Weird (Gaming)

by Kermit , Raleigh, NC, Tuesday, October 13, 2026, 09:16 (13 hours, 21 minutes ago) @ Cody Miller

It's worth noting that the survey you linked is from 2025. The tools have vastly improved since then, especially Claude Code. That's part of the reason I'm "optimistic" about their abilities, I've seen them get so much better in real time over the past 9 months. I doubt the tools in 2025 could have vibe coded Halo-in-a-browser, to tie it back to the original post.

The paper was from August 2026 regarding productivity when code review is taken into account.

I’m sure one day it will get even better. But the technology is fundamentally immoral because of the way the models were trained, and fundamentally destructive to human culture and thinking.

If we let it. It's a legitimate criticism regarding some of the training. It does raise the question, though, how else would you train it? If you want a computer to know things, how does it learn? From what sources?

I think your concern is about art, and I share it, but bad art existed before AI. A lot of bad art makes money. The unique talents that individuals bring to art is what makes it great, though, and by definition AI art, without artistic direction, is going to be mid. Did painters go away after the invention of photography?