bogwog

> I also wouldn't buy it for a second that Valve engineers aren't using AI, especially for something as trivial as "hey claude rank the top causes of slow startup" -> "oh okay now fix". The most I'd grant is that everyone uses AI secretly as a sort of dark forest problem.

This is probably the saddest comment I've read on HN. It really shows the state of this place and how far into psychosis the comments have fallen.

Yes, and there's no shortage of historical examples showing why we need those hurdles to be so high.

The "I know you are but what am I" debate strategy is always a solid choice.

I agree, this is great.

I have for example hypersensitivity to radio waves. I know how my body reacts and how it feels when I'm exposed to such radiation, especially during vaxxine toxicity flareups.

Yet, I have to be screened by nurses, go through appointments with psychologists, and in general wasting a lot of time when I could just convince a model to prescribe the radium water I need.

Step in the right direction.

> AIs make short work of proprietary code as well. Reverse engineering has become trivial. Not releasing any code whatsoever is the only possible defense now. I've made my peace with that.

This is a false equivalence. Reverse engineering my binary is not the same thing as training on my code. When you RE a binary, what comes out the other side is not the code that I wrote, its some machine-generated code that can reproduce the behavior of the binary. The result can't even be described as 'similar' to the original, because the compilation process is pretty much 100% lossy.

Reverse engineering my binary doesn't concern me too much, as I'm sure there are legal avenues I could take to protect my business were it to become a real problem. And if it comes down it, there's zero competitive advantage someone would have in that scenario, as all they'd have is undifferentiated AI slop.

Taking my work, putting it into your commercial product, and selling it without my permission is what I have a problem with. That's exactly what AI companies are doing with very little push back, and why I won't release my hand-written human code anymore.

> I also don't feel any sense of accomplishment anymore. Software is so trivial now. Even if I make some unique thing, others can just have an AI copy it. Nothing is special anymore. Feels like there's no point.

Software is certainly not 'trivial' now. The only people who believe this are those that have gotten caught up in the AI marketing blitz, or have completely detached/warped perspective on software. I.e. non-engineers wowed by novelty, finance execs wowed by the idea of being able to fire a bunch of people, or oligarchs wowed by the idea of being able to monopolize an entire industry.

> why bother to create new, free materials on the internet when it will just get scooped up by an LLM with no attribution to me

Can confirm. I've personally stopped releasing new open source code, and stopped contributing to projects.

Until copyright laws are updated to protect my work from being stolen and my labor exploited by AI companies, there's zero incentive for me to participate in open source.

Even OSI's cuck licenses are being cucked beyond reason. I didn't think that was possible.

> What sort of human element is desired here?

The human wallet

I was with you until this.

> I use LLMs to fill code after I make all hard architectural decisions because they type faster than me, and I'd rather spend my time doing useful experiments than typing trivial functions, even though I could.

Are you being facetious? Because I've seen some bad takes from people trying to justify their AI coding practices, but this is the first one that actually made me laugh. It's clear that this public attack has you in a defensive mental state (which is perfectly understandable), so giving you the benefit of the doubt, I won't pile on and take everything you're posting too seriously.

However, I gotta point out how ridiculous this statement is, because it's the kind of thing that'd make me wonder if someone has any programming experience at all. Typing speed is not, never has been, and never will be a limiting factor in software development. "I didn't do <X> because of <reason> even though I totally could" is a pathetic cope.

It kinda reminds me of a recent post from John Carmack where he said (paraphrasing) that he originally wanted to release Idtech to the public domain as a "gift to the world", but couldn't do it because of his pesky business partners, but he totally would've done it. Let's just ignore the part of the story where he became filthy rich from licensing his software, and focus on how good it will feel to call it a "gift to the world" when an AI company integrates your code into their commercial products without licensing it from you.

> doesn't make business sense to put a lot of resources into cleaning up ads that pay google nothing

If we lived in a sane world, Google would be held accountable for every scam they advertise. It doesn't matter if you think someone deserved to get scammed for using an ad blocker, because they never would have been scammed if Google didn't choose to put them in danger for the sake of profit.

"But they can't possibly review every ad before publishing" they say. If that's the case, then they should scale down the amount of ads they allow until it reaches a manageable scale (eg every single ad can be reviewed by a human employee). They might make less money, but it's an expectation we have of nearly all industries (eg commercial truck drivers have to follow extra restrictions in addition to regular speed limits)

> redirect this tendency that is weaponized against us towards something constructive

Who is "weaponizing" it against you, and how?