> Nature is healing. Nah, they're lying. They'll just cover their tracks better in the future.

Humans aren't machines, dummy

>But Gen AI is modeled after the way the brain works, This planet is doomed

>In the Office’s view, training a generative AI foundation model on a large and diverse dataset will often be transformative. The process converts a massive collection of training examples into a statistical model that can generate a wide range of outputs across a diverse array of new situations. It is hard to compare individual works in the training data—for example, copies of The Big Sleep in various languages—with a resulting language model capable of translating emails, correcting grammar, or answering natural language questions about 20th-century literature, without perceiving a transformation. https://www.copyright.gov/ai/Copyright-and-Artificial-Intelligence-Part-3-Generative-AI-Training-Report-Pre-Publication-Version.pdf You can read the whole doc. The part above is cherry picked. I haven't read through the whole thing but at a glance, the doc basically explains how it depends. If the model is trained specifically to output one piece content, it wouldn't be acceptable. The waters are muddy but holy fuck does taking the copyright juggernauts side sound bloody stupid.

GenAI is a glorified Markov Chain. Nothing more. It is a stochastic parrot. It does not think, it is not capable of creating novel new works, and it is incapable of the emotion necessary to be expressive. All it can do is ingest content and replicate it. This is not the same as a human seeing someone’s work and being inspired by it to create something uniquely their own in response.

“Everyone uses it” is just such a dumb argument. I don’t use it, I’ve never committed any code written by genAI. My colleagues don’t use it. Many, many people choose not to use it.

I never claimed that Gen AI has consciousness, or that what they produce has emotions behind it, so I'm not sure why you're focusing on that. I'm specifically talking about the argument that AI is bad because trains on copyrighted material without consent from the artist, which is functionally no different than humans doing the exact same thing. This isn't me defending AI, this is me saying this one specific argument against it is stupid.

My entire post was a rebuttal of the “functionally no different than humans doing the same thing”. Humans take inspiration and use it to express themselves uniquely, genAI just steals and replicates. They are in no way “doing the exact same thing”.

So your entire argument is semantics. Gen AI does more than just replicating existing works. You're not going to get the same result with the same prompt; each result will be unique. And I'd argue that the person writing the prompt is the one providing the inspiration to get the software to express what's in their head.

You are 1000% correct. I've been yelled at/criticized a few times by people who clearly can't differentiate between the types of "ai".

The worst are those people that think they are artists because they typed in a prompt. It's delusional!

Just to point out, LLMs are genAI. Lots of code editors provide code suggestions similar to autocorrect/text suggestions using AI. Strictly I doubt any game is made without AI. Not to say it can't be deliberately avoided, but given the lack of opposition to GPT and LLMs I don't see it being considered for avoidance in the same way as art. So Awards with constraints on "any AI usage in development" probably disqualifies most modern games.

I didn't mean it in the literal sense but if it makes you happy, we can pretend that whenever someone says "everyone" they mean it literally.

Dude, go touch grass, please. This is embarrassing.

I mean, it's a tool. You can use a hammer to smash someone's skull in or you can use it to put some nail on a wall. If you see it used like that, it's shitty developers, the AI is not to blame. Don't get me wrong, I do have coworkers who use it like this and it sucks. One literally told to next time tell Copilot directly what to fix when I'm doing a review. But overall it helps if you know how and most importantly when to use it.

I did and you're right. That's why I'm firmly in the "it's just a fucking tool" gang. Both people who treat it like a messiah and those who treat it like the worst thing ever seem pretty much insane to me.

Yeah the AI slop hell that gives us terrible slop like expedition 33. Shudder at the thought


"I will be investigating this shortly." That way, you don't have to commit to AI and can distance a bit from the micromanagement. If he persists. "I have a number of avenues I'd like to go down and will update on progress tomorrow". Though I'd be tempted to flippant, "if you're feeling confident to pick it up, I'm happy to review it". If they hesitate, " that's OK, I'll go through the process. Standups should be quick. Any progress, any issues, what you're focussing on. Otherwise you waste everyone's time. Any messages I'll ignore until I have 5 mins. Micromanagement environments are not worth it.

Code analysis and suggestion tools in many professional IDEs are not powered by LLMs, in the IDEs I use, there's an available LLM that I've disabled the plugin for (and never paid for so it did nothing anyways). LLMs are simply too slow for the kind of code completion and recommendation algorithms used by IDEs and so using them is *not* "using genAI"