I am putting my marketing hat on right now.
* Clearly useful to people who are already competent developers and security researchers
* Utterly useless to people who have no clue what they're doing
But the latter group's incompetency does not make AI useless in the same way that a fighter jet is not useless because a toddler cannot pilot it.
I disagree.
I'm making a board game of 6 colors of hexes, and I wanted to be able to easily edit the board. The first time around, I used a screenshot of a bunch of hexagons and used paint to color them (tedious, ugly, not transparent, poor quality). This time, I asked ChatGPT to make an SVG of the board and then make a JS script so that clicking on a hex could cycle through the colors. Easier, way higher quality, adjustable size, clean, transparent.
It would've taken me hours to learn and set that up for myself, but ChatGPT did it in 10min with some back and forth. I've made one SVG in my life before this, and never written any DOM-based JS scripts.
Yes, it's a toy example, but you don't have to knwo what you're doing to get useful things from AI.
Source: new year's resolution to pick up at least 1 piece of trash per dog walk.
Cons: UI is bad, so you'll want to access through a client. 1 person shop. Not audited AFAIK.
They were a tape drive and hard drive manufacturer. I guess they still have the tape drive section, but they sold their HDD division to ... Maxtor, which then got bought out by Seagate, I think?
Your opponent has 21 life and you win when your creatures have at least that much power. You can’t attack.
Setup: dealer goes second and starts with 6 cards, opponent starts with 5 cards. Hand limit of 7.
On your turn: Either play 1 card or draw 1 card
Point cards (ace - 10; ace is 1) are creatures with power equal to their point number. Face cards (and sideways 8) are enchantments. No lands or mana costs. "Playing" a card refers to casting that card or channeling that card.
Every point card has “channel - discard this card: Choose a creature with lesser value. Destroy it.” (suit matters, spades > hearts > diamonds > clubs, e.g., 8 of hearts is greater value than 8 of diamonds or any 7 but less than 8 of spades or any 9.) Note that this doesn't target.
Most point cards can be played as sorceries for an alternate effect:
Ace: wrath of God
2: disenchant OR muddle the mixture (this is the only instant and does not count toward your 1 card per turn limit. Everything else is sorcery speed)
3: regrowth
4: mind rot
5: divination
6: tranquility / back to nature
7: mind’s desire
8: sideways as enchantment - glasses of Urza
9: aura extraction*
10: none
Face cards are exclusively enchantments:
Jack: control magic**
Queen: Privileged position***
King: reduce your opponent’s life total based on the number of kings you control for as long as they remain on the battlefield: 0: 21; 1: 14; 2: 10; 3: 7; 4: 5.
Notes: The card types are pretty explicit - muddle the mixture can only counter sorceries or instants, not creatures, enchantments, or channeling. Wrath of god only kills creatures, tranquility only kills enchantments.
Rules can differ, depending on the source:
* sometimes as "reflector mage for enchantments", sometimes as "unsummon for enchantments". **sometimes as "exchange control of target creature". ***sometimes as "all permanents you control have hexproof", I.e., including itself.
Luckily their employees don't have phones.
The actual article could be misleading (it's not obvious if setting their RTO status to "natural disaster" status means they expend their sick days or not), but this is so clearly petty micromanagement that there's really no ambiguity.
s/about/above, s/see/seen
If you pay people more because they've been at your company longer (the way the follow-up post by Ethena describes[0]), you're explicitly choosing to pay them more than they can get elsewhere. You don't want to pay more than you have to for talent, so this is a hard sell to whomever manages the budget.
On the flip side, if you're attempting to pay people in proportion to their worth to you as a company, you're going to be paying less than the competition, because the competition front-loads this money. A new engineer takes a few months or more to ramp up, so if you're making an attempt to pay engineers based on their impact, you will be outcompeted by companies willing to give sign-on bonuses and extra comp to convince people to switch. That's built into the plan of the four-year cliff - you pay them a lot to start with and hope you get the savings on the other side when they don't spend the effort to switch jobs later.
Lastly, turnover isn't as much of a negative for the company as everyone seems to ascribe. Being forced to keep up with industry best practices and technologies to be able to recruit talent, to onboard new devs when someone leaves, and to retire unmaintainable legacy cruft when the creator leaves are not strictly negatives - they are risk reduction. That's not mentioning the benefit of fresh eyes and fresh ideas.
(Honestly, I think all of this discussion on both sides ascribes too much rational decision-making to what is essentially cargo-culted hiring processes. The biggest companies copy decisions from each other to the point that it's literally collusion[1], and everyone else follows suit because they are smaller and don't have the economies of scale to make researching alternatives positive expected value. People at the top setting policies don't have lines of communication to front-line managers to be able to determine whether their particular company needs extra focus on retaining developers for business continuity reasons, so to the extent that it's a conscious decision at all, it's based on industry-wide studies or company-wide turnover statistics.)
[0]: https://www.goethena.com/post/a-public-and-transparent-formu... [1]: https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/apr/24/apple-goo...