I'm pretty much hardline anti-AI and even I would say this is too far. If I read documentation or ask my wife to review something, those people did not write the final product. Perhaps it would be mentioned in a citation, like this person has.
If the feedback or involvement is substantive it used to be common to mention this, even if just in a prologue, epilogue, or footnote. You still see this is some academic writing and some journalism, where authors mention with whom they consulted. Books and other literature have tended to dissociate people from sources of knowledge, and the Internet furthered the dissociation. But honest writing should disclose all the sources of substantive claims, preferably traced back to primary sources. Legal writing and scientific papers are perhaps the last bastions where this is still done, or at least expected to be done, fairly rigorously, but the manner in which AI is used seems qualitatively more problematic for maintaining any kind of rigor in citation.
Yeah! It was typed into a computer and never even put on paper. How can you say it was written at all?
Further, can anything be "100% human writt even if it uses pen and paper? No of course not! Unless it is created by pricking a finger and put on human vellum, it's only partially human written.
Seriously though - if you want to do stupid purity test games, at least be properly pure about it. This half-assed nonsense is just trite.
I find the best way to learn something is teach it. My philosophy with workshops & teaching is that we are all learners/students, on different parts of the paths (versus the idea that one person / the leader is the absolute authority). So the idea is to to create a learning environment (a time, place, and people), and help each other out.
A lot of us are doing this stuff solo anyway, and doing it socially is more fun and usually more effective (easily get unblocked).
Nice to see that HN is coming to its senses and people are realizing the flaws and BS in AI / LLMs. We are past-peak Bitcoin / NFT on the curve and I can't wait for this wave to end and move to the next thing.
ANSI CL is such a breath of fresh air nowadays. Does what you need, doesn't get in your way, comes with batteries included. And conditions are just god-tier.
And to bring it full-circle, this is the exact same thing I run into with Go. When I mention how nice it is that Lang X has feature Y, someone is quick to point out that either, "You can BUILD that in Go" or, "You don't really need feature Y". We've proven that we don't really NEED compilers either... but I would hate to have to do my job without them.
I mean, good choice, but you see the point, right?
As much as ANSI CL has it's flaws, it has a standard, as much of a mixed bag it might be. Scheme is just a general potpourri of "we kinda have a guideline, but do whatever".
I would very much prefer scheme if the different implementations had a working standard. But I can't take my Chez-scheme code and throw it into Guile-scheme.
But pretty good chance I can take my ECL code and throw it into SBCL or LispWorks.
Bah, I think this debate was already old when I first saw people arguing it on comp.lang.lisp in the 90s. I don't have a dog in this fight other than to reject the notion that Common Lisp is "coherent" and not "organically grown".
The original Scheme belongs in the category of languages like Standard ML and SmallTalk, where a small, careful, and talented group designed them with focus. Common Lisp seems like a bunch of smart people with competing interest and legacy baselines tried to meet in the middle. To the extent CL is more pragmatic, it's another example of "Worse is Better".
I highly doubt it was ever really bottlenecked by typing speed. If _that_ is your bottleneck then you either don’t care about what you write or you have a perfect plan laid out and just need to type it in.
If it's well trodden ground like writing enough Vulkan to display a triangle? It's probably bottlenecked by code writing speed.
In fact, writing a video game engine is probably the most common project on the planet to the point there is hardly anything novel about it. That's how engine writing nerd snipes people. They get to feel secure due to the guaranteed possibility of success. Making and designing an actual game that people want to play is much more risky and it is much less dependent on programming skill.
Why you aren't entirely incorrect, I would argue you also aren't entirely correct.
With Vulkan the hard part isn't the typing, it's the understanding and figuring out an abstraction that suits you/your project that is the hard part. And kinda the same with writing a game engine. There is basically infinite resources and libraries to make it easier, but what you actually are spending your time on is figuring out an abstraction that makes sense for the user of the engine. There is a reason why almost no 2 engines end up with even close APIs.
Exactly. And when writing your own engine, you _should_ type these lines to render a triangle definitely by hand, to understand what is being done and then use that input to build the right abstraction so one doesn't have to type it over and over again.
reply