Are u talking about incurring technical debt from the generated AI code that vastly out prices the original low cost of using AI. I cannot answer ur question on how big is one compared to the other but I have an idea that can sideline them. I don't think it will matter, AI is so exceptionally good at generating just good enough spam, so exceptionally good at delivering a shitty minimally viable product that it might warp the expectations and needs of consumers. Where the new shittyness becomes the new norm because it drowns out everything else around it with shear volume. People around me prefer to generate their Dungeons and Dragons characters and cities with AI because it good enough even though it looks painfully bad and often doesn't completely fit their vision. Music songs are being composed for small communities almost constantly at the moment because people do not want to bother to go out of their way to find a real human composer.

It's easy, it's fast and it gets the point across. Quality is only encouraged socially, people don't really care that much about quality. Rather people have 100 things they care about in their lives - an app for their groceries, a small game of their own idea to show to friends and play, a piece of music about that one time their group of friends got drunk and went into the mountains to fight a bear that in the end turned out to be some old granpa's cow. And only one or two which are important enough to spend the effort to find a quality product.

For software - the places where hard identifiable metric matter... Sensors, weapons, performance, networking, etc. They won't be replaced by AI's any time soon but so many other types of product imo will be assimilated by the machine. All desktop apps for regular people, all websites for blogs, posting, sharing. Probably most IoT related things in your own home

It is hilarious that the machines will first devour the industries that need more feelings and ideas rather then raw precision.

> Are u talking about incurring technical debt from the generated AI code

I think they're talking about the marginal cost and capital cost of running all those GPU's, as well as the capital costs of training foundational models. With GPT-(n+m) projected to require new nuclear power plants dedicated to GPU usage, there's a question of what the payback time will be and whether the marginal costs will exceed that of a human.

What we get from the sun isn't energy. All the energy we receive has to be irradiated away, or we'd be cooked. We get low entropy energy that we dissipate to sustain our local low entropy systems going and growing.

What LLMs offer is second hand low entropy data. They feed off the low entropy human generated data and give it back. But they raise the entropy of the total body of data, inevitably. The more AI slop there is, the less useful work LLMs can extract from data.

"I believe this is not the case because: XXX" would be a neutral response. And one that most people would give to most other strangers if they are meeting in real life. But on the internet it happens very often that people aren't actually as respectful as they would be in real life. And it happens very naturally too - I have close friends who have had insane arguments over chat apps which they would never have done in an eye to eye situation.

In general responding with a statement that assigns a quality to someone's work and effort is not appropriate. You can say "That information is not correct" if you want to be assertive but saying "You have not researched or read the correct information" is doing more then correcting information and becomes personal.

I've seen a lot of people, myself included have trouble with this distinction. But I have found it to be an important part of being "considerate" of others and being charismatic to them. People really react differently to the smallest of nuance in tone and wording regardless if they are adults. (I'd actually wager adults react much more strongly to that nuance due to having more experience to tell the nuances apart)

The author has shared information that he had discovered the scammers are operating in Spain and Italy as well. So it is not specifically because of language similarity.

If anyone here has done a similar reconnaissance operation - I am curious how much time does it roughly take ?

I also disagree with that advice and believe it to be an anti pattern. Code readability can suffer massively from multiple modules. It depends on the use case and particilar function so this kind of advice should not be a general rule but rather a unique decision should be made for each different situation.

Very uncomfortable truth (imo) for many developers who prefer to find abstractions and general all encompassing advice. I have found that the correct placement of functions in files/classes is a "sense" that is improved solely with experience and is never truly complete. It is after all about communicating intent to other human beings for which there are no hard rules.

I don't know about that. Music is as much mathematics as playing basketball is physics. Musicians I have met, just do it completely intuitively, they can just feel it. Yes you can describe all notes, their relationships and their resonances with mathematics, but you can do that with anything and everything. That is the very point of mathematics - to describe things.

I think it is odd to say that something is mathematical, when all things can looked at through the lenses of mathematics.

Also for tasks that have clear indications of varying degrees of success. Like throwing a ball in a basket. Yes absolutely computers and AI will in time do them better than humans ever will.

But for music once you make a song that is perceived as "good" or "not bad", there is no such thing as better or worse, it becomes entirely subjective. So I do not know if it is possible for anything to be better than something else. For composers and music makers we often assign celebrity status and perceive some greater than others, but really the music some create is not better than the rest.

Maybe AI will be able to demonstrate technical prowess beyond human ability like be able to instantly write down all 15 sounding notes in a given beat in a song. But it does not make sense for it to better at creating music than humans in general.

I was the type that played a lot of competitive games when growing up - mostly League of Legends and some CS GO. I got quite good at at LoL and over the years have noticed that feeling of being good at something is so surreal. In LoL I developed game sense and just knew stuff before it happened - I could forsee something that would happen in a game where theoretically every game is different.

After I learned to program I noticed that feeling of "game" sense can be developed for programming as well. When I am debugging something or looking at some code, I just "feel" stuff about the code, like the feeling of being reading through a function that is obviously doing that X thing. You just know without reading it whole. And you know where and how it is used without seeing it before hand. This is really enchanced for code that is written in a style that you are used to.

I believe all skills develop such an extra sense and the satisfaction from using it is really high. I think a lot of people refer to this as intuition but to me particularly it feels like something that is part of the sensations of my body.

> to me particularly it feels like something that is part of the sensations of my body.

I promise I am being completely serious: This is a point in the mis-judged sci-fi story about being an attack helicopter - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_Sexually_Identify_as_an_Atta...

> My gender networks have been reassigned to make me a better AH-70 Apache Mystic pilot. ... Look at a diagram of an attack helicopter’s airframe and components. Tell me how much of it you grasp at once. Now look at a person near you, their clothes, their hair, their makeup and expression, the way they meet or avoid your eyes. Tell me which was richer with information about danger and capability. Tell me which was easier to access and interpret. The gender networks are old and well-connected. They work.

There was supposedly a study where scientists saw that when monkeys used tools, their brains treated the tools as extended body parts. If you get good enough at something, your brain wraps around it and it becomes as obvious to you as your own gender and social status.

In the past, it used to be called Intuition, and was looked down on as feminine and unreliable. But intuition is quite similar to making use of a highly-trained neural network that's not amenable to introspection because it's an advanced filter rather than a discrete chain of syllogisms, and we have suddenly developed a lot more respect for those.

I’m not sure what shaped your view of “the past”, but gut instinct is a very visceral and touted drive inherent in most people in most of history and isn’t more-so described as an unreliable feminine trait.

> intuition ... was looked down on as feminine and unreliable

Hate to be that guy, but, citation?

This strikes me as the casual reframing through the eyes of an imagined arch-misogynist that has become so commonplace when reflecting on the past (which was a very different time than the present, but which enabled the present [despite the also-popular idea that we've come to our present place in spite of the past]).

Happy to be shown to be incorrect.

I think you are just describing having expectations? You have done x enough times in certain situations that you expect x to be the answer or to happen again when you are in similar situations.

It can be useful but it can also be unhelpful. If you are looking for x and it turns out the answer is y you might get knifed in the back, er, or miss the non obvious error in your code.

Yes, but it is more nuanced than that. Not that great at LoL, but in rocket league, I have sort of a 6th sense for how people will play up to a certain level. Badminton as well actually. Sometimes it feels like I can read the future when I simply calculated 3-4 hits ahead of time, and like the GP, it is supremely satisfying.

You have to calculate the probability of them hitting, also account for misses, and explore your reaction to each possibility in this tree, it sounds easy but only comes after 1000 hours or so of play..

In the code example, with that level of exp you would also foresee the possibility of failure and account for that. The more times you get knifed, the less often it happens.

Humans don't piggyback on language (assuming you mean) for intelligence and emotions. Emotions predate language by miles and they don't even have to be consciously thought of, much less expressed through language. Doubly so for people who do not have an inner voice and do not even use a language to think. Body language exists as the simplest example of this.

As for intelligence I honestly believe the mind uses whatever tools it sees fit for a task. Sometimes when you think about a problem it is through words, sometimes it is through visuals and sometimes it is just felt.

Huh, I also designed my own keyboard layout a couple of years back when pain showed up in my left wrist.

Well I didn't do a "real" hardware design - only remapped all of my keys so that I press shift as least and possible to not curve my left wrist.

And the small hardware adaptation of taking two keyboards and using one for each hand, because who has time to make their own ::)

This argument is being made for every single skill that AI assimilates from humans. Of course neural nets are doing "exactly" the same - their whole end goal is to simulate what humans seem to do.

But the reason we ask ourselves if AI genereted X in masse is legal or not is not about how things work, but what their impact is to living human beings. Laws are about protecting humans.

What's need to be protected is the fair access to "AI"s assisting the creative process. Because it seems you need access to huge amount of data and big big hardware, which won't be available to all the composers, or only the richest and most powerful.

I guess what will decide in the end is if people get more music they like than before assistive "AI"s. Actually, we don't know if composers + "AI"s can produce an additional significant amount of music people like.