Sure, I'm conflating the tool w/ the people building the tool - but imo muddling the distinction is good, because the hard distinction is what tricks people into an unthinking mode.
No. Again, it's copyright that says "create a symbolic version and destroy the source, so that the thing may enter a controlled regime". Copyright is, in literal terms, a restriction on your right to copy.
On the contrary. The problem exists solely in copyright; AI companies are just users that happen to be popular to hate on, but this same legal situation applies to everyone else, including individuals. The issue under discussion is older than LLMs.
Well, AI and Copyright are both related things that people created, so it's certainly relevant. I don't think the person you're responding to misspoke.
It's interesting to see the old "Why would we go to space when there are still uncured diseases" show up in a place like this. Science and discovery are singular, all discovery aids all discovery.
The demographics of HN have changed drastically over the past 10-15 years.
I don't want to be the "back in my day", but back in my day, there were a lot more technical people here, and politics was much smaller. Now there's a ton more people, ton more politics, and a lot less "hey here's something really cool I built, it's like rsync but nice"
I think it's pretty justified. The internet was unfairly maligned as a place solely for weirdos, nerds, and the unhinged by a lot of media for a long time, and often still is, even as everyone is online. You're thinking of the fanfare, but the fanfare is what is being treated dismissively as "just hype" within this same comparison.
No, they're not, and yes, it is. I sincerely hope we do not take phones and other computers from future generations. That would be a terrible thing to do to them.
I very much hope we continue to bring our children up outside of a digital world, encouraging them to interact and learn physically before introducing them to digital devices later in life when they can treat them sensibly as a small part of a healthy and full life.
Giving addictive and attention stealing tech to children from a young age is like giving drugs to rats, they will continue to hit the feeder bar until they effectively kill themselves.
Old style rat drug experiments with rats in a barren cage being administered morphine are barely a good behavioral model for rats, let alone people. This is the aforementioned moral panic language. If the point was that solid it wouldn't need to make this multi-step analogy.
We can agree to disagree, thats fine. You give your kids mobiles and tablets from toddler age and I will bring mine up in the physical world and introduce them to tech gently over time, finally giving them full smart devices later in life when they are responsible enough to manage their own time.
> If the point was that solid it wouldn't need to make this multi-step analogy.
Analogies are always useful to show logical similarities in somebodies thinking pattern. The fact you dismiss them shows you have no interest in thinking about anything other than your own point. Again thats fine, we can agree to disagree. I wonder if you will show me the same courtesy.
You fall back on agree to disagree, twice, here, when you're accusing me of thinking only of my own perspective. It's not courteous to agree with something for the sake of agreement, nor is misrepresenting what we can say from an experiment useful for "showing patterns". You can use analogies without making poorly constructed, sweepingly grandiose ones.
Beyond that, like any parent, you have a lot of latitude in how you choose to treat your children, but I'm not going to agree that isolating them from computers is helping just because you frame it as "gentle", and I'm not going to say that we should replicate that elsewhere.
If we expand the placeholder, I think "Anything that can be rewritten in a language with excellent performance and safety characteristics will be rewritten in a language with excellent performance and safety characteristics" is a desirable state of affairs.
I don't think it's a gotcha at all, they openly said it and were pondering how that might help them. Misinformation plays more to sides that are wrong about more things, and I don't consider misinformation my ally in anything.
Nobody wants to look at it, but I think this is a lot of it. The original Prince of Persia PC/Amiga version retailed at $39.95, or roughly $100 in today's money. In fact, roughly $100 in 2026 dollars was actually quite a stable price point for a very long time.
A $60 game in 2006 is also roughly $100 in 2026 dollars. I think what happened is that around then, people generally decided that "$60 is the price of a AAA game, and anything more is a sham". If I had to bet, I'd guess that that was around when a lot of the public got into gaming as something that wasn't just "for nerds".
I think that if people were willing to drop $100 up front, base price for a game, you would not find the microtransaction, ultimate edition, day 1 DLC shenanigans that you see. Companies would find it easy to say "But of course all skins are unlockable in game!"
It makes sense though for the price to fall (in relation to inflation) when the general public got into gaming though. The cost of development is unchanged whether you sell 10,000 or 1 million. Which is my argument against the microtransaction shit being driven by a price fall.
I agree with this, and would add that it's hard in part because it's always been hard, and people have overcome. I can only imagine the difficulty of coming up with something like HTTP, or a suspension bridge, or algebra, without the mental scaffolding already being there. If you go back and read the original discussions of these, they include a ton of what seems like circuitous explanation for what we take for granted as "simple" ideas, but which are absolutely not simple at all if you have to pull them from the primordial void sight unseen.
reply