I did a reverse image search on it, and it brought up 'vietname board game' and other war-themed images. Who thought it would be a good idea to have a corporate productivity diagram where the workers look like they're prisoners, there's shooting targets plastered all over, and the "coach" looks like a warden that's flashing danger signs (all the colors, and they choose red?). And that's not even including all the poor spacing, text formatting, color scheme, etc.

Honestly, the more I look at it, the worse it gets.

Why do companies have games with crap performance if the underlying hardware is so good? Why did the avro arrow get scrapped? Why are there countries with energy prices much higher than what nuclear offers?

There's a world of difference between the technical capabilities of a technology, and people actually executing it.

Those charts are horribly misleading. There's random articles you can find [0], or just use steamDB to see that (now that steam requires games to disclose ai usage) there's like 10k+ games made that use AI. Also you can see that there's jump in the number of games released from 2023-2024.

Companies like lovable are reporting millions of projects that are basically slop apps. They're just not released as real products with an independent company.

The data is misleading - it's like saying high-quality phone cameras had no impact on the video industry. Just look at how much of network tv is filmed with iphone cameras. At best you might have some ads, and some minor projects using it, but nothing big. Completely ignoring that youtube or tiktok are built off of people's phone cameras and their revenue rivals major networks.

I am sorry, I just don't want to have this conversation about AI and it's impact for the millionth time because it just devolves into semantics, word games, etc. It's just so tiring.

[0] https://www.gamesradar.com/platforms/pc-gaming/steams-slop-p...

[1] https://steamdb.info/stats/releases/

> Why can't people build radical things after learning or after being assisted by LLMs?

Because that's not how this is being marketed.

I agree with you completely - the best use case I've found for llms (and I say this as somebody that does generate a lot of code with it) is to use it as a research tool. An instantaneous and powerful solution that fills the gap from the long gone heydays of communities like mailing groups, or Stack overflow where you had the people - the experts and maintainers - that seemingly answered within a few hours on how something works.

But then that's not enough for all the money that's being fed into this monster. The AI leadership is hell-bent on trying to build a modern day tower of babel (in more ways than one), where there is no thinking or learning - one click and you have an app! Now you can fire your entire software team, and then ask chatgpt what to do next when this breaks the economy.

crtystal and nim, probably not.

Zig... is surprisngly used a lot given how rough the state of the language is. It makes me think that if it ever reaches v1.0, it has a very good chance of being at least a "Kotlin", probably a "elixir"/"haskell", and a decent enough shot of "typescript".

Six degrees of "Kevin..", I mean, Racket