The problems with using physical gold as currency are very well known. When population would increase, or when someone would hoard it, it would cause deflation. Likewise, when a new deposit of gold was found, it would cause inflation.
This is, in part, why there were expeditions to find gold.
AI helps the most with boilerplate work: Those 3 hours of boring, follow-the-design coding can now be implemented in 5-10 minutes. I then jump into the more interesting work and cleanup.
Other things are easier. For example, saying "Refactor this class to use XYZ serialization library" and having it done in 5 minutes instead of 90 minutes frees me to do the more intellectually stimulating work.
Likewise, when it comes to AI and design, what I can do is type in ideas in a stream-of-conscious way into a prompt, and then it looks at code and comes out with sane text that I can go edit.
BUT: There's interesting things you can do with AI that are harder to do by hand. I ran an experiment where I asked AI to rewrite a method to not use an ORM, which is useful if you need to optimize some DB code. Shopify is having AI write two native versions of their mobile app instead of maintaining a React Native codebase. Lean on the tool to do interesting things that otherwise are too labor intense to do by hand.
---
Don't be like the guy who rejects an IDE, or the guy who only works in assembly.
I didn't say LLMs are not useful. It makes some of the boring parts easy and less time consuming. But it does not add it to what makes building something rewarding, on its own.
Imagine building LEGO using a robot? Where is the fun in that?
If I had more time when I made that comment, I'd clarify a bit:
We have a LOT of legos; I could easily see it being more fun to have a robot that we could prompt to find the "needle in a haystack" lego; or when building something big, to follow a pattern.
That was my experience during the Intel Mac era, when I did a lot of Windows development inside of a Mac VM.
IMO, the reason is all of the 3rd party fluff and poorly-written drivers that come with Windows PCs: Apple takes driver stability very seriously, and the drivers on a Windows VM are as vanilla (no fluff or features) as possible.
I had a similar thing happen on LinkedIn: For awhile I was getting a lot of recruiters that had an enticing job description, and when I responded, they just wanted me to join a job board. (There was no position.)
When I reported them, they said the recruiters didn't violate LinkedIn's policy. (But they somehow stopped anyway. I guess LinkedIn actually listens to its customers.)
What part of funny-or-die suggested anything following should be taken seriously? You might be interested in reading about creative licensing, make believe, parody, or any other style.
In most ways, yes. E.g. you clean yourself before you get in, so the water remains relatively clean after a few people. Unlike a hot tub though it's drained between uses, so it doesn't really have some of the nastier issues that hot tubs can acquire (nor does it need higher chlorine content to mitigate it).
Seems like we need some copyright reform WRT issues like this. We need a true way to have digital ownership; including putting assets in escrow and a way for access to continue after the store is shut down or the item removed from the store.
Your access to a digital product you have "purchased" should not be tied to the continued existence of the store you also bought it from. Similar to physical products.
If I bought a game at GameStop we aren't required to continuously reach back out to them every once in a while to check that they're okay with me playing the game I bought from them. And if GameStop goes out of business they aren't going to come knocking on my door to make sure I never play the game again or take it back from me.
Once a game or any other product is purchased from a digital store, it should not require the stores continued existence or permission.
Yes there are some drawbacks in that maybe they could argue then that they could stop allowing redownloading a game you've already purchased but so be it, they'd just be offering a worse experience and users would move away.
We also need to stop allowing unclear language. When we lease a car at a dealership they never use the term "buy" or "own". That's strictly reserved for ownership. We should require the same for other licensed/leased products.
One fun thing I remember from reading some EULAs for physical games I bought in the past: the EULA for StarCraft at least explicitly said that you are required to obtain prior written permission from Blizzard Entertainment before lending the disk to a friend. Obviously this is not practically enforceable, but it shows that nothing of this kind is new from these companies' perspectives.
The way the law is structured, you are never buying copies of digital goods, regardless of the format in which you obtain them. Instead, you buy a license to use the digital good under the specific terms and conditions of that license. That is why if you get a disk with GNU utils on it from the FSF, you are still bound by the GPL in what you can do with the data on that disk.
It's ridiculous to me that trying to play some recent games from Microsoft-affiliated studios requires me to sign in with a Microsoft account even just to play also malone. Paying them for Halo MCC or Gears 5 isn't enough to be able to play the campaign alone; the main menu is literally blocked by a sign-in screen. There's no reason whatsoever this should be allowed.
I've been posting a similar idea for years. Require that for each piece of commercial software there is a "method" to open it up and use without requiring on-line servers. The method is be registered with a special government agency for that purpose, who first verifies that the method works.
Later when the agency considers the software to be "abandonware", it publishes the method.
Remove DRM laws and make copyright on all media expire after 5 or 10 years off market. Abandoned franchises should get the same treatment. Call it Sackboy's Law. See how quick Sony and EA rush to port their back catalogue.
On the topic of copyright expiration, "It's a Wonderful Life" would have been lost if the current copyright regime had been in place when it was produced:
Copyright has been broken for decades. Disney famously lobbied to pervert it for a century longer than reasonable. (Hence, the Mickey Mouse Protection Act.) I'm honestly amazed we finally have new entrants to the public domain again.
We absolutely need reform, but it seems difficult (nearly insurmountable) when we have an ineffectual congress and highly effective lobbyists.
reply