Slop is not necessarily the future
greptile.com
Slop is not necessarily the future
1–10 of 512 posts
Re: Slop is not necessarily the future
#2[flagged]
Re: Slop is not necessarily the future
#3Good code wasn't winning even before the ai slop era!
The pattern was always: ship fast, fix/document later, but when "later" comes "don't touch what is working".
To date nothing changed yet, I bet it won't change even in the future.
Re: Slop is not necessarily the future
#4this submission is basically an ad
Re: Slop is not necessarily the future
#5None of this is true. Models will soon scale to several million tokens of context. That, combined with the combined experience of millions of feedback cycles, will make software a solved problem for machines, even as humans remain dumb. Yes, even complex software. Complex software is actually better because it is, generally, faster with more features. It’s smarter. Like a jet fighter, the more complex it is, the more capable it is.
Re: Slop is not necessarily the future
#6[flagged]
Please don't cross into personal attack, and especially please don't harass newcomers.
Re: Slop is not necessarily the future
#7[dead]
Re: Slop is not necessarily the future
#8Good code wasn't winning even before the ai slop era! The pattern was always: ship fast, fix/document later, but when "later" comes "don't touch what is working". To date nothing changed yet, I bet it won't change even in the future.
I was told by an exec...once a company or technology implements something and gets mindshare, the community (including companies) moves on.
Competition is essentially dead for that segment given there is always outward growth.
With that being said, AI enables smaller players to implement their visions with enough completeness to be viable. And with a hands off approach to code, the underlying technology mindshare does not matter as much.
Re: Slop is not necessarily the future
#9If "good code" == "useful code", then yes.
People forget that good engineering isn't "the strongest bridge", but the cheapest bridge that just barely won't fail under conditions.
Re: Slop is not necessarily the future
#10If "good code" == "useful code", then yes. People forget that good engineering isn't "the strongest bridge", but the cheapest bridge that just barely won't fail under conditions.
What would happen if we made bridges to last as long as possible, to withstand natural disasters and require minimal maintenance?
What if we built things that are meant to last? Would the world be better for it?