adventure331

> The simplest, most reliable way to ensure the works you invest in are fully and entirely eligible for copyright is to just use humans for the whole project. Declare a "no-AI policy," and hire human artists to produce the works you hope to sell. Monitor their activity to ensure they're not using AI. Keep good records.

What happens with work that is derived from LLMs that were trained on copyrighted work? Does that mean whatever I generate is not subject to copyright laws because I generated with AI ?

I don’t know if there was one, I’m guessing there wasn’t.

But my point, as I also said in another related comment, is that I think we should vote more often, voting for people representing us is not enough. One size does not fit all.

Let’s vote, the same way we do to choose representatives. Granted not everything needs to be voted but I think we could do with a bit more, rather than just trusting people that again and again show incompetence when it comes to representing and making decisions.

That’s great but are we collectively deciding or is it being decided by a very small group of people?

A group of people decided to put machines out there in the streets. Did we collectively decide this or is it just out there? Because at this point I don’t know anymore. Not only they put out there, there is legal enforcement surrounding it.

I can’t see this going well short term. Long term, maybe.

I think the author (and many people, including myself) is missing something crucial.

Yes AI can solve very difficult problems without requiring you to understand enough about it.

This gives the impression that you can solve anything, create anything, and put it out there. And because this seems to be true, you feel less motivation to go and do it, because it’s so easily achievable. It seems AI is robbing your ability to differentiate yourself and push hard on a direction and build something that matters.

However, I have a feeling that is increasing over time. I believe that this is not true at all.

Even with AI, an enormous amount of energy needs to come from within one self, to truly create something meaningful that is used by other people. Just because AI can spit out code that solves a set of problems, it doesn’t mean it’s ready to be used and that it will turn out to be something people actually care and use.

If your only ambition was solve a hard problem, and the problem was purely technical, I agree you are in a bad spot, but then again this is not gone. People play single player videogames fully knowing they can finish the game and they can even hack if they wanted but they don’t, they still enjoy playing, it just means this is now perhaps a hobby rather than something you can profit from.

Creating a product however, remains difficult I believe. A product that people actually enjoy using and solves something. If anything the bar is higher, and it is very hard to differentiate. I think this is more challenging than before, not less.

So if you shift your ambition to be, I want to create something people actually enjoy and it’s useful, and I can survive the next few years and have a competitive advantage, I think this is incredibly difficult.

An interesting read, given nowadays no one seem to care anymore how things are actually done in detail.

Doing a pretty sky in my game? Just delegate the entire process to AI.

If it doesn’t look good just keep prompting your way to a pretty sky. Learn nothing while you do it, and when you need to do a simulated 3D sky again, have zero reusable knowledge, after all you can just point your codex at your successful previous attempt.

I’m happy for the author. I didn’t miss the openclaw fever and I went through a similar experience. I also know other people that experienced this. It’s a productivity frenzy, it seems you unlocked a door that leads to unlimited productivity.

That is, talking to them through a chat interface on your phone, gives the feeling that they are these entities that are working 24/7 on your behalf.

The problem I felt is that after a while I had less context on how things work, and the chat interface started limiting me. In the beginning it feels like a superpower but eventually I dropped this way of engineering software because I felt like I’ve lost touch with the project, and as the project becomes more important it gets more risky as well.

Yes I agree thinking is still needed off course, but it has never been easier to ship 'half baked' things that don't actually matter and just works. What I mean is, if something has little proven business value, why waste time making sure it is correctly implemented? I'd rather spend time thinking about things that has actual proven business value, otherwise I'm not opposed to shipping something that I understand only 60 or 70% and save energy. ie: how it works at a high level.

If we are going to the moon, then by all means I think we should probably scrutinize every single line of code, but most business aren't going to the moon.

I don't understand why this was downvoted. While I agree it's very unlike this gets any traction, I praise the creator for trying something different. +1