"Anything that isn't already open source can have an AI replacement coded in hours now. "

False. The vast majority of software is embedded, that software cannot be replaced in hours. It would take longer to just communicate the platform information needed to begin.

All software that is shit can replaced in hours. Seems like the only software /. posters know.

It's not money, it never existed so it didn't have to disappear.

You entirely missed the most egregious error, AI does NOT have "the ability to kill humanity".

Giving software the ability to "kill humanity" is the crime,wiring AI up to it just identifies AI as the particular software. AI is NOT the ability for computers to perform operations, committing murder is one of those potential operations. The backlash AI receives is due to what the AI is wired to do (and how bad it is at doing it), no one dismisses the potential.

And let's be clear, the problem isn't the development of AI, it's the direction that development takes, because of the people in charge, and what the product is intended to do and how it will be autonomously capable of performing those things without regard to consequences. A neural network is interesting, but a neural network does not kill people. A NN is a deterministic piece of software, wiring it to a life support system and then tasking it with deciding whether to unplug or not is NOT AI, it's corporate greed and sociopathy. We need to take AI seriously, and we do, but the people that need to be reined in are those spewing this stupid shit.

autocorrect is unbelievably infuriating

"Apple is, as part of the agreement to use their platform, expecting a cut of the links that users are clicking..."

No they're not. I don't know why you're tying this to ad revenues.

Also, their "platform" is the App Store, not the device itself. Not that you said otherwise, but can anyone imagine a computer manufacturer entitled to collect a few on every hyperlink following using a device they sold?

"...they don't provide service but market access..."

They only provide app distribution service. Apps are a feature that the devices provide, a feature that sells the devices. Apps are a benefit to Apple and a requirement for them to compete.

"the whole point of the iphone app ecosystem is mercantilism. "

False. It's almost as though you don't know what a computer is.

"if people are only interested in creating apps to rake in money then i don't find it really outlandish that the market access provider charges whatever fees he can justify to get a cut, including having to pay for the privilege of developing in the first place (!!!). "

That says a lot about you then. You support taxation going to private corporations for no reason other than monopolistic market position. You are the polar opposite of a free market capitalist, yet you no doubt justify your position as capitalist.

"...wether the provider can get away with it or not is something i'll leave entirely to the whales, sharks and sharklets in the ecosystem to figure out, may they eat each other's livers out."

Perhaps they will, after they eat yours and everyone else's first.

"The $100/yr for a developer doesn't come close to covering publishing costs."

Sounds like an Apple problem. Apple makes the rules, they decided on a percentage of free.

Good thing you're posting as AC.

I'm all for giving up on theft. Sounds great.

On the contrary, I think most of your comment is as relevant as ever. A carefully designed UI is still better for almost any specific task than what "agents" will produce. It will probably be more efficient to describe what you want precisely enough to get it right. It will not be undermined by problems like non-repeatability, non-determinism and hallucinations that are inherent in LLM-backed agents.

Agents can be quite effective at getting something that seems about right, as long as you don't care too much about the details. And of course they get there much quicker than doing it manually as a human. This is useful for some tasks, and why they have become popular.

Unfortunately, it turns out that for many of the things we really care about, "about right" doesn't cut it. Right now, today, the software industry is already being overwhelmed by AI slop. It's hard to believe, but it's still only been a few months since agentic development processes arrived on the scene. And yet after just those few months of management trying to replace real developers with agents, we can see the slow-motion train wreck happening right before our eyes. And in return, where are the new applications that radically improve on what we had before thanks to all this added "productivity"? If this tech is going to change the world as the AI tech bros and the sycophantic CxOs kneeling at their feet would have us believe, where's my flying car?

Imagine a Beowulf cluster of AI-generated cybersecurity nightmares...

A Republican priority. What party do you support again?

And none of them old enough to form permanent memories.

Arguing for arguments' sake.

Baby boomers are pretty far removed from education, either as students or as parents. If there's one thing we know, this isn't related to boomers.

What's not clear is exactly what this problem is or what is the root cause. But that doesn't matter, make it a tribalist issue regardless. Once thing's certain, it's the other side's fault.

"Look all I'm saying is elections have consequences"
Is that what you're saying, because it sure seems like you're saying other things.

No assumptions being made there!