@thomasmahler I think your biggest challenge is going to be the controls? I’m really curious what kind of approach you will do to make a game that was conceived for Keyboard/Mouse feel right to handle with touch. I have a similar issue with a game i’m making and it’s very hard to get right.
@lemire Would consider this revolution a double edge sword for the little guy? Or mostly beneficial. I agree with most of of what you say, but I also see downsides, even for the little guy.
@Devon_Eriksen_@ChoochSkookum You’re thinking from the point of view of your temporal existence. God is timeless, so there is no “before/after” or creador/created.
@Linahuaa You got it wrong. When a girl is “easy” it means it’s non exclusive. Challenging just for the sake of it is dumb and any man of status and experience will walk away. Being selective yourself and the man realizing that you have standards, that’s something he will accept and chase.
@thomasmahler Is the game “vendor locked in” by the way it was developed (i.e. you guys used photon quantum to create it?) and how does that impact the future direction of what you describe? btw, I agree a solid foundation is amazing :)
@GergelyOrosz I think at some point it might generate “most of the code”. But if if you are doing anything non trivial (like a video game) this does not hold true. Also, LLM’s still fail to have good taste in API, still hallucinate, etc. But, It’s a productivity boost for sure.
@lemire This is true for every profession. And it’s specially scary if you think about this “ratio” in the field of health services (i.e. doctors). The chances that you end up with a non competent doctor and then have your health screwed over. A sad realization, few ppl are competent
A good side effect of hype trains is that they serve as good “litmus test” to separate objective vs non objective people and those vulnerable to social contagion vs the ones who aren’t.
@ger_tzedek@rfleury LLM’s can make you more productive in certain problem domains in programming. The more trivial, the more useful. That’s why for most devs doing non trivial things it’s marginally good -if anything-. For a programmer at Ryan’s level, an LLM is dead weight most of the time.
@ger_tzedek@rfleury the 3 paragraph prompt is not something someone will come up by without the 1 year exp on the problem and the constant steering and course correction needed requires earned expertise as well. Also LLM’s hallucinate which means all the output still needs human revision, etc
@ger_tzedek@rfleury She clarified it was not exactly as it sounded. The 1hr output was a Toy POC of what the team did, don’t take my word for it, read it from her feed. She cares about validating the tech, and i believe she thinks G can catch up (and surpass it). That said..
@gilnotmountain@burkov Your bishop said that twitter would break, given time, back when Elon fired 80% of the devs, while some priests said she was wrong. Turns out priest were right and she was wrong
@esrtweet@thugish_hermit Given that you can’t prove nor deny the existence of god, you chose the worst possible bet (doesn’t exist). I’ve never understood atheists 🤔 But hey, Want a quick way to find god? Try looking for the devil first; lots of supernatural phenomenon you can experience and re evaluate
@rakyll There’s another camp, developers that are extremely productive and don’t even use an IDE (Linus Torvalds, Jonathan Blow etc). Most of the programmers at that level say something similar: fancy tools get in their way go get things done.
@ThePrimeagen@gunnarmorling She (the principal engineer at google) already watered down the original claim by saying that it was not quite as it sounded at the beginning, as the 1 hr equivalent output of claude was just a toy poc. Almost fell for the hype this time, as I was questioning my own experience.
@GergelyOrosz LLM’s are definitely useful. The big disagreement between devs is how useful they are. And this also depends on the developer’s own skills and problem domain. For a “Jonathan Blow” elite level of a programmer I can get why it’s probably not even marginally useful.