Since we are all “hackers” here, I’ll be pedantic…
“While it is a great language…”
The “it” pronoun clearly refers to the C++ language, as I’m sure you intended.
“…ir would profit from less ‘lets code C with C++ compiler ’ attitude.”
The “ir” — presumably a typo for “it” — can refer to the article or C++. Given that this thread is about an article, the second “it” referring to the article is a natural assumption.
what about introspection? What about what is considered mentally healthy or not? what about how it affects others around you? If you have past experiences or trauma or other orangic or inorganic neurological or mental issues having a "flat affect" can be "wrong". If what you're feeling isn't helping you, how would you know that there's another way unless you get help?
This sounds defeatist and if you peek just a little behind the curtain this can lead to all kinds of "bad". IMO.
Just imagine the worst thing you can that someone could think, and then they say "it's okay, it's just how i feel, it's not right or wrong." I get that we shouldn't gatekeep or police thought, but obviously this isn't some "universal truth"...
(As an aside, I think of counseling as “optimizing my life”. Perhaps that framing may help those that find the idea off-putting.)
For context, we are sending ~35 million push notifications per month on iOS and ~67 million on Android, see more at [1]
[0]: https://developer.apple.com/documentation/bundleresources/en...
[1]: https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1721717002946191480.html
But otherwise I like the image!
My opinion — and note I’m a software engineer, not a lawyer — is that an AI, being a statistical model and not generally intelligent, should not be allowed to disregard the copyright of its source material. This would, I think, require the AI’s creator to secure a license for all of its sources that allows this sort of transformation and presentation. And further, a user of the AI would themselves require a license to use the output.
The alternative seems to be “anything goes”.
My _main_ point is that there’s a non-trivial question to answer here.
I’m not qualified to answer (though I’ve offered up my non-expert opinion). It certainly seems to quickly veer in to philosophy!
My opinion — and note I’m a software engineer, not a lawyer — is that an AI, being a statistical model and not generally intelligent, should not be allowed to disregard the copyright of its source material. This would, I think, require the AI’s creator to secure a license for all of its sources that allows this sort of transformation and presentation. And further, a user of the AI would themselves require a license to use the output.
The alternative seems to be “anything goes”.
The quality bar is so low now, it went underground. It's so easy to compete with the status quo. You just pretend that all the "progress" that happened in software development technologies over the last 15 years didn't happen. And, most importantly, you treat JS as a macro language for a glorified word processor and don't try to build actual applications with this stack.
Computers have always been just useful enough for as long as I’ve used them (since the 80s). We’ve _always_ put up with a lot of nonsense and pain because the alternative is worse.