> Everything that I've considered a "10/10" has been recommended by a human

Have you ever found a 10/10 on your own?

If so it's possible you were recommended that by an algorithm but you just didn't register it, because a human recommendation is more of a memorable event.

> Have you ever found a 10/10 on your own?

If I've ever did, it's after having been recommended something. For example if someone sends me a song and then I go to the "most popular" songs from that same artist. Sometimes I would stumble upon something I like even more than the recommendation.

For example if it's a genre that interests me I would search "[genre] mix" on YouTube. In which case it's usually mixed by a human.

> It's telling that your reasons for switching are all features of Python's ecosystem, not of the language itself.

Right, because ecosystem beats syntax any day of the week. Plus many of us also think the Python language is nicer anyway. For me I can't get past Ruby's free wheeling approach to import scoping and tolerance for magic.

Sure ecosystem beats syntax. Ecosystem also beats semantics, but less so. Python has an amazing ecosystem and a pretty nice syntax. Pity about the semantics...

Ruby/rails has always felt fragile to me. Like you have to write the same tests over and over to make up for the looseness of it, not to mention the culture of breaking changes adds insult to injury. Just seems like a mess and the nice syntax (subjectively) isn't nearly enough to win when better options exist.

> If AI is so good for productivity, why don't you use it to make your 4000 workers produce even more than other companies?

Because they don't have 4000+ workers worth of work to do?

If they cannot think of new features to improve the software, I'm pretty sure their competition can.

There isn't an endless supply of features waiting to be built and money waiting at the door to pay for them. Do we really think that the only thing keeping them from being the biggest company on earth is their shortage of developer talent?

So you really believe that we arrived to the end of software? It's obvious that a competitor could create a better software (if that was possible with AI).

> So you really believe that we arrived to the end of software?

No that's not what I'm saying. I'm saying that demand (for a product or service) is what drives the amount of labor that is performed, not the other way around.

If a company has maxed out the amount of widgets the can sell in their market and adding new features will not change that, then adding more labor makes no sense.

It follows that making their existing labor more productive leads to layoffs.

> today it's pretty useless.

This is quite the statement. Even my elderly father finds it incredibly useful. And he doesn't even know how to turn up his iPhone ringer (which BTW it helps him with).

> It's because of the infrastructure and coordination work required for the feature to properly work.

Or, it's because they have no incentive to do it faster.

> I think the temptation to use AI is so strong that it will be those who will keep learning who will be valuable in future.

AI is an excellent teacher for someone that wants to learn.

> 7/10 senior devs (usually fellas 50+) will get mad at you for trying to use Claude Code

Ironic because the junior has much more to lose. The 50+ can probably coast across the finish line.

I think you're being too literal. The "you" in "you voted" was the country, not the person.

We're all stuck with some shared ownership for what our country does even if we detest it.

> where's my royalty check?

I support the idea of UBI with zero conditions, but not this. You didn't get royalties before AI when someone was heavily influenced by your work/content and converted that into money. If you expected compensation, then you shouldn't have given away your work for free.

It's not just "heavily influenced" though, it's literally where the smarts are coming from.

I don't think royalties make sense either, but we could at least mandate some arrangement where the resulting model must be open. Or you can keep it closed for a while, but there's a tax on that.

> you shouldn't have given away your work for free.

Almost none of the original work I've ever posted online has been "given away for free", because it was protected by copyright law that AI companies are brazenly ignoring, except where they make huge deals with megacorporations (eg openai and disney) because they do in fact know what they're doing is not fair use. That's true whether or not I posted it in a context where I expected compensation.

> Almost none of the original work I've ever posted online has been "given away for free", because it was protected by copyright law that AI companies are brazenly ignoring.

I just don't think the AI is doing anything differently than a human does. It "learns" and then "generates". As long as the "generates" part is actually connecting dots on its own and not just copy & pasting protected material then I don't see why we should consider it any different from when a human does it.

And really, almost nothing is original anyway. You think you wrote an original song? You didn't. You just added a thin layer over top of years of other people's layers. Music has converged over time to all sound very similar (same instruments, same rhythms, same notes, same scales, same chords, same progressions, same vocal techniques, and so on). If you had never heard music before and tried to write a truly original song, you can bet that it would not sound anything like any of the music we listen to today.

Coding, art, writing...really any creative endeavor, for the most part works the same way.

Conjecture on the functional similarities between LLMs and humans isn't relevant here, nor are sophomoric musings on the nature of originality in creative endeavors. LLMs are software products whose creation involves the unauthorized reproduction, storage, and transformation of countless copyright-protected works—all problematic, even if we ignore the potential for infringing outputs—and it is simple to argue that, as a commercial application whose creators openly tout their potential to displace human creators, LLMs fail all four fair use "tests".

originally we all posted online to help each other, with problems we mutually have. it was community, and we always gave since we got back in a free exchange.

now, there is an oligarchy coming to compile all of that community to then serve it at a paid cost. what used to be free with some search, now is not and the government of the people is allowing no choice by the people (in any capacity).

once capital comes for things at scale (with the full backing of the government), and they monetize that and treat it as "their own" i would consider that plagiarism.

how can we be expected to pay taxes on every microtransaction, when we get nothing for equally traceable contributions to the new machine?

> The work was given to other humans. They paid taxes.

Says who? I mean what if black artists said they gave blues to black people, and white people making rock'n'roll? Black people spent money in black communities, now it's white people making it and spending it in theirs.

In essence they are the same point about outflows of value from the originating community. How you define a community, and what is integral is subjective.

I'm not convinced either way, but this line of reasoning feels dangerous.

I'd rather say that all ownership is communal, and as a community we allow people to retain some value to enable and encourage them further.

Still humans giving to humans. "White rock n roll artists" in your example paid taxes and those taxes benefited everyone.

That is your distinction because you chose to draw the line around all humans. But who is to say that the line shouldn't be drawn around black-people, or just men, or just Christians?

And no, taxes don't just magically benefit everyone. It's actually the point of them, that they are redistributive.

Who is to say the line should be drawn using discrimination?

Taxes fund the state. The state provides a minimum set of services - law and order, border security, fire safety - to everyone regardless of ability to pay. That others may derive additional state benefits is beside the point. Everyone gets something.