More importantly: Capitalism is an ECONOMY and market system. It is NOT a blueprint for a society. You can run your commerce and trade as capitalism, when you run your SOCIETY along capitalism principles you end up... essentially with the USA.

This is the part that is constantly forgotten. As a society, we have values that are not represented well within capitalism. But for some reason, we dumb shits think that we can treat everything as a market and apply capitalism to it and that will magically solve problems. But in education, just as one random example, the goal of it all is educated adults as output. It is not maximizing profit. Same for the prison system, the healthcare system and two dozen others.

It's greed, pure and simple.

Making a good product is possible. KEEPING making good products for decades is hard. Even more importantly: You will have hits and misses. Which, for a quarterly-result-bonus oriented manager is a no-no. Subscription models mean plannable revenue streams. Then all you need to do is negotiate your bonus package so that the already existing subscriptions will provide and you're home free and can already order your 2nd yacht.

While we can't pinpoint the exact moment it occurred, we do know that the systematic under-education and miseducation of the populace resulted in it eventually being vaporized.

So if a car salesman tells me that a Ford Probe can travel through time then I can say that "one of the pitches" made about cars is that they can fly? Off you go now ...

To others yes, but not to you. It can be impossible to prove to an idiot that they are an idiot, but you do realize others read Slashdot, right? Or are you an even bigger idiot than it at first appears?

Zig isn't ready for AI because AI isn't ready for Zig. There is a bootstrapping problem. Quality training data is limited because it is new, and many humans don't yet have the experience needed to be good at it.

Since Zig is newer, developers are often learning the language alongside the AI. A novice developer might accept an AI's bad allocator usage or improper async handling simply because they lack the expertise to audit it properly. This creates a situation that causes AI to be less effective when using it for Zig development when compared to C and C++ development efficacy, even if they review proposed changes prior to submission of the pull request. Citing Zigs experience as indicative of a global condemnation of AIs usefulness in a software development context represents a complete failure to look at the big picture and place the facts in context. One can use an AI to explore this further.

After thinking a bit about this I asked Gemini (free version) "I am trying to determine if AI generated zig code would likely be of poorer quality than C code due to a few factors. One is that zig is new so many developers may not be very skilled with it, and another is that there is limited training data as compared to C or C++." It had a lot of insightful commentary on my point. In fact there was far too much to copy and paste here, but anyone interested can do so if they want to explore my point (made primarily in the first paragraph of this post) further.

An example that a lot of people don't understand how to use AI properly is not an example of proof that AI is useless or flawed and produces trash and reduces efficiency. As with any tool, when used properly by skilled people it is a good thing, and when misused by people with no training in its use it can be counterproductive and sometimes destructive.

Assuming a correlation between Slashdot UID and the users age and experience calls into question your software development skills.

Nobody knows that because you just pulled that claim out of your ass.

Which is, of course, nonsense. Nothing stops you from making a copy of encrypted data. What sucks is that for a backup, you likely can't do incremental.

In your case it might simply be that there was not enough of this kind of tasks in the training data.

I agree in general, but not with this strong phrasing. I've let AI build a good amount of non-trivial code. But my consistent experience is that it works best when guided by an experienced coder who can correct it, and when implementing well-known algorithms rather than coming up with novel solutions.

Example: I let it write up a quadtree implementation in a language for which there was no ready solution online. It took 2-3 correcting prompts to get a good result. I could've done it myself but it would've likely taken a few hours to get it all right instead of the half or so hour it took with AI. The important part for me was that there's nothing unknown in how to implement a quadtree. All the AI needs to do is take the 100s of existing implementations and translate them into a different language.

True but too simplified. The Luddites had an entirely different motivation: The fact that factories now employed women and children at very low rates meant that the men lost their status in the family as bread winners and head of household. That was a major social disruption, which we don't have with AI.

I'd compare it more to teamsters or wagoners when cars became common. Your job is threatened by a different way of doing the same thing, a way to which your skills don't cleanly transition. Some choose to pick up the new tech, some want the old ways to persist.

In the end, coachmen became chauffeurs, because rich people prefer to be driven around oder driving themselves, no matter if it's a horse or an engine doing the pulling. But much fewer teamsters and wagoners became truck drivers.

BOTH of them? :-)

The exact scenario we warned about when the discussions about this "responsible disclosure" nonsense started. Someone needs a reminder that letting you know your software sucks is a courtesy, not something you can demand.