> Too many people don't think for themselves enough in this post-GenAI world
This is nothing new. IMHO, 90% of people are happy to outsource their thinking to some "authority", whether it’s a priest, politician, cult leader, technocrat, news media, or their boss.
Perhaps outsourcing your thinking to an "average" LLM is actually more sane than blindly following some random "authority".
sure, but if you want to use virtual methods, you have to declare ahead of time what types you implement, instead of the compiler looking to see if your type satisfies an interface. Its these little things that make the DX difference
Merging data and behaviour into a single unit (the core idea behind OOP) is literally impossible to do in practice.
Just imagine "sending a message to an int to send a copy of itself to a HTTP server" or "send a message to an array of colors to raytrace itself" or "send a message to a file asking it to sort itself and render itself in 3D".
The problem is that everything will literally end up depending on everything. A perfect implementation of the ultimate spaghetti code.
In contrast, split the code into Data, Dumper, Reader, Writer, Verifier, Renderer, Editor etc. modules (or classes used as modules) and the code is simple to understand with zero circular dependencies. And it works for any language including non-OO languages.
I always wanted to, say, look at any theorem and see what axiomatic it requires. Or in other way, see the theorem tree like in the article under a different set of axioms.
Of course, for some results there are proofs discovered only under one axiomatic, but it's true under some others as well, just the proof wasn't discovered yet.
I judge articles by the value delivered. Not the writing style. And this article is very much high value compared with the a-simple-idea-explained-with-a-wall-of-text low value/noise most HN stuff has become.
The moderator is basically the equivalent of the environmental evaluator in a genetic/survival of the fittest algorithm. So of course the moderator will shape the outcome. No surprise there.
It’s more of a god role where sudden changes are possible to the environment that no fitness level could prepare for (e.g. a mod can decide to change history after it happened, or remove entire scenes suddenly), those violate the natural order of things to which you allude
> Survival of fittest would be if opinions were allowed, and let the best one wi
Not at all. By definition, the only thing a survivor needs to accomplish is to survive.
And who decides which one is "the best"? You need someone to make that judgement. That was exactly my point. You may not agree with a typical moderator's judgement, but that doesn't change the fact that, within that narrow context, they are playing the role of deciding what is good.
Not my experience at all. Quite the opposite. At my workplace we use AI to improve code quality and software design every day, far more than we used to, because AI makes it fast and easy.
reply