@0adaspopod76121@Drew_When17@GhostsSoup Lowering the barrier to entry does not lower the skill ceiling. The best creatives can now make a feature film or AAA game that previously required a million-dollar budget before AI. That’s a good thing.
@AyyBoj@AndrewOnXYZ@GhostsSoup You don’t seem to comprehend the point and take an obtuse, literal interpretation of what was said, like a lower-level LLM.
The point is that chess AIs beat all humans, yet that doesn’t stop humans playing chess for fun.
@RealJMcAfreak I gave a challenge: let’s put your code against my AI slop code. You choose the spec and the metric. Talk is cheap; actions speak louder. Prove you can code better than AI. Pro tip: you can’t. 😛
@pain44918298@GhostsSoup Sure, that could happen, but so could any software download from an untrusted website. The cybersecurity aspect has nothing to do with people crashing out because AI is better at decompiling and coding than they are.
Powerful institutions are trying to control AI, and that’s real. But that doesn’t settle whether the technology ultimately centralizes power or spreads it.
The printing press didn’t eliminate concentrated power, but it widened the circle of people who could participate in intellectual life, despite censorship. AI pushes that further by giving people not just information, but tools to understand and use it.
Someone without a research department, a programming team, or a tutor can get help learning, writing, analyzing, and building. It’s not magic, but it’s still a democratizing force. “Diffusion by design”: models can be copied, and downloadable versions can run on personal hardware, so access need not depend on one central provider. With affordable access, competition, open models, and sensible policy, AI’s long-term effect leans toward ordinary empowerment, even if control battles continue.
Remember playing Dune 2 after school? I built a no-install browser RTS for that old desert-scrap feeling — harvesters, worms, aircraft, 8-player spice conflict: http://45.82.72.93:8787