I was acing Andrew Ng's Machine Learning course back in 2013. I think I was excited about "AI" before most people. I came away from that excited about implementing, not using it. Then I watched how nobody had any really fresh ideas for about 10 years and just threw hardware and money at what amounts to the same old algorithms. I will say that trillions of dollars in data centers have made it much better than it was.
But, I still don't see it as suitable for anything creative. Ask your AI for a number between 1 and 10 and it will say 7, because statisically, that's the number. Designing an API is creative. Even in Oracle v. Google, that was something everyone agreed upon.
People telling me "If you don't know AI, you'll be left behind" make me smile. It sounds like the new "If you don't know Microsoft Office, you'll be left behind" to me. I like computers, not... using office. I like optimizing algorithms, not generating slop.
Easy can still be time consuming. I think trying to get an LLM to spit out the whole program is a flawed approach, but I understand why you'd want to be able to spitball 12 different data models quickly.
>ah, they're so dumb, they don't get it, the anti-LLM people
This is one of the reasons I see AI failing in the short term. If I call you an idiot, are you more or less likely to be open minded and try what I'm selling? AI isn't making money, 95% of companies are failing with AI
I mean, your AIs might be a lot more powerful if it was generating money, but that's not happening. I guess being condescending to the 95% of potential buyers isn't really working out.
Oh great, more of my tax money goes to children I was too responsible to have. The whole US government is geared to fund people who can't keep it in their pants and produce children they could never afford. I'm really tired of this, because I know those children won't be taking care of me in my old age.
Every person born in the US was once a child, not having children in no way makes you more responsible, it just makes you opting out of a major part of society, which is a fine personal choice but if this was implemented when you were a child you would have benefited the same as anyone else.
Also, other peoples children WILL be taking care of you when you are old ,because they will be the doctors, firefighters, manufacturing line workers, delivery drivers and everyone else that carry out services that you will still need. They will also be contributing to the tax base that provides social services (social security is paid for by the current generations tax revenue not the original contributors', as bad as this is)
If you're having children you can't afford, you are irresponsible. That is simple and easy for anyone to understand. If you then take your irresponsiblity and pay for it with the tax money of responsible people, you're rewarding the irresponsible people and punishing the responsible ones.
The part where I didn't have children I couldn't afford is what makes it particularly galling. I gave up something and they didn't, but I'm punished and they are rewarded.
After the growth period (that is, starting January 1st of the calendar year in which the child turns 18), most of the rules that apply to traditional IRAs will generally apply to the Trump account. For example, this means that distributions from the Trump account could be subject to the section 72(t) 10% additional tax on early distributions, unless an exception applies with respect to the child (such as for distributions for higher education expenses or first home purchases).
Does that mean that anyone who contributes their own money to their child’s Trump account is contributing post-tax dollars but the money gets taxed again when distributed (presumably less the basis of the contribution, which will be negligible by the time the money is distributed)?
Mr. Rand, not just goods and services. also anything that taxes pay for, done by younger people than you. roads laid, cleaned, police, firefighters, public parks, etc. deal or no deal? there is no third option. if you're really mad about it i can make up a third option specially for you but you won't like it, probably.
I agree that we should be spending more on children, however, I don't think we should be encouraging people to have them. People will have more kids when they feel more secure in their life positions. We should be fixing the social fabric to where people will naturally want to have kids, not encouraging people to have kids when they don't feel like they can.
Government money spent on children typically has long term returns that far outweigh the cost due to decreased poverty and need for benefits later in life as well as higher earnings
That doesn't change the fact that the submission is basically repeating the LISP curse. Best case scenario: you end up with a one-off framework and only you know how it works. The post you're replying to points out why this is a bad idea.
It doesn't matter if you don't use 90% of a framework as the submission bemoans. When everyone uses an identical API, but in different situations, you find lots of different problems that way. Your framework, and its users become a sort of BORG. When one of the framework users discovers a problem, it's fixed and propagated out before it can even be a problem for the rest of the BORG.
That's not true in your LISP curse, one off custom bespoke framework. You will repeat all the problems that all the other custom bespoke frameworks encountered. When they fixed their problem, they didn't fix it for you. You will find those problems over and over again. This is why free software dominates over proprietary software. The biggest problem in software is not writing the software, it's maintaining it. Free software shares the maintenance burden, so everyone can benefit. You bear the whole maintenance burden with your custom, one off vibe coded solutions.
My observation is that "AI" makes easy things easier and hard things impossible. You'll get your niche app out of it, you'll be thrilled, then you'll need it to do more. Then you will struggle to do more, because the AI created a pile of technical debt.
Programmers dream of getting a green field project. They want to "start it the right way this time" instead of being stuck unwinding technical debt on legacy projects. AI creates new legacy projects instantly.
Tim Cook is "stepping down" soon. Do you think his replacement will fix these things? I stopped using Apple stuff shortly after Steve Jobs died. Linus is still alive, but I wonder where I'll move once he is gone.
But, I still don't see it as suitable for anything creative. Ask your AI for a number between 1 and 10 and it will say 7, because statisically, that's the number. Designing an API is creative. Even in Oracle v. Google, that was something everyone agreed upon.
People telling me "If you don't know AI, you'll be left behind" make me smile. It sounds like the new "If you don't know Microsoft Office, you'll be left behind" to me. I like computers, not... using office. I like optimizing algorithms, not generating slop.
reply