And even this improvement wasn’t universally appreciated: some people found error messages they couldn’t ignore more annoying than wrong results, and, when judging the relative merits of programming languages, some still seem to equate “the ease of programming” with the ease of making undetected mistakes.

This guy was writing in the year x86 was first introduced, and I still feel like I see this attitude around.

(He manages to shoehorn in a “kids these days” comment too, though)

Yes, but quality takes actual skill to measure, instead of just a diff.

(Although I guess lines are still better than time in office as a measure)

Hmm, was the boss hoping to turn that into a “why do I even pay you” moment?

I can’t tell if they haven’t thought through what that would mean for them themselves, or they know it’s BS but it’s still good for marketing.

Oh okay. But the point that it sure has grown stands.

Sure?

But it’s actually grown. It fully didn’t exist 70 years ago.

LLMs don’t just memorise their training data, though.

How dare you break the jerk! /s

Can’t argue about bases if you refuse to elaborate beyond Presburger arithmetic. (Guy pointing at head meme)

i work at cloudflare

Thank you for the easier captchas, and pre-emptively damn you for whatever evil thing CloudFlare will eventually do with their MITM access to everything.

So do you trust cell towers more, or just stay offline when out and about?

So you don’t want to go against the jerk, okay.

Thanks?

Agreed. The point being that people aren’t really upset about whether it’s art or not. They’re mad about money.

And that’s not exactly dumb either, making bread is important. It’d just be nice if it was admitted to.

AI being appropriated for neural nets which might even do things unrelated to what we think of as intelligence is annoying, I’ll give you that.

What art is is kind of a huge can of worms, though. In any case, it’s pretty clear they can satisfy potential clients a lot better than human digital artists, and that’s where at least part of the butthurt comes from.

It was, but doesn’t that seem shortsighted now? When there’s a change it’s usually bad for someone, but no change since the 1700’s would definitely be bad, even if there’s a steady two pence or whatever to be made weaving.

Sitting in 2025, we can identify a whole lot that was wrong with the world and conditions of labourers (including literal slaves) then. It seems kind of odd to blame technology for them, at least directly. But, that’s where the luddites turned their anger, and Lemmy seems to slide into doing the same thing - although there’s a lot of overlap with valid skepticism about things people claim AI do, that it actually can’t.

If we did what they wanted, I couldn’t afford the clothes I’m wearing. Or probably a lot of other things - shit tons has improved since the late 1700’s.

Sure, there’s less weaver jobs now, and there will be less digital artist jobs in the future. Arguably, the past few centuries have shown that if there’s other things that we can do instead, it’s still for the best. (If there’s not, a whole new conversation opens up)

Yes, it’s not a good argument totally unsupported. You can live in a society and still criticise it, if there’s no reasonable choice to do otherwise.

The thing is, I really like not having to weave my own clothes, or do whatever trade was made obsolete by all the technologies since. I’m guessing OP does too, and there’s no good reason to place a cutoff on that at 2020.

If OP thought things would genuinely be better if we went back to medieval tech, this would be a different, and actually much more interesting conversation. As it is, they just didn’t know the history.

No. The luddites were against the move away from manual weaving, and literally did break into factories to smash looms.