Not really. I’d argue the dot com bust was worse due to the quantity of websites that died because they didn’t actually have a business model.

What we’re seeing is a tech industry where all the tech is on the right side of the S curve and trying one last stab at a technology that may be on the left side.

But it isn’t about creating quality results. It is about creating good enough results where the cost of failure in AI over humans is lower than the cost of humans over AI.

This has been Silicon Valley’s MO for generations.

There is astroturfing, but there is also a lot of propaganda and story curation around the protests.

We’ve been on that long slide for a while, or are they finally going to get rid of the last ones?

Like the rest of my body, I use a loofah. I have enough mobility to get to my entire back from one arm.

The premium credit cards don’t assume standing balances. You typically don’t get that much money by being bad with money.

It is because credit card companies charge a fee to vendors. It is sizeable enough that credit card companies will offer 1% back so they can make money on the other 2%-4%.

Recycled the plastic that is used to go around office paper boxes so they don’t open into coasters.

If I’m doing that, I’m not laude.

Yeah. I went to a tech school, so the school was set up to teach the importance of communication and team building because they knew the engineers needed to be taught this and that understanding human systems was as important as understanding technical systems.

I could usually get away with saying “Bacon is a vegetable” when ordering a vegetarian burrito with pinto beans; the pinto beans were made with bacon.

People on Lemmy aren’t “normal” people and shouldn’t use their personal views as the norm.

World War III isn’t a romanticized repeat of World War II in Star Trek, though. It is an extremely destructive war that just about destroys most major national governments. There isn’t a winner with a peace treaty; all sides collapse.

I’m asking if it worth spending more money on human developers to write code that isn’t slop.

Everyone here has been mentioning costs, but they haven’t been comparing them together to see if the cost of using human developers located in a high cost of living American city is worth the benefits.

Historically open source and closed source have done the same thing, so why is this one tool usage so wildly different?

Because, as noted by another replier, open source wants working code and closed source just want code that runs.

That’s basically my question. If the standards of code are different, AI slop may be acceptable in one scenario but unacceptable in another.

So I was trying to make a statement that the developers of AI for coding may not have the high bar for quality and optimization that closed source developers would have, then was told that the major market was internal business code.

So, I asked, do companies need code that runs quickly on the systems that they are installed on to perform their function. For instance, can an unqualified programmer use AI code to build an internal corporate system rather than have to pay for a more qualified programmer’s time either as an internal hire or producing.

Does business internal software need to be optimized?

As a dumb question from someone who doesn’t code, what if closed source organizations have different needs than open source projects?

Open source projects seem to hinge a lot more on incremental improvements and change only for the benefit of users. In contrast, closed source organizations seem to use code more to quickly develop a new product or change that justifies money. Maybe closed source organizations are more willing to accept slop code that is bad but can barely work versus open source which won’t?