This is actually a great opportunity for you to bolster your argument on multiple fronts.

Grab your favourite LLM , point it at that article and ask it to summarise the meaning.

See how that stacks up against the take you just posted.

For bonus points, also provide the prompt, name of model/harness used and the response you were given, for independent verification.

That way, you get to promote your favourite workflow and provide corroborating evidence of interpretation.

Agh, a solid counter, i should have thought this through more thoroughly.

If you didn’t see it happen personally, it isn’t happening (obvious in hindsight)

That is my bad.

…wait…you don’t see many?

Implying a non-zero amount of occurrences when you did personally see a recycling centre going through your neighbours trash ?

…was it like a whole building transformer kind of deal or like a swarm of employees in uniform just sweeping over the adjacent land, clearing discarded re-usable materials, like recycling locusts?

Wish I was this certain about something.

No room for nuance or context?

Recycling centres, industrial composting from household food waste?

That is partially true.

The problem with LLM’s specifically is that it’s built upon such a huge foundation of shittiness.

To get to the nuance you have to ignore basically all of the horrible shit.

At the risk of an early invoking of godwin’s law, it’s like trying to have a nuanced conversation about hitlers politics.

Just because you might be willing to handwave the bullshit away so you can have the nuanced conversation you want that doesn’t mean everybody is willing to do the same.

There’s a difference between “not recognising that nuance exists” and “not wanting (or being able) to engage in nuance because that requires glossing over horrible shit”.

so…the extended consequences of rampant capitalism ?

well…rampant “people gonna people” but capitalism is the current favoured expression of that.

I’d argue a combination of bad design and/or bad implementation, which i would consider different things.

It’s a difference that becomes more pronounced the larger the team grows.

A somewhat reasonable design can be absolutely destroyed by a poor implementation of that design

Prior to LLM’s ? shitty product management.

After LLM’s ? still shitty product management, but now faster and with additional climate change.

There’s nuance here though, LLM’s actually do a better job of code that looks like it should work.

You get an unskilled junior in the mix, their code is obviously bad.

You get a semi decent LLM with a competent harness in there and you get a mix of code that works and code that nearly works.

There should be competent peer review either way, but the effort for each is potentially an order of magnitude different.

Then add on top that the LLM can churn them out way quicker than a junior could possibly achieve and you have a recipe for a huge review burden.

oh damn, i’m stealing that last one.

Yes but you wouldn’t actually need to make your clone very different for the copyright to be entirely different and then surely you wouldn’t get sued?

Are you confident enough to bet 6-12 months of dev time and resources(possibly lawyer consultation fees) on that assumption ? because up until recently that’s what someone would need to do to find out.

It might be fine, but the threat of litigation is a part of the deterrent.

But also you can’t really copyright UI beyond the design itself, the functionality is free game as far as I understand.

As with all of these things, it’s region specific.

However, game mechanic patents and copyrights exists and are litigated regularly.

In broad terms this is already covered.

If you made an exact clone of Photoshop by hand you’d get sued into oblivion, and that would be effective because of the barrier to entry ( in time and resources ) you’d need to get to that point.

Meaning you’d be betting all that upfront effort/resource on the/a major corporation either not caring, or not being able to mount a reasonable litigation strategy.

Not many actors would be willing to risk that.

The difference here is that the barrier is now much lower and it tangles up a whole bunch of other potential issues around the legality of vibe code.

Regardless of how it shakes out it will almost certainly be a set of rules that only really apply to the peasants.

"If the penalty for a crime is a fine, then that law only exists for the lower class.”

ah, i see.

that sentence as a standalone makes no sense, with the context it’s still borderline but i can see how you got there.

that…doesn’t make any sense

If you only see things that conform to your beliefs what need is there for anger ?

It’s called fingerprinting and yes.

It can be much more insidious than is widely known but the real use comes from the aggregation of data from many sources, over time.

Basically Google’s playbook, across many/all companies.

No, you define it.

If im asking you it’s because I don’t understand your viewpoint , how would me defining it help with that?

Im seeing a wall of text here so I’m going to split them up into something more coherent.

Should an employee who advocates for abortion rights be able to be fired because their employer doesn’t like the optics of their statement?

Should an employee who vouches for a particular political candidate be able to be fired for it?

The answer to both is that it’s a legal issue, my personal beliefs don’t really factor in to the legal outcome.

I think freedom of speech isn’t freedom from consequences so consider the (sometimes legally viable, if not morally) consequences of your actions and act accordingly.

I think we can both agree that a person who advocates for the genocide of a people should be punished, but where do you draw the line?

Thats a very rigid position to take on something that has significant subjective nuance.

I’d evaluate on a case by case basis and make a decision based on what I can live with.

As much as I don’t really care for corporate interests, there are real consequences for companies that continue to employ people with controversial views; why would they want to continue to employ those people when they could win back public favor by firing them?

No idea, not sure how it’s relevant but I don’t generally care enough to have an opinion I’d be willing to defend.

Im not being dismissive, I genuinely don’t give corporate PR tactics that much of my headspace unless I have no choice.

I don’t think I could define a line between what’s “accepted” political speech that’s protected against employer reprisal and what’s not. Unless we go old stand-bys, such as calls for violence, which are easy to evade. I’m not suggesting this is an easy or even a possible problem to solve; all I meant was that think employees should be protected from firing for reasonable political statements. What “reasonable” is defined as is a much more complicated question, and I concede I don’t have an answer for it.

Agreed

I wasnt looking for what “acceptable” political opinions consist of, i was wondering how you defined that category in general.

I ask a variation of this question a lot (check my history for examples).

Im not looking for a fight im just bad at understanding ambiguity in some contexts.

I think people should be allowed to make political statements outside of a work context without risking their jobs—but with our current societal norms siding with corporate image concerns, this does seem in-line with the norms of that approach.

Define “political statement”.

Because it looks like you’re putting “this is just like beginning of the holocaust”, “non-whites don’t deserve human rights” and “let’s seriously consider not having a secret police” in the same bracket here.

A statement being a political position doesn’t (or rather shouldn’t) automatically shield you from the other meanings of that statement and writing that off as all being “corporate image concerns” is insidious.

I didn’t say i didn’t like it, i said it wasn’t mandatory to use it.

Your comment (and the context of this post) implied active usage, which is what i was responding to.

If you want to come at it from a “there is no ethical consumerism” point of view, you might be right that it is, or will be, everywhere.

There is still a distinction between the choice to actively use it and the pseudo-passive background knowledge that it might have been used as part of something in your daily life…

Like the knowledge that modern consumer electronics supply chains have a prominent core of slavery and exploitation doesn’t make buying a phone the same as owning a slave.

“It’s already everywhere, so you might as well use it” isn’t a good catch-all policy and i don’t think it’s a good approach to this specific scenario.

But you do you.

AI is here to stay. It’ll never go away, unless there is no more electricity on the planet. So, we should all come to terms with it and use it the best way we can.

Or choose not to, just because it’s there doesn’t make it mandatory or even a good idea.

Im not sure of the general context here, but in the UK gypsy was mostly used to ( derogatorily ) refer to the Romani.

Also commonly called “travelers” due to their nomadic nature.

As with a lot of derogatory colloquialisms its usage has mutated/changed over time and differs between geographic areas.

Modern usage is generally aimed at the groups of people who nomadically move around in large caravan convoys, they may or may not descend from (or identify as) Roma.

They have a poor reputation.

If you’ve ever seen the movie Snatch , the group that brad pitt is a part of is one example of “gypsies”.

Best I can tell, they are “Irish” gypsies but many different variations exist.