’t like the tone of accurate, document-based reporting.