Tedium in art is full of micro decisions. The sum of these decisions makes a subtle but big impact in the result. Skipping these means less expression.
The volume of software that we have produced with new tools has increased dramatically. The quality has remained at a level that the market can accept (and it doesn't want to bother paying for more quality for the cost of it).
I explained in the most clear language possible why a fixation on the "programming language" part of the original comment is borderline non-sequitur. But if you're insistent on railroading the conversation regardless... at least try to be good at it, no?
I skimmed your comment since you were making the strange comparison that modern coding is basically probabilistic to a degree that prompting is, so I see now you weren't the one to say it's "probabilistic programming". But you are still trying to say that normal programming is basically probabilistic in some relevant way, which I think is quite ridiculous. I don't see how anything about normal engineering is probabilistic other than mistakes people make.
This is the exact kind of thinking that leads to this in the first place. The idea that a human relationship is, in the end, just about what YOU can get from it. That it's just simply a black box with an input and output, and if it can provide the right outputs for your needs, then it's sufficient. This materialistic thinking of other people is a fundamentally catastrophic worldview.
A meaningful relationship necessarily requires some element of giving, not just getting. The meaning comes from the exchange between two people, the feedback loop of give and take that leads to trust.
Not everyone needs a romantic relationship, but to think a chatbot could ever fulfill even 1% of the very fundamental human need of close relationships is dangerous thinking. At best, a chatbot can be a therapist or a sex toy. A one-way provider of some service, but never a relationship. If that's what is needed, then fine, but anything else is a slippery slope to self destruction.
> This is the exact kind of thinking that leads to this in the first place. The idea that a human relationship is, in the end, just about what YOU can get from it. That it's just simply a black box with an input and output, and if it can provide the right outputs for your needs, then it's sufficient. This materialistic thinking of other people is a fundamentally catastrophic worldview.
> A meaningful relationship necessarily requires some element of giving, not just getting. The meaning comes from the exchange between two people, the feedback loop of give and take that leads to trust.
This part seems all over the place. Firstly, why would an individual do something he/she has no expectation to benefit from or control in any way? Why would he/she cast away his/her agency for unpredictable outcomes and exposure to unnecessary and unconstrained risk?
Secondly, for exchange to occur there must a measure of inputs, outputs, and the assessment of their relative values. Any less effort or thought amounts to an unnecessary gamble. Both the giver and the intended beneficiary can only speak for their respective interests. They have no immediate knowledge of the other person's desires and few individuals ever make their expectations clear and simple to account for.
> Not everyone needs a romantic relationship, but to think a chatbot could ever fulfill even 1% of the very fundamental human need of close relationships is dangerous thinking. At best, a chatbot can be a therapist or a sex toy. A one-way provider of some service, but never a relationship. If that's what is needed, then fine, but anything else is a slippery slope to self destruction.
A relationship is an expectation. And like all expectations, it is a conception of the mind. People can be in a relationship with anything, even figments of their imaginations, so long as they believe it and no contrary evidence arises to disprove it.
> This part seems all over the place. Firstly, why would an individual do something he/she has no expectation to benefit from or control in any way? Why would he/she cast away his/her agency for unpredictable outcomes and exposure to unnecessary and unconstrained risk?
It happens all the time. People sacrifice anything, everything, for no gain, all the time. It's called love. When you give everything for your family, your loved ones, your beliefs. It's what makes us human rather than calculating machines.
You can easily argue that the warm, fuzzy dopamine push you call 'love', triggered by positive interactions, is basically a "profit". Not all generated value is expressed in dollars.
"But love can be spontaneous and unconditional!" Yes, bodies are strange things. Aneuryisms also can be spontaneous, but are not considered intrinsically altruistic functionality to benefit humanity as a whole by removing an unfit specimen from the gene pool.
"Unconditional love" is not a rational design.
It's an emergent neural malfunction: a reward loop that continues to fire even when the cost/benefit analysis no longer makes sense. In psychiatry, extreme versions are classified (codependency, traumatic bonding, obsessional love); the milder versions get romanticised - because the dopamine feels meaningful, not because the outcomes are consistently good.
Remember: one of the significant narratives our culture has about love - Romeo and Juliet - involves a double suicide due to heartbreak and 'unconditional love'. But we focus on the balcony, and conveniently forget about the crypt.
You call it "love" when dopamine rewards self-selected sacrifices. A casino calls it "winning" when someone happens to hit the right slot machine. Both experiences feel profound, both rely on chance, and pursuing both can ruin you. Playing Tetris is just as blinking, attention-grabbing and loud as a slot machine, but much safer, with similar dopamine outcomes as compared to playing slot machines.
So ... why would a rational actor invest significant resources to hunt for a maybe dopamine hit called love when they can have a guaranteed 'companionship-simulation' dopamine hit immediately?
I feel like nobody in this thread has made a cake before and thinks it's trivial to do, and boxed mixes are just premeasured flour, baking soda, and sugar.
Basic cakes are fairly trivial. A pound cake (or butter cake) for ex is just egg, butter, flour and sugar in equal weights and a bit of baking powder.
The other issue the article's author doesn't discuss is that boxed mixes are usually country specific. What you find in the US is usually not available in 90% of the world, nevermind in the right box size.
I've made loads and it is trivial. You literally just follow the recipe.
Bread is a lot more difficult due to kneeding and shaping which are skills that must be honed.
Cakes, on the other hand, are just mixing and pouring which any idiot can do. The only real variable is the flour so some recipes might work better in your region than others, but cakes are still much more forgiving than bread (flour is more than half of bread by weight, but often less than a third of a cake).
Making cookies or basic pound cakes from scratch is trivial. You take a scale, you follow the instructions done. For some cakes it's slightly more complicated when you need to do steps like separating egg whites from egg yolks, whipping the egg whites and reincorporating them to the dough but I've been doing that with my 4 years old son and he starting to get it.
Such a strange comment. Cakes are old as time. I make a few per year from scratch and they come out great. The dry ingredients are indeed, mainly flour, sugar and leavener. Any skill required is generally in your baking technique and not in mixing those things.
reply