shooly

It sounds like you're just a "yessayer", though? Not much different from naysayers, just on the opposite side.

One thing that naysayers have going on for them is the fact that those companies indeed aren't making profit right now.

I guess someone found a new exploit for V8/SpiderMonkey? Because this reads like some weird phishing attempt.

I don't know what is so difficult for you to understand in "just because you enjoy selling trash, doesn't mean I or others enjoy selling trash too"?

If your company managed to find an executive to pay for your trash - fine, this literally happens all the time, every day and happened before AI too - B2B software is widely known to be lowest quality software available. Your and your colleagues' job is to produce as much code as possible, in the shortest timeframe possible for the lowest possible price. In that context it's no wonder you all happily use AI, you work on slop, so a machine allowing you to produce even more slop even faster is a godsend.

It's much more difficult to get people to use your software if they don't have an idiot manager above them forcing them to use it or when there's real market competition.

I think you forgot the #sponsored tag.

There is no reason why gamers should be OK with use of AI to make games - AI doesn't solve any problems currently haunting the industry, it only exacerbates existing problems. If people were suddenly OK with AI in games, games won't get better - they will get even worse.

Also I don't think this explains "why it's at the top" specifically, since the same argument is true for all other edges, or at least the bottom edge.

Was there ever a time when short, fun games to play with your friends were _not_ wildly successful?

> significantly lower effort than AAA games

I think you meant lower budget.

Off-topic, but that showcase image in this repo is truly pathetic. "What should I get Mum?", "find me something to do on Sunday morning" - is this seriously what people need AI for now?

> abuse and ignorance

Toxic positivity is what's abusive and ignorant.

> [citation definitely needed]

If you're not even familiar with how LLMs work, perhaps you should restrain yourself from confidently talking about this topic until you educate yourself. You're only spreading misinformation.

> AGI is defined by the practical outcomes, not by the way the outcomes are achieved

That for sure would be a very convenient definition, especially for all those AI labs trying to convince investors that they achieved AGI. Unfortunately everyone knows, that knowing the right answer isn't the same as knowing where that answer came from.

> We don't really know where the capability ceiling of the current approach is

We do know, that the ceiling is below AGI. And it's not a matter of opinion - LLMs can not achieve AGI due to their design. Anyone telling you otherwise is lying to you.

And it doesn't matter how many or how severe bugs they can find, because it's not about what they produce, but how they produce it.

... and so what? Your response was that they're not a company - Mozilla Corporation IS a private, for-profit company and one of their responsibilities is managing Firefox. Similar structure is used by OpenAI, so I guess OpenAI is also not a company?