Depends on the "thinking". A lot of work through the whole development process is standardized and repetitive, including most coding. It's an ideal candidate for automation.
Also, it doesn't need feeding buckets of slop and doesn't wiggle its head. If it could code as well as current AI, I'd take half a dozen.
Nigga has spent his entire career working with jeets, and concludes that every developer is a jeet.
No.
That's how I cope, actually. That despite the fact that LLMs have greatly lowered the bar of entry, we still won't get flooded with games cause most people will still prefer games made by someone else. I think that most devs will eventually use AI for code generation cause it can really speed up the development process, it's not something the players can see and it doesn't require a disclosure on Steam, AFAIK. So the expectations of the players will increase even further.
I agree that machines should write my code, which is why I use Common Lisp as my preferred programming language. This is called metaprogramming, which I entirely understand and control, as contrasted with plagiarism feeding a Jewish surveillance machine designed to influence my thoughts and drive me psychotic. When I'm using Decker, it also writes some of the code, just like HyperCard, but this is simple shit: They fill in templates when given the information via menu; it's that simple, and worked on computers made last millennium.
Claude, figure out what I want to make, and make no mistakes. Most of these people have no fucking clue what they want, so how is the machine supposed to figure it out? It'll either make something like everything else it's seen, or some random bullshit. Stories change as they're written, as are programs redesigned as they're molded.
Hey, I offered to help with programming tasks, although I specifically advised against trusting me. We don't use any of the same languages, however, so I suppose it never was going to work out.
I'm reminded of Gwern making the argument that a machine which sees the world through tokens alone, and which is designed to predict them, will eventually have to develop a sense of self and understanding as it becomes increasingly accurate.
Yes, this quotation has been removed from context. Read some of his writings sometime. Now, I'm not going to argue from the sanctity of the human mind. It doesn't really matter to me whether a machine "can think" or not, so long as it displays intelligent behaviour. The entire problem is that this neural network nonsense isn't intelligent, very obviously, but has been designed to convince others otherwise.Edsger W. Dijkstra said:
I agree. It's the ideal candidate for automation by a much simpler automaton. People used to write custom software in HyperCard to suit themselves, or just take and tweak something someone else had made and shared. I'm of the opinion that Apple Computer killed HyperCard because it threatened their software business, but hey, now the corporations have found a way to lie and pretend to give people the same thing, all without reducing complexity, by plagiarizing the goyim's code, and it also demoralizes those yucky volunteers all at the same time!
The machine is just in the way. I'm having fun playing with the closest thing to pure thoughtstuff we've got.
I thought that question had been definitely (and unironically) answered and the problem solved by the +NIGGER license. That's been the rather-impressively-tested license of choice that guarantees no corpo will ever touch your code or project, nor allow it to be mirrored on their infrastructure, yes?
Sure, and that's fine, they're not using your code anymore if they do that, right? If you're not in it for the money, and your interest is primarily in getting something innovative off the ground, what do you care if someone else comes along and does it better without using anything you did besides just copying your idea? It still got done, didn't it? The itch still got scratched, didn't it? Go scratch another itch instead, or come back with a competitive edge of your own if it "owning and controlling" your idea is that important.
It would be a derived work, so no. Would I be allowed to take a Disney movie and run it through one of these machines to "make" a different movie and then sell it? The rules in this country are clear, really: I've read an account of a teenager waking up with police guns in his face for the crime of bypassing security mechanisms protecting a video game (Half-Life 2 as described here (archive)):
So, the rich get to do whatever they want, up to fucking children on an island and taking everything from everyone else, but mere teenagers get this kind of treatment. The microsecond enough Jews who have been torturing Americans like this for decades decide they'll make more money disregarding copyright, the rules suddenly change and they start speedrunning government bailouts for their crimes. This shit incenses me beyond belief, and I desperately want the kikes doing this shit to start mass violence across the country if they succeed in getting that bailout when their "Goy Destroyer 9000" fails to materialize.
There is no capitalism in this country, just a plutocracy. It's why all of the big American businesses depend on the government-backed monopoly known as copyright. A government will wake up teenagers with guns pointed at them for the crime of harming the larger businesses.
I hate to break it to you, but that's a failure of his parents (to adequately protect their child from aggressive law enforcement) too, not just a failing of the legal system. No parent should have tolerated that kind of aggression -- a cop should have died during that interaction. No unproven, untried civil matter justifies a "guns-in-the-face crack-of-dawn house raid" and the only reason they got away with that is that nobody opened fire to remind the police who they work for.
Oh god you're one of those. Just shut up, JFC. Move to a country where you're not cucked by the gun laws and cops know better than to draw guns for civil disputes.
