> In neither case do you need to check from scratch. You already know what you wanted. Did it do it or not? That's easy to verify.

Just to be clear, you're suggesting the way to test a program is to just run it once and see if it did what you wanted?

Have you ever done software development? Because that's not how it works. In the real world we do unit testing, code reviews, and other things to try to catch every bug. And, believe me, it's a hell of a lot easier to do those things if you already understand what the code was trying to do than when you get it given to you by a third party that doesn't even understand how to write understandable code.

Basically AI made the chore part harder and the fun part non-existent.

> it is relieving workers of tedious old chores but creating new ones

If it were relieving workers of tedious old chores, it'd probably be more popular.

From what I can see it's doing the fun parts and leaving the shit parts - us checking it did it correctly - to us.

I went into programming because I enjoyed programming. I would imagine that's true of 99% of programmers. You know what's boring? Checking the code afterwards.

Maybe if the genAI companies found ways to use their technology to automate actual chores, like washing up, cleaning the house, or even (not always!) doing the cooking when we come home exhausted, and driving when our idiot bosses force us to do work at an office, instead of programming, making "art", and stealing shit and rewriting it 100 different ways, it'd be more popular and actually a net positive for the world. People might even spend money on it!

If genAI is truly as intelligent as its addicts claim, that ought to be easy, right?

You're taking an article that has clearly exaggerated the degree to which genAI "solved" an issue, promoting an genAI model that's widely mocked even among genAI addicts, and ignoring the massive negative externalities, and saying that somehow promotes the idea AI is perfect and all the AI critics are wrong*?

Where does your example address the externalities?

Why are you taking the TFA at face value, when literally every article puffing genAI here in the past has turned out to be massively exaggerating genAI's contribution to solving a specific problem? (Or massively exaggerated the degree to which anything was solved.)

* If you're about to claim I misquoted you, perhaps you should look at what the genAI critics are saying rather than strawmanning them as you did above. I wrote it that way intentionally.

It's also lost its hype operation. People who used to boost it from Marc Andreessen to Peter Thiel are now boosting AI instead. Even Slashdot now rarely has an article on crypto, instead posting breathless puff pieces about genAI. Of course it's going to lose value without the same group of idiots, nutters, and con-artists boosting it.

OK guys, I think it's pretty obvious in context we're talking about generative AI here? Eliza (and Lisp) are not examples of that. AI had a very broad meaning once, from expert systems to neural nets, but right now it's pretty much exclusively being used to refer to generative AI.

Secondly, even if we weren't, the Emacs position is about maintenance of its code base. It does not want "AI" code contributions, falling into the same category as the maintainers of Open Slopware's domain.

I don't know about a list but Emacs just adopted a no-AI position.

On a wider level, Open Slopware is the site to check if you're about to adopt an application and would like to ensure the modifications being made to it are by humans. Be aware the maintainers have been harassed multiple times by AI addicts so... keep tracking the discussions and be prepared in future to have to DDG "OpenSlopware" to find the latest version.

I don't necessarily disagree (except maybe the side of road thing, it's far too late for any country to do that and it's a minor inconvenience.)

I would add another requirement: any referendum to join must have a supermajority. AND a supermajority must approve of any subsequent attempt to leave. Frankly Brexit should have had a supermajority to begin with - it was a major constitutional change, you don't do constitutional changes when the country is pretty much split 50/50, with a tiny majority in favor of one side.

(Also I'm seriously bothered that it's only a 52% majority right now in favor, what the fuck is wrong with people? Did you not notice that virtually everything you were promised was a lie?)

America and the UK have very little in common even if they often think otherwise. Look, for example, at the overwhelming support for state run healthcare, and consumer rights, with pro-active enforcement, etc. Culturally they're not close either. Despite language differences, the UK is much closer to most European countries in culture, attitude towards government, and so on.

This is the second time in this thread I've slapped someone down for a post that clearly shows English illiteracy.

> This deal, as you imagine it, has foreign BUYERS investing in a US company - how is that NOT America First? It would not be America First if U.S. buyers were investing in a foreign company...

Foreign control of previous American assets isn't obvious to you?

> Oh, and foreigners buying U.S. goods/companies don't pay US tariffs, it's the other way around.

GP never claimed otherwise. Tariffs are a mechanism for making imports more expensive, harming foreign manufacturers, miners, drillers, and other producers of goods outside of the US when they try to compete with domestic companies.

GP made the point that after Trump had punished numerous allies with unnecessary tariffs, he's now expecting them to help take over previously American businesses.

> America First

Oh, and as I said the other day:

Funny how both of the times in America's history that phrase has been popular, it has been pushed by foreign dictatorship that wanted to weaken America by undermining its democracy and shoring up fascist friends of those dictators.

Putin pushes and like clockwork people are using it in posts advocating America abandon its promises - promises that were made because it was never in America's best interests to see a country like Russia invade Europe to begin with.

The slogan of cowards and traitors. Again. Like it was in the late 1930s.

Maybe both of you should stop fucking that "America First" chicken? It doesn't mean what either of you think it means.

It doesn't, GP never made that claim, you're just illiterate.

See the word "and"? It means there are TWO things going on. So if I say "I had ice cream in the morning and had a hamburger in the afternoon", it doesn't mean "I had an icecream sandwich".

You can find out more useful facts by going to your supervisor and saying "How am supposed to annoy Americans for Glorious Russia if not given ESL class" and they'll sign you up for the official IRA ESL class for you. You're welcome!

> let somebody else take a crack at it if they're going to fail

Yeah, but not an existing media conglomerate (or at least, not one over a certain size.)

> The market consolidation was likely inevitable. There is just not enough consumer interest to support as many media producers as we have now.

Uhm, yes there is.

There may not be enough consumer interest to support media producers being as huge and expensive as they are now, but the solution to that isn't to allow mergers, it's to ban them. Let crappy companies fail and allow companies that aren't media companies to buy the assets.

We almost certainly, thanks to streaming, are actively consuming content more than ever before in history. The fact though that YouTube and TikTok are massive successes tells you the issue isn't with "consumer interest".

WB was run into the ground by Zaslav. Paramount is being run into the ground by Ellison (and was doing fine before its take over by Skydance.) Meanwhile Disney and NBC aren't, but neither of the latter are owned by private equity groups that are run by people who think "woke" is a problem.

> America First!

Funny how both of the times in America's history that phrase has been popular, it has been pushed by foreign dictatorship that wanted to weaken America by undermining its democracy and shoring up fascist friends of those dictators.

Putin pushes and like clockwork people are using it in posts advocating America abandon its promises - promises that were made because it was never in America's best interests to see a country like Russia invade Europe to begin with.

The slogan of cowards and traitors. Again. Like it was in the late 1930s.

Or more like "cloud infrastructure running within physical and legal jurisdiction of the EU is running locally to the EU" if you prefer .. if it's software they've written, running on hardware within the EU's physical and legal reach, voila, "sovereignty".

"The only way to ensure sovereignty and control is with software running locally with NO cloud dependency."

They're not talking about personal sovereignty. Cloud infrastructure an organization owns is "running locally" to that organization.