computably

Or, you know, automatically, with plain old software. Which works fine and fails in less ridiculous ways.

> I suspect that for most people, much of it is a feeling of accomplishment from performing a difficult skill that creates something of value for other people. It's the joy of being known as a good cook, and the satisfaction of making something for people that they might otherwise have trouble getting. How much fun would cooking be if every street corner had a Michelin-starred restaurant giving food away for free? How much would you cook if none of your friends really cared about the results because they can get better food elsewhere, cheaper?

I think it's paradoxical to suggest Michelin-starred restaurants could be everywhere, given the whole point is the travel-worthiness i.e. a scarcity that justified effort.

That aside, to take the strongest form of the argument, I think even if every human being could get their ideal meal, no matter what it is, at any time and for free - and even if the cook in question is only doing it for social reasons - cooking would still be valued. It's the effort put in by a person which is scarce and precious. Even if people were immortal, that time in the present would still be valuable in itself.

> How is kindness demonstrated in a world where no one wants for anything?

Post-scarcity of material things won't sedate humans. Kindness is a thing wanted in and of itself, but more importantly, internal struggles and desires can't all be resolved through material gain.

> How can someone be more interesting than synthetically generated content created specifically attuned to our personal interests?

The answer is apparently, pretty easily? By and large it seems the consensus is social media and digital content are exploiting a niche of providing a low-effort, highly-addictive pastime.

If the service provider goes under, the govt wasted their money.

Reviewers are also usually biased towards reviewing products that are good and/or interesting, and while that's also true of consumers, you'd expect reviewers to be more informed.

What you're describing is a language that can effectively take a high-level design doc (limited to a formal language representing a pseudo-English-subset) and compile to almost arbitrarily complex, formally verifiable systems. I say systems because you're also implying these could essentially orchestrate distributed systems.

Which, if that were really possible, would be pretty good evidence of AGI. Or, at least, the end of 6-7 figure software engineer salaries. Conversely, I think it's a pipe dream. Writing a compiler that actually works well across such a broad range of hugely complex behaviors would itself be absurdly complex.

> If 90% of new games get tagged as AI no matter how non-slop they are

You presume in favor of the existence of non-slop.

> There as good games that use AI

[citation needed]

There theoretically could be - and I don't have an issue with an otherwise competent dev/artist making use of AI tools - but I know no examples of good games that also deserve a "made with AI"/"uses AI" badge.

YT's business model is monetizing creators' output. Producing a video that gets a million views and generates a bunch of ad revenue is the fee.

> I used to think that compilers should use more verification technology, but people start screaming about compile times.

"Just" make verification faster. ;)

I assume they're referring to some amplification of that latency that makes it easily observable. e.g. multiple round trips on a user interaction

That's a false dichotomy. An AI assistant doesn't have to be unrestricted and monolithic.

From the perspective of the humans who first harnessed fire, it could have been a humanity-ending threat for all they knew. Certainly for the atomic bomb, they briefly entertained the possibility it would literally ignite the entire atmosphere.

And under a long enough time horizon, you could just as well argue that pretty much every scientific advancement has contributed to the development of modern AI. Does it count as AI doom if a century from now humans just start a plain old World War N with barely-intelligent killer robots?

That's loaded with ambiguous qualifiers. Anybody could say that about pretty much any revolutionary technology. Unless you have a convincing argument for how there's literally only one way for it to go right, it's an unfalsifiable claim.

There have always been Adobe alternatives and many are more than 50% functional.

I'm pretty sure the "proprietary" part is the gatekeeping.