You do that inherently when you are writing the code. Every line you write has already had that focus, because you had to come up with it.

That you should also not trust every line of the compiled assembly after you wrote the code, and check it lime by line, is an extremely stupid argument.

Of course, you should get someone else, with a fresh/unbiased opinion to review your code too, but just the act of figuring out every line you write is in some sense a rewiev, that there is at least a plan or reason why it was written.

AI just randomly generates code without thought or reason, and you have to check everything. Unlike assembly generated from code.

That's how I felt when I found MDMA, and it allowed me to find joy in parties and being around people. If used responsibly, of course.

I'm getting exactly the same feeling with AI now. It is instant dopamine fun, but I can see it being addicting in exactly the same way. Of course I tell myself I'll use it responsibly, for work, and keep my skills sharp by making sure to do some of my own projects, and be responsible in properly reviewing and checking my code.

Just as I told myself that I'll keep a healthy pause of two months between mdma use, and have a rogorous vitamine and supplements plans based on the most recommended harm reduction research.

Sure, I did manage to do that for the first half a year or so, you can guess how it is now.

It's pretty unsettling how exactly the same it feels, the way you slowly start giving up on things you've sworn to do, and how you slowly start to be unable to do/enjoy the thing (be it parties or coding) without it.

If it's the same study s few weeks ago, then no, or rather, the study isn't about that - it's comparing ex-smokers who quit cigarretes for good vs ex-smokers who switched to vapes.

There, vapes have higher lung cancer risk than not smoking at all, according to the study. Which isn't really surprising.

Lol, I could kind of understand (not really support) his use of AI. While I doubt it's something you can do for long without starting to make compromises, people who were a really good programmers before will probably use it responsibly for a while, until their skills inevitably erode and (more importantly) their willpower slowly runs out.

But this argument made me loose all my respect for him. It's so utterly stupid. I hate it when i have to check my assembly code line by line, because it's not guaranteed that the compiler will compile the same code I've written deterministically, and basically just randomizes what it outputs. Or when my editor does not save what I typed, and instead decides based on a random language statistics what to actually save, so I have to double-check my text word-by-word every time.

Oh, wait. No, because the tools are deterministic, and that doesn't happen. But of course, adding randomness into your workflow, where you have to focus and review everything line-by-line, is the same as using deterministic tools, lol.

Uh, I wonder what the intersection of people who use Linux and use Microsoft products voluntarily is, lol.

I'd add to this that you can install stuff from package repositories, but only if you "layer" it onto your system, which I think slows up boot time, plus you have to re-boot for it.

Also, I highly recommend getting familiar with Distrobox. It can run even gui apps without issues, and is grate for whenever I need to install more stuff and just want to do the regular dnf install, i.e for dev environments.

It's fun to set up at the start, though.

Never really got further, though.

As someone who works in a studio that can afford unlimited AI bills, if you can afford to pay for 4-5B tokens per developer per month (that is the average monthly usage across our team for the past montha + CI) on latest models, it does a pretty good job and we can mostly commit fully AI authored code. Not one shots, it's rounds upon rounds of AI reviews, re-prompting to use a different system/make a change that sucks, but it works well.

Sure, the team is loosing project domain knowledge. The results are currently possible because most of us did spend few years working in the codebase before AI, so we can quickly spot an issue and point the prompt to a general direction, a space/system to use, or ask it to look into what part of the code. If we don't, it will duplicate random stuff and make it even more mess.

Of course, neither is worth it or sustainable. The cost is not reasonable in the slightest, my usage alone is more than my salary. Reviews are a bottleneck, and people have started to just run more rounds of AI on the PR, in adittion to the CI review loops and the authors review loops. It does help - each round usually catches something, but the cost, lol. And of course, we are slowly loosing both the abilitty to work without AI, and domain knowledge to be able to somehow rein in the code base.

So, if you have unlimited usage and can afford to run billions of tokens of looping reviews with the latest models, you can go fully AI pretty succesfully. But at the cost, and that is the pricing while AI companies are in the start-of-Uber phase, it's such a stupid idea.

I don't care about the job that much. I get to spend money (without trying to, to be exact - its just the only viable workflow) to make a point how stupid it is, while being able to do other stuff, so I don't really care, other than getting a course to requalify into another field after the studio burns.

But yeah, if you just ask claude to one-shot something, it sucks. It needs at least a few rounds of looping, clean slate review loops, or council decisions during the development. It would probably eat your Claude weekly limit just for one PR.

The point is - there is a huge difference in how people experience AI. If you can pull the slot machine lever more times, for an absurd cost, it will eventually get to passable results. The AI companies only see that, and from that PoV, yes, it is kinda passable. But there's like five companies in the world that can do that, and not for long.

Basically an inbox of Getting Things Done.

Yeah, I have several of those. Shit, I should take a look into the last one, it's been years since I last sorted it.

I don't see any reason why not start calling it SI.

I really want to see the US companies being forced or fined because they are using AI instead of SI. Force-rebrand OpenSI, make them (and all other US AI companies) change all their marketing materials and force them to scrub mentions of AI from all of their texts. Forbid them from ever using it again, instead of SI.

It would be so funny, a PR and marketing shitshow and I'm here for it.

And as a bonus, we can finally give back the AI term to gamedev. Searching for any materials in regards to NPC/game AI has been a nightmare.

I've seen people mention that he in the "AI art is art" crowd, even his username might actually be that? I didn't check, but that would fit.

Depends on your threat model. For someone who works in cybersecurity, the hard seperationo files per-project, easily split networking to different VPNs between VMs, and being able to keep sensitive data on a basically air-gapped VM that you can only copy to clipboard from is amazing. And with templates getting a stack of VMs for a new project running is pretty quick.

QubeOS is one of the coolest OSes around, if you work for multilple customers and/or take your data security seriously.

It's true that I have not considered it from the AI-slopworks PoV, but in general doing development in a container is probably a must nowadays anyway, so why not have a system build around it. It's not like virtualization is any difficult.