Slop is not necessarily the future

Post by Planktonne » Thu, Apr 02, 2026, 8:14 AM UTC

dzhiurgis wrote: post #496

Planktonne wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Majority of AI text, music, images, videos and code is indistinguishable and you use it every day. I really don't think this is true. If it was, we'd be able to point to countless examples of things assumed not to be AI that actually were, but there's a dearth of such examples.

Examples _are_ countless. Look around yourself - it's simply indistinguishable. Videos are still not quite there, the biggest telltale is how short they are, but we are very very close.

Post by yuye » Thu, Apr 02, 2026, 9:32 AM UTC

ytoawwhra92 wrote: post #362

jstanley wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm in camp 1 too. I've maintained projects developed with that mindset. It's fine! Your job is to make the thing work, not take on its quality as part of your personal identity. If it's harder to work with, it's harder to work with, it's not the end of the world. At least it exists, which it probably wouldn't have if developed with "camp 2" tendencies. I think camp 2 would rather see one beautiful thing than ten use…

> I think camp 2 would rather see one beautiful thing than ten useful things. Unashamedly, I would, but this is a false dilemma. We can have ten beautiful and useful things. The thing that drives the camp 2 folk crazy is that often it would have taken no extra effort (or perhaps even less effort overall) to make a good version of the thing but the people who made thing simply couldn't be bothered. The attitude you're…

Post by mcdeltat » Thu, Apr 02, 2026, 2:51 PM UTC

seamossfet wrote: post #31

I find most developers fall into one of two camps: 1. You treat your code as a means to an end to make a product for a user. 2. You treat the code itself as your craft, with the product being a vector for your craft. The people who typically have the most negative things to say about AI fall into camp #2 where AI is automating a large part of what they considered their art while enabling people in group #1 to iterate…

Post by doug_durham » Thu, Apr 02, 2026, 8:04 PM UTC

Darmani wrote: post #419

doug_durham wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Code quality is a side-effect of caring. The most important part of product design is caring at all levels. However it's caring about the external details that is the most important. Coding language is largely a function of the population of good coders in your areas. Code evolvability is almost entirely subjective.

> Code evolvability is almost entirely subjective Explain how? Code evolvability is one of the extrinsic quality markers ( https://www.pathsensitive.com/2023/07/the-11-aspects-of-good... ). If it's easy to add new features without creating bugs, the code is evolvable. Else, it's not. Does not seem very subjective.

Post by lmm » Fri, Apr 03, 2026, 12:17 AM UTC

theshrike79 wrote: post #458

lmm wrote: post #370

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"Show me your code and conceal your data structures, and I shall continue to be mystified. Show me your data structures, and I won't usually need your code; it'll be obvious." Lots of people try to make their code better by revising their procedures and don't even think about changing their data model, and generally fail. You might not be able to change your data model without changing your code, but they're differen…

Or not using the data model properly, zero foreign keys in databases, no triggers checking column contents etc. "We'll do it on the app level". sigh