But it helps to have a marketing slogan to get others to understand that this is a bad thing. They built a facility for people to go and die in. Might as well call it Auschwitz.

To the USA, definitely. I would also expect problems with Russian international tourism as well.

I don’t know why Japan would be having issues, though.

So we’re going to hear all about it, aren’t we?

A lot of people used to be miserable in families and relationships. Now they can be miserable alone.

You’re getting into a problem with education where there is value in providing ordeals for students to pass, but the cost of grading is significant and something schools are trying to reduce.

How do you create a system that verifies that the test taker knows the material?

Not really. I’d argue the dot com bust was worse due to the quantity of websites that died because they didn’t actually have a business model.

What we’re seeing is a tech industry where all the tech is on the right side of the S curve and trying one last stab at a technology that may be on the left side.

But it isn’t about creating quality results. It is about creating good enough results where the cost of failure in AI over humans is lower than the cost of humans over AI.

This has been Silicon Valley’s MO for generations.

A lot of people forget the shear bloodlust in the USA after 9/11 that lasted for years.

When people compare the Vietnam and Iraq Wars, a lot of people forget there was a large chunk of the country who were rabidly pro Iraq War while there wasn’t an equivalent base for the Vietnam War.

For most of humanity, a major medical issue in the elderly would usually bring about death soon enough. We’ve gotten to a point where we can extend people’s lives far beyond after these events, but it costs a lot of money to maintain these people in these conditions. Something is going to give.

Yes

Because it isn’t controlled by Russia.

Probably not. If Google could survive the Amazon App Store, it doesn’t have a reason to restrict sideloading now.

Yeah, but depending on the industry, that can be ok.

Some fields have companies that will hire and fire en masse based on projects that start and stop. At that point, they aren’t just paying you to show up to work, they’re also paying you to leave.

That’s a weird way to say there’s a big heat wave.

So which sickfuck CEO is trying to figure out how to make an AI feel pain?

I’m asking if it worth spending more money on human developers to write code that isn’t slop.

Everyone here has been mentioning costs, but they haven’t been comparing them together to see if the cost of using human developers located in a high cost of living American city is worth the benefits.

Historically open source and closed source have done the same thing, so why is this one tool usage so wildly different?

Because, as noted by another replier, open source wants working code and closed source just want code that runs.

That’s basically my question. If the standards of code are different, AI slop may be acceptable in one scenario but unacceptable in another.

So I was trying to make a statement that the developers of AI for coding may not have the high bar for quality and optimization that closed source developers would have, then was told that the major market was internal business code.

So, I asked, do companies need code that runs quickly on the systems that they are installed on to perform their function. For instance, can an unqualified programmer use AI code to build an internal corporate system rather than have to pay for a more qualified programmer’s time either as an internal hire or producing.