borZ0 the t1r3D b3aR

“Please, world World, FOSS World Needs Funding for Something You Want”

They wouldn’t have to. They just release a ToS update, that no one reads, that gives them the right to look at all of the data sent for “optimization”, or some other nonsense.

I certainly hope so! Human ingenuity has gotton us here. I’m interacting with you across who knows how much distance, using a handheld device that folds up. …but, just because we’ve gotten ahead of trouble and found solutions thus far, doesn’t mean that an unintended bit of code, or hardware fault, or lack of imagination can’t cause consequences further down the road. I appreciate your optimism and pragmatic understanding. You seem to be a solution driven person that believes in our ability to reason and fix things. We’ll definitely need that type of attitude and approach when and if something goes sideways.

As with your original comment, i like your argument. :) Additionally, I dig the wall of text. WoT, written well, leaves little ambiguity and helps focus the conversation. I don’t disagree on any particular point. I agree that its a net positive for programming to be approachable to more people, and that it can’t be approachable to many while requiring apollo era genius and deep understanding of technology. It would be a very different world if only PhDs could program computers. To that, I believe the article author is overstating a subtle concern that I think is theoretically relevant and important to explore.
If, over the fullness of decades, programming becomes so approachable (ie, you tell an AI in plain language what you want and it makes it flawlessly), people will have less incentive to learn the foundational concepts required to make the same program “from scratch”. Extending that train of thought, we could reach a point where a fundamental, “middle-technology” fails and there simply isn’t anyone who understands how to fix the problem. I suspect there will always be hobbiests and engineers that maintain esoteric knowledge for a variety of reasons. But, with all the levels of abstraction and fail points inadvertently built in to code over so much time passing, it’s possible to imagine a situation where essentially no-one understands the library of the language that a core dependency was written in decades before. Not only would it be a challange to fix, it could be hard to find in the first place. If the break happens in your favorite cocktail recipe app, its Inconvenient. If the break happens in a necessary system relied on by fintec to move peoples money from purchase to vendor to bank to vendor to person, the scale and importance of the break is devastating to the world. Even if you can seek out and find the few that have knowledge enough to solve the problem, the time spent with such a necessary function of modern life unavailable would be catastrophic. If a corporation, in an effort to save money, opts to hire a cheap ‘vibe-coder’ in the '20s and something they ‘vibe’ winds up in important stacks, it could build fault lines into future code that may be used for who-knows-what decades from now. There are a lot of ifs in my examples. It may never happen and we’ll get the advantage of all the ideas that are able to be made reality through accessibility. However, it’s better to think about it now rather than contend with the eventually all at once when a catastrophe occurs. You’re right that doom and gloom isn’t helpful, but I don’t think the broader idea is without merit.

Yes, but also the bit about when someone creates an application without understanding the underlying way that it actually functions. Like I can make a web app, but i don’t need to understand memory allocation to do it. The maker of the app is a level or two of abstraction from what the base metal of the computer is being told to do.

I like a lot of your responses. I agree about nostalgia being a main driver of his article. However, i think the bits about how a doctor needs to know how a medical tool functions etc, is a little misplaced. I think the author was referring to the makers of the device not understanding what theyre making, not so much the end user. I ALSO think the author would prefer more broad technical literacy, but his core arguement seemed to be that those making things dont understand the tech they’re built upon and that unintended consequences can occur when that happens. Worse, if the current technology has been abstracted enough times, eventually no one will know enough to fix it.

As with everything AI, I want it to be tagged so we’re informed of it’s use and how it was used on what i’m interacting with. I like that its available for, as an example, people to add tracks in foreign language to their video or podcast in a cheap and accessible way. I also see how it might be a bad idea to both rely on an AI translation engine and then an AI voiceover to communicate nuances to a foreign language audience, something that would be caught by a human translator. In terms of the low quality videos using it for clicks, not watching the trash is the only way to get it to stop. As long as a large enough market exists for slop, it will continue to be made.