jplusequalt

The discourse is full of venom and it's not from our side.

Again, expecting people not to show emotions over things they care about is a you problem.

Society has got worse at encouraging/enforcing good society.

How you could you possibly quantify this? It's so vague to mean anything, and worse, this sort of rhetoric is the moral licensing that gets poorly thought out policies passed through congress.

I loath surveillance capitalism, but systemically I'm unsure what the answer is.

The answer should never be to make privacy impossible, because the government will take advantage of that.

Hey. I've seen your comments in other threads, and have been one of the people who has downvoted you.

I am sick and tired of anti-AI dogma.

"Anti-AI dogma" does not exist on HN. I see more posts in favor of using AI then against them, and most people on HN I would bet are pro-AI. If you want to see a stark contrast, go read a r/ExperiencedDevs post related to AI.

I want a healthy, happy community sharing about the new tools and models. Not constantly dumping and complaining

Why are you surprised people dislike ongoing upheaval of their career field(s) and/or the constant FUD coming from the companies driving that change? Genuinely, are you incapable of reasoning about why this would be unpopular? Or you just being dense?

I assume it's the latter.

Also, be the fucking change you want to see in the world. If you want a space free from people sharing their thoughts, go vibe code your own website where you censor anyone who would dare question whether technological progress could have side effects.

Hell, if you do so, maybe you'll take some of the other self-victimizing AI users with you.

the better our police are the lighter the sentences can be.

If the chances of catching are near 100% you only need a smaller deterrent

I would rather live in a world with marginally higher petty crime rates with zero surveillance, than a world that has no petty crime but where there are Flock cameras on every corner and drones patrolling overhead at all times.

Peter Thiel and his ilk are creating Big Brother.

They are out to make a profit. I am entitled to my opinion.

It's on the luddites to demonstrate evidence of harm, if they want some use of technology banned.

Here's one study from last year (1000 students) [1]. They showed that improved outcomes with AI are short term, and likely a result of AI doing the work for the student. Their methodology involved a test without the use of AI at a later date, and one of the groups who used AI tested much worse than the control group who did not use AI during learning.

Moreover, a tertiary group that used a specially trained AI for tutoring showed no improvement in testing outcomes over the control group.

[1] Bastani, H., Bastani, O., Sungu, A., Ge, H., Kabakçı, Ö., & Mariman, R. (2025). "Generative AI Without Guardrails Can Harm Learning: Evidence from High School Mathematics." PNAS, 122. PNAS

They have a business venture, not a silver bullet.

the solution here is not to say the technology is bad but to use it to create competitive products that are actually beneficial.

In the context of educating 5 year olds, I would firmly argue that the solution involves exactly zero use of LLMs.

How do you ensure the kid is learning the right material? You want them to stay on topic, but a Socratic Method that starts off on one topic can easily branch into many other topics, and then suddenly your student has spent the whole class learning about something other than what they were supposed to.

All learning is good, yes. But a baseline curriculum is necessary to create a ground floor of knowledge for society.

I can assure you that no matter what concerns you may have about hallucinations in LLMs, I can bet everything I have that a reasonably modern model (and I'm thinking in the range of gemini-flash, not Fable) in a well designed harness geared towards tutoring would handily and repeatedly outperform every single teacher I had all throughout my schooling.

What are the *social* ramifications of an education system where children learn increasingly from AI tutors, while staring at a screen in a classroom for multiple hours a day?

Children need to spend time interacting with other children, as well as with adults. We have a mountain worth of data that children have become addicted to their devices, why are we doubling down on this by including MORE screen time at such an early age?

If implemented right

This same argument could be applied to any technology, or policy that has ever been created. But we don't live in a world where people can do things the right way because of any number of externalities that muddies the actual implementation.

Paying teachers higher is a harder sell than isolating children from humans so they can talk to an LLM?

What fucking society are we trying to cultivate?

Yeah, I miss the days of having perfectly deterministic humans writing our code

If most people by your account are subpar programmers before AI, why do you believe they'll suddenly be better with AI?

Also, these comments always come off more than a bit anti-social. It's like hating your coworkers correlates strongly with AI-adoption.

spend time and effort learning about the things that are important to them

But Earlier ...

Or reading Hacker News.

Reading Hacker News is important to you?

Trying to compare apples to oranges is peak idiocy.

Roller Coaster Tycoon was programmed in fucking assembly. That's a work of artistry right there.

Another angle to explore is how much of the process of software development that we do manually can we automate, particularly the parts that still require human input (like code reviews). That may also help with reducing the cognitive load.

Get your vibe coded software with zero human reviewers away from the public infrastructure.

When the state of the industry is so bad that people need to start recommended mindfulness to unfuck your brain, then it's time to get the fuck out.

If he uses zero AI, he's better off than someone who hasn't looked at their own code in months.

I want to make my own story

Then open up a word document and write one! Don't outsource that desire to a ball of linear algebra.

Nothing more than a bunch of people who haven't actually tried writing, and therefore aren't aware of what good writing actually looks like.

This is the problem with LLMs. It allows neophytes to trick themselves into believing that they're now a writer/programmer/artist for prompting a model, and because they don't know what they don't know about writing/programming/art, they think it's good when it's actually slop.

AI slop is unsatisfying because there is no there there. It is intellectual junk food that mimics nutrition but delivers only empty calories. Satisfying AI outputs must embed dense information and compute to actually reward a reader's attention. You inject this value through brute-force search, non-trivial prompting, and rigorous curation, ensuring the final result reflects genuine algorithmic effort rather than the zero-shot 'WYSIWYG' default.

I don't agree with this at all. You can prompt all you want, but if you don't have the actual skills to make good art, you won't really know if what you're generating is good or not. This is to say nothing of the "hollow-ness" of outsourcing your voice to generative algorithms.

I have a write-up at

You mean your LLM has a write up?

repository with my work for the

It's not your work, and you aren't a writer if you use an LLM.

That's high literature for you.

What is "high literature"? Have you actually read any of the greats? I have, and while I'm not a fan of everything I've read, I never felt inundated with constant metaphors and overly eloquent prose.

Unless I'm missing somethiny, that article has no data that backs up Dr. Ruth Weir's claim.

It first posits that adult content has been normalized online, then cites unrelated statistics about abuse victims who had watched adult content. There's nothing that convincingly links that that first statement to the latter data.

Yes

We’ll get great films, games, stories, and research because of this stuff.

If you were the kind of person who could create great art, then you would have found a way to make that art happen before LLMs were made.

Sorry if that comes off as harsh, but it's true. Too many people are convinced that an AI is suddenly going to skyrocket them from the ground floor to the ceiling of a craft. It won't.

Accept that there are no shortcuts to mastery. Accept that ideas are cheap, and execution is what matters. Accept that a large portion of people find it repugnant to engage with generative art.

TBF, I bet any graphics programmer would be a boon for a ML shop for their GPU/performance optimization knowledge alone.

I'm a graphics programmer.

The most useful resources I've found for graphics are scratchapixel, UC Davis' graphics lectures, songho's articles, and Essential Math for Games and Interactive Applications. I highly recommend you read this last resource front to back. Seriously, its the best freaking math reference for graphics out there.

But knowing theory is not sufficient. You also need to get your hands dirty by writing code: learn how to build a software rasterizer (check out Tiny renderer) and a ray tracer (Ray Tracing in One Weekend series). Preferably in a language like C++. Then move onto APIs. I recommend you learn OpenGL, but if you're okay with being confused as all hell try Vulkan. Or WebGPU if you're a hipster (/s).

Finally, try to build some stuff. A simple engine. A non-trivial technique. A game. Whatever.

Unfortunately, you're unlikely to get hired working as a rendering engineer without having serious connections, or by having adjacent experience in the industry. Doubly so now that everyone is convinced junior engineers are unnecessary.

why can't AI-assisted PR reviews make it less tedious?

Godot is a performance critical system in the realm of a million lines of code (?).

Keeping your system both correct AND performant, requires people understand how it works. This kind of technical knowledge is slow to develop, so it's one of the most valuable skills to possess.

I don't see how you continue to understand your system when people are both generating code with AI and using AI to review it's output.

I think "no-AI" policies are really just ways of gatekeeping low effort contributions from people who have no idea what they're doing. This is a good thing!

To use the current example of Godot--game engine development is really, really, __really__ hard. Building on your engine in a way that doesn't lead to performance regressions, introduce subtle bugs, etc. takes a lot of know how.

If you care about quality and performance, then rejecting work from people who aren't capable of understanding how their contributions impact the greater engine as a whole is a logical choice.