I'll admit to having some bias against vibe coding, but trying to put that aside I think it depends on the purpose of the project. If it attempts to be an improvement over existing software then absolutely yes it would, things like speed, performance, security and reliability are not something I'd trust vibe coding for. If its for doing something novel where the previously mentioned is less of the focus, I can imagine myself looking past that, sure.
is Work that much better than standard ChatGPT? I just tried standard for a relatively simple task; searching through the used market for a Macbook Pro and it alternated between ignoring my requirements (which was the whole reason I used it in the first place, as eBay does the same) and doing this weird thing where it'd suggest the "concept" of something (eg "X at Y price is a great choice" with no link to X at Y price).
So yeh, is Work much better for that kind of thing?
A friend of mine, really nice guy, is training as a lawyer at the moment. He has zero interest in law or justice, but heard that lawyers make a lot of money. Not too long about, programming went through a very similar phase. To be clear its not that I think programmers or lawyers shouldn't make good money, they absolutely should and it is deserved, its just it has the unfortunate side effect of attracting people who don't care about the field itself. For those people, they care as little as they can get away with and still be paid big money, and if LLM's allow them to do that at the cost of quality, they absolutely will.
I do think LLM's are making some genuine programmers less intelligent, but I think this type of person makes up a decent portion of its users too
I can say with a great degree of certainty that I know him better than you would from half a paragraph. Would you like to think that someone would judge your character from so little?
I don't think my friend is a sociopath. Perhaps 0 interest in justice is an exaggeration, or a matter of perspective, more like an average interest in it. At the end of the day, he took a career path for the same reason most people do. I can see why if you're deeply passionate about your field that can be annoying, but "sociopath" is really quite an extreme judgement
> People judge me for less all the time and I usually don't care.
Maybe its a case of "takes one to know one", but isn't this literally what a sociopath is? You act without caring what people think. I don't usually like to say that about a person I don't know but clearly you won't be affected by that.
> isn't this literally what a sociopath is? You act without caring what people think.
I don't care when people are wrong about me and my moral compass is telling me what is right. My moral compass is mostly centered around love and respect for others. If someone misunderstands that about me, they are within their rights to do so.
I have love and respect for your friend even though we've never met and you've given me full indication he is a money grubbing sociopath. And for you, who doubles down into saying your description is not sociopathic.
Well you clearly do care about my judgement in this circumstance, perhaps that tells you something? Wanting to respect others and yet jumping to bad faith conclusions about people you know nothing about besides a line of text doesn't line up, and clearly you know that.
If everything you're saying is true, your moral compass is clearly not aligning with your actions here. That's fine, genuinely wanting to love and respect others and making a mistake in your actions on that moral compass is a one time mistake that can be easily remedied. The alternative is that you're actions align, the mistake was your conception of your moral compass, which would be a far bigger problem.
I don't want to speak for them, but perhaps this is a very real consequence of the "use ai or get left behind" talking point. Maybe they were effectively scared into it, and now are too far gone. They seem like a very reasonable person if they're admitting to being over reliant on LLMs, so I don't mean this as an insult
As others have said there are other conclusions going both ways (though I do think most settle on as you said), though one very fair conclusion I came across is that it's not allowed because the whole issue of copyright is still somewhat unresolved, and though its fine right now, that could (probably wont, but could) massively backfire later.
I havent used Windows in years so maybe somethings changed, and far be it from me to get in the way of someone taking them down a peg, but this bit confused me:
> The vendors do not remove the Windows license, and you must pay the entire price, even if you do not want to use this system.
Surely if you don't want Windows you just boot from a usb drive and install another OS without having to pay them anything. Its not like Windows can stop you from installing another OS, right?
Its not like you enter in your payment information to buy the Windows license after you buy the computer. That's the thing. You inherently already bought the license when you bought the computer, it was just another item in the overall package like the RAM and the SSD and the battery and what not.
So even if on the first boot you just immediately booted into whatever other operating system, you still paid for Windows.
I believe they are referring to preinstalled Windows as an OS when you buy a PC. The PC price itself already includes the price of the Windows License. And the article advocates requesting refunds if you intend to install a different OS.
Classic sci-fi was far from universally optimistic, it had more optimistic pieces than we do today but I'd still say on the whole it was more dystopia than utopia. Even for its own time, the original Star Trek was considered uniquely optimistic, though a large part of that is that its just much easier to write a good story where the setting itself provides the necessary challenges for a story to work, rather than an optimistic setting which rules out a lot of the usual challenges. Even Star Trek struggled, a good chunk of its stories are about encountering a race or civilisation without that utopia, turns out telling a good story without any conflict is pretty tough, especially a long running one.
But it does more generally reflect how society views technology as a whole too. People are generally a lot more pessimistic about new tech now, myself included, we've seen time and time again how its used to control or squeeze us. There actually was a Star Trek episode, "The Game" (season 5, episode 6) about an addicting device you could compare to smartphones (though the device in Star Trek doesn't spy on you to sell your every move to advertisers, missed a trick there), and that certainly wasn't supposed to be an optimistic look at technology, so you can see why things have gone the way they have.
From what I've seen they do care quite a bit about gaming, but not to the point where they're willing to actually do much about it, so I wouldn't expect a proton style compatibility layer anytime soon unfortunately
> From what I've seen they do care quite a bit about gaming, but not to the point where they're willing to actually do much about it
If they aren't willing to do much about it, they don't—however much they might pretend as long as it costs them nothing of value to do so—actually “care quite a bit” about it.
I wouldnt quite agree with that, gaming featured fairly prominently at least years WWDC, thats competing with a lot of other software and announcements for limited time. Pretending to care at an event where you can pretend to care about so many things is as close to caring as you get.
But I think it comes down to the wording a bit. At their core, the only single thing Apple cares about is making money. They only pretend to care about their computers, phones, everything they do is just an act, but we all know that so caring about something is relative, when we say they care about their computers its more that they put more resources into that than they do other things which we'd say they dont care about.
There's been plenty of good sci-fi written about this, but surely they know that any any display of power is meaningless without someone to have power over? The wedding in Venice only means anything because people live in Venice and you're still able to "take over". Any "paradise" built like this will never be paradise, it'll be just chasing the next extreme until there's nowhere left to go
You don't have to look at sci-fi, go look at the history of the Republic of Venice. It was ruled by a tiny group of ultra-wealthy people while the vast majority of the population owned nothing and had zero influence.
Absolutely not, sci-fi is just often a good vehicle for these kind of ideas (plus it gives me an excuse to talk about warhammer), but your right, theres plenty of real world examples to look at too.
Others have listed some great examples, but to be honest I was actually thinking of something somewhat more contemporary, specifically the eldar (or dark eldar perhaps) in Warhammer 40,000.
The long story short is that the Eldar once had paradise, and spent their time seeking greater and greater excess and pleasure, which eventually gave birth to an immensely powerful demon of excess. For the current-setting followers of this demon, their lives are spent in a desperate hunger for excess that can never be satiated, every greater excess they experience quickly becoming too dull to bare. As for the Eldar, their paradise is gone and their race is doomed, all they can do now is fight off the inevitable.
Obviously I don't think the rich have much to fear in terms of giving birth to a demon, but you get the point
Baxter's Flood, then Ark. Neal Stephenson's Seveneves, too. Down And Out in the Magic Kingdom is tonally similar, if you like Doctorow, although that explores a different manifestation of disconnection from others. All great for a romp
I would have called BS on that before but I think now I would just call BS on the part where it was people like Bezos or whatever. It seems there is a neverending number of people who would do the same. Look at the stories about the sunflower fields that had to close down before the pandemic, or the current overrunning of cities and villages in Italy (like Lake Como). Or competing for views on social media (not just attempting to get them). Fighting for status is as old as.... well maybe humanity. What is fairly new is money and real property... and virtual property.
There probably is nowhere left to go. Maybe one of those little islands in the South Pacific but you can't live there and they are all mapped too.
The majority of new billionaires are either Chinese or Indian [0] so at some point you’ll need to update your race-based hatred (if you feel passionately about it) to remain accurate
