We know already what's happening after decade of optional thinking: electing dumass Presidents, walking the same path than Germany about 100 years ago, cut scientific research, social nets, etc.
We know already what's happening with optional thinking.
Perhaps not, but if an LLM is being used it is better to be honest than not, in my opinion.
It's not out of attempting to make your work look any worse than it is, but a fundamental respect for the audience that read your code. I understand the power of LLMs, hell I'm using one to write some of my own software and diligently reading the code it generates and designing the architecture around it myself, but I would always try and be honest about what went into the code that I'm showing someone.
For ethical principles I 100% agree with you.
I used LLMs to generate parts of the code, but the architecture, integration, debugging and testing are mine. It took me months in my free time.
So, what can I say to be 100% honest?
It's likely if you lead with this and acknowledged that there will be issues of the sort identified in the thread within your code the feedback you've got wouldn't be as harsh.
You're right, starting with that context would have helped.
It's an experimental project and of course there will be imperfections,
whether written by me or with LLM assistance. I did my best.
Maybe a sales tax scaling with code size, memory use, and processor time for commercial software - a scale based on a 'model' computer that costs 3% of the median American's income - would disincentivise the shift to web languages, which has been happening because investors want to squeeze developers down to burger flipper pay levels.
Software made in 2005-2015 is no less capable than that today, except the lack of cloud cancer and AI gimmickry. "Downgrading" to those is actually a real upgrade today!
That would actually be like taxing or regulating the code itself, which could be pretty straightforward in proportion to its size and resource wastage.
I just think taxes have proven to be highly nonideal unless they are levied against some added-value being realized, but you're giving me ideas.
You could perhaps partially tax based on value too, but it could start to get confusing and unfair again.
Either way, taxes would probably turn out to be more of a parasite in terms of how it can overwhelm the value added if levies rise far beyond relative insignificance. Regardless of what good might come of it on the surface looking at the code.
The code itself is already regulated anyway, I would rather see a minor adjustment to the regulation where only code in an open-standard low-level language can be copyrighted.
You wouldn't even need to add enough taxes for negative incentive if the higher-level stuff was set free, that would unleash incredible resources.
That might be one of the most effective ways to reverse the exponential increase in resource-hogging, with greatest urgency.
Couldn't do it overnight, probably have to roll it back against a timeline, one layer at a time. Simulate the reversal of the metastization as logically as can be done from this point.
There's just no way we should have ever needed more than 100mb of C: drive space as long as you wanted to run your office with no further features than Windows 95 with Office 97. To be generous another 100mb for multimedia and another 100 for internet, plus the OS and Microsoft apps are supposed to get more efficient from there since they were rushed to market in the '90's themselves.
Gigabytes were supposed to be for storage and media files, and there was never supposed to be any latency of any kind as soon as processors got up to 1GHz and you got off dial-up. Mice with balls were all that was necessary too, and that was with IDE HDDs.
reply