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.

Why exactly would someone "report" Drinkypoo?

He annoys some people. So do I. So does Armored Dragon, and ahem, you post ain't sunshine and puppy dogs. No one is doing anything that would get them kicked or even a stern talking to.

Relax a little, maybe enjoy an adult beverage or herb of your liking. Thoughts and prayers!

Sonavabeotch, you owe me a new keyboard, man! My soda went all over it when I read that.

+5 for making me snort! 8^)

I think that the core problem is that Disney is a terrible fit for Star Wars in any form.

Star Wars was Space Cowboy Epic,

Disney excels at making Disney Princesses.

Both are legitimate, but it is really difficult to make a space cowboy movie when your talent is princesses.

You are correct, Youtube doesn't have teh present day constraints Disney does.

As for allowing a Youtuber get involved, maybe. After all they put Harvey Weinstein's secretary with no experience direct "The Acolyte" flop, so if a Youtuber with the proper political beliefs who is willing to take on the fans surfaces, they might just hire them.

Yup, you summed up the problem. The movies Disney put out in recent years were not good movies, and the fan base became alienated. They wrote off the movies and didn't watch or pay attention

So Disney can put out a decent Star Wars movie or show, and many just won't watch it.

In this case, my analysis is that trying to have a mute puppet who seems to mostly reach for things carry the movie couldn't get enough traction. So people willing to take a look on the first weekend saw it, went "Okay", and that was it.

Once upon a time, the fans would go see individual movies many times, and purchase all the swag. One critic I don't watch often has his walls filled with earlier action figures, models and other paraphernalia. All of that added to the bottom line, and Disney intentionally threw it away with it's new arc.

Yeah, but there is good art and bad art. Unions - well, we must remember that once you have a union, you have two bosses, the Work boss and the union boss. So your concerns about the art of making games is well founded. And Unions are as much about lining their own pockets as enforcing fairness. That's the funny thing about those who claim that Unions are some sort of commie or socialist outfits - they are every bit as money hungry as the rest of us. They are not saviors of the downtrodden workers.

My point in all this is this is not a good time for programmers to organize. AI can and will take some jobs, even if the final sprucing up is handled by a few really good programmers. And if programmers refuse to return to the workplace, they better be the best in the world, people who hold the company by the short hairs, who can leave quickly and go to another place willing to pay money that is appropriate for their best in the world abilities.

The jokes about Darth Jar Jar were everywhere of course, but it could have worked. Star Wars lifted a few ideas from classic SF sources including Asimov's Foundation series - in which, we might recall, the terrifying, unstoppable galactic warlord known as The Mule was hiding in plain sight as a clown, who seemed to be merely a harmless entertainer at court. His military success was chiefly thanks to his psychic ability to manipulate others' minds to his liking - Darth Jar Jar could have done very well that way!

I saw three Star Wars movies when I was young. They were great. Mainly because I was a child and this stuff was new and fresh and exciting to me. Even the Ewoks.

I saw three more when I was not quite so young. They were... poor.

I saw a couple more when I was older. One was great, the other was okay but a retread of one of the old ones, and I never got round to seeing the rest. Didn't care enough.

Now they've got more, and apparently they're based on a TV series they did, which I didn't watch because I wasn't subscribed to that streaming platform at the time. So I'm not going to see those either. Same reason I've not seen a Marvel superhero film since the first Avengers one - just too much homework required with all the backstory. Every scene is a shout out or reference that I won't get. Every character seems to be getting ever louder and angrier and more and more of them have access to time machines. I just don't have it in me to care anymore.

I like the sound of these horror films, though. They're going to tell a complete story? In one film? With a beginning, middle and end, that don't ask me to be up to date on an entire Cinematic Universe? Sounds great, time to check where they're showing!

Inertia, fear of the unknown, the need to feel a threat and taking it to existential levels, and the need to pile hate on something.

AI such as it is, is definitely not very perfect at the moment, but then again, no new technology is. Tubes and radio that put a lot of landline telegraphers out of work, Then replaced by transistors, then by integrated circuits, didn't spring like Venus from the ocean, fully formed. So many other examples of technology being disruptive, but in the end useful.

Over 35 years of employment, I shifted knowledge and ability several times as technology changed. Some didn't, like that lady photographer who worked with me that really resisted digital. Last time I heard, she's a waitress at an Olive Garden. No issue with waitressing, but quite the leap from being an industrial photographer.

Would it not be a perfect world if we simply refused to adapt? Reject technology outright. Technological Amish, except in order to be consistent, we have to go back to hunter gatherer ways, and no gadammend tools, just use rocks that are available, no cooking with fire. Just a totally free world without the scourge of technology, where are all free and happy.

Yes, that's reductio ad absurdum. but let's face it, we've seen the doom and gloom and hatred some have of technology shifts. People have lost the jobs they had, and adapted to new ones Perhaps you would like to return to subsistence farming?

Standing for malware designed to sabotage is still sabotage, and you'll find yourself on the losing end of that war.

There will be job shifting, just like in every other technology advance. And emplacing malware inside software is just a 21st Century version of throwing your sabots into the machinery to disrupt it. It will likely work just as well, as in not.

With the likely outcome that people will try out the software, have it nuke their initial tests, and decide it just doesn't work.

I think part of it is based on inertia.I've always went with changing technology, not tried to impede it. When I started in electronics, early 70's, Vacuum tube technology was being intuded on by Transistors, and Integrated circuits were starting their inclusion into electronics. A lot of people were unhappy.

In my department we made videos using tape editing technology. And a lot of technology geared toward computer animation using frame buffers and Frame by frame VTR's. The final product being a VHS or Beta tape. Then came Non-linear editing, and the smart money jumped ship on the old system, especially when computers became faster. The final product was so much better when we could show animations as QT or mpeg. A lot of people on the production end were unhappy.

But on a human level, I was tasked with implementing a digital photography system, and implementing it's workflow. The photographer at the time was a woman who loved old school chemical photography, and hated digital. She even went to our boss, complaining I was being secretive and keeping her out of the process, that my planning wouldn't work. He showed her the stack of memos and workflows I had produced, noting her name was on the distribution list. She even tried doing intentionally shitty digital work as a form of sabotage, claiming I didn't design a good system and digital wouldn't work anyhow.

Prints and slides were going by the wayside. Computer presentation and publications were using digital output. The world had changed.

The upshot, she lost her job, and another photographer who would do digital work without intentionally doing crappy work came on board.

Technology happens - we can fight it, or go along with it. A person in technology needs to adopt lifelong learning. They need to look at where the technology is going. They need to fight the inertia so many people have.

Forming a union around the time that AI takes their jerbs is the likely dynamic. On the bright side, they'll be able to Work from home - maybe that is RFH. "Relax"

Ant this isn't anti-union, it is just that the union employees won't have a lot of leverage. Striking will just speed the AI replacement part along.

A modern version of GTA London would be the absolute dream. Been long enough now, you could set it in the nineties and have the same retro value to it!