Interesting that radical abundance may create radical competition to utilize more abundant materials in an effort to maintain relative economic and social position.
The Leverage Paradox in AI
21–30 of 56 posts
Re: The Leverage Paradox in AI
#22But what’s unique today becomes slop tomorrow, AI or not.
Art has meaning. Old buildings feel special because they’re rare. If there were a thousand Golden Gate Bridges, the first wouldn’t stand out, as much.
Online, reproduction is trivial. With AI, reproducing items in the physical world will get cheaper.
Re: The Leverage Paradox in AI
#23Then I copied the tool and data to a new directory and fully started over, with a more concrete description of the product I wanted in place and a better view of what components I would want, and began with a plan to implement one small component at a time, each with its own test screen, reviewing every change and not allowing any slop through (including any features that look fine from a code standpoint but are not needed for the product).
So far I'm quite happy with this.
Re: The Leverage Paradox in AI
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
> slop that works Until that slop that works leads to therac-26 or PostOfficeScandal2 electric boogaloo. Neither of those applications required software superior to their competitors, just working software The average quality of software can only trend down so far before real world problems start manifesting, even outside of businesses with a hard requirement on "software superiority"
Anyone can say that something works. Lots of things look like they work even though they harbor severe and elusive bugs.
The stuff you get to see in open source, papers, academia- that's a very small curated 1% of the actual glue code written by an overworked engineer at 1am that holds literally everything together.
Re: The Leverage Paradox in AI
#25and
> So make your stuff stand out. It doesn't have to be "better." It just has to be different.
equals... craft?
Isn't that what has always mattered a great deal
Re: The Leverage Paradox in AI
#26Do people really try to one-shot their AI tasks? I have just started using AI to code, and I found the process very similar to regular coding… you give a detailed task, then you iterate by finding specific issues and giving the AI detailed instructions on how to fix the issues. It works great, but I can’t imagine skipping the refinement process.
Every tool I've tinkered with that hints at one-shotting (or one-shot and then refine) ends up with a messy app that might be 60-70% of what you're looking for but since the foundation is not solid, you're never going to get the extra 30-40% of your initial prompt, let the multiples of work needed to bolt of future functionality. Compare that to the approach you're using (which is what I'm also doing), and you're abl…
Re: The Leverage Paradox in AI
#27With my current project (a game project), I full-vibed as hard as I could to test out the concept, as well as get some of the data files in place and write a tool for managing the data. This went great, and I have made technology choices for AI-coding and have gained enough skill with AI-coding that I can get prettttty far this way. But it does produce a ball-of-mud pattern and a lot of cruft that will cause it to hi…
Re: The Leverage Paradox in AI
#28Re: The Leverage Paradox in AI
#29To win big financially you have to be able to use AI better than others. Even if you use it merely as well as the next person, your productivity has increased, reducing costs, which is a good thing. The bad news for some is that they are not enjoying the parts of the work left over from automation.
Investing in your understanding and skill, on the other hand, has nearly limitless returns.
Re: The Leverage Paradox in AI
#30If we give runners motorcycles, they reach finish lines faster. But the motor sport is still competitive and takes effort; everyone else has a bike, too. And since the bike parameters are tightly controlled (basically everyone is on the same bike), the competition is intense.