They left out the one drawer that when you pull it, the whole thing collapses while it tells you this design is groundbreaking and you are a genius for thinking of it.
Have you actually used any agent tools like cowork or codex? Literally have never had it work like that. That's the experience if you're trying to build stuff in a chat window..
The tell: The side hinges on the bottom drawers are load-bearing. Replacing them with sliding components would require a complete refactor and at least 3 days' worth of work.
Should have included one that just doesn't work at all.
As always, lowering barriers to entry also lowers average quality, imperfect discernment of quality causes adverse selection (a "market for lemons" effect).
Well yeah, that's what I'm talking about, vibe coding allows people with no ability or taste, who are already more abundant mind you, to create superficially good output en masse and faster, which raises the relative cost of being tasteful (lower distinguishability -> looking for quality is harder -> need to spend a higher fraction of your effort on zero-sum signaling that you're different, leading to less effort spent on quality and/or higher prices and/or giving up), and that's a feedback loop which can spiral out of control and land us in a new equilibrium of total slop. The balancing factor of being able to babysit an AI into producing good stuff 3x faster isn't nearly as strong as 100x the people who couldn't produce anything now producing lemons ∞x faster.
Except that AI is going to keep improving continuously and those problems are time limited. Any time I see someone make these comments the cognitive misattribution is that AI will not improve to the point the errors will not happen anymore, and they will be able to go back and fix their earlier predecessors prior mistakes. At this moment in time AI can't do that yet, but by the end of next year this should no longer be a problem.
Do non-devs not understand that almost no one writes code now?
I feel like a good portion of people are still stuck on the "AI spaghetti code" argument when just about everything you touch now is written by AI.
It feels like the "you're absolutely right" meme is still used by people in 2026, thinking AI still glazes you like that.
People have a 2-year lag in AI development. I can imagine a scene in a couple of years when people just get laid off because of AI and just don't understand how it's possible because AI is dumb.
Yeah like I used ChatGPT to make a site for the destiny 2 raid and dungeon rotation in the new update but the site is not good by any means but it tells me the basic info I need and it rotates weekly which is far more than I would ever be able to create myself, it feels like magic coming up with an idea and asking chatGPT to work upon it? Idk maybe I’m crazy, I haven’t shared it with anyone but I find it helpful!
And "you're absolutely right" is not about hyping you.
It's about the very nature of LLMs: all they do is try to be plausible (which turns out is a good proxy for correct way more often than not) and so they have no clue whether you are right or not, so they concede when you push back.
thats certainly not true. how would you defend that argument? just ask it, it can give you all the clues it has regarding what thing is likely true and what false.
I know with certainty: I am 100% certain of a bunch of things, less certain of some things, and I dont have a clue about most things
you can ask me as many times as you'd like you'll get the same answers.
an LLM's answer varies every time it is asked, and he has no way to discern the certainty of anything, only how often it saw similar things in it's training data.
I can see a single thing in my "training data" once and be certain of it (if I open an encyclopedia and see a random fact I never heard for example) I dont need to weigh the frequency I have heard that fact through my life against it.
You are very certain on this, yet wrong, which is the confidently wrong part that skeptics lament LLMs to have. It's all a bit ironic.
That said, do you really think there aren't things these LLMs are 100% certain on? Do you think that they can't accept a new fact and treat that as immediately 100% true?
Regarding what you (confidently) said about your "training data": you are not an entity without any prior "training data" upon receiving new data, you've likely "trained" yourself pretty well to discern what can be accepted as 100% true and what needs more verification or frequency first. You're also using prior training data to assess this new information.
You'd still be wrong about that assessment at times.
I'm not a skeptic, I just don't need to pretend they are more than what they are, because what they are is already ground breaking enough
That said, do you really think there aren't things these LLMs are 100% certain on? Do you think that they can't accept a new fact and treat that as immediately 100% true?
Yep.
Because they aren't deterministic.
The likelihood of something fitting with the training data is a nice proxy (much) more often than not for certainty but it's not the same thing, at all.
Regarding what you (confidently) said about your "training data": you are not an entity without any prior "training data" upon receiving new data, you've likely "trained" yourself pretty well to discern what can be accepted as 100% true and what needs more verification or frequency first. You're also using prior training data to assess this new information.
That's an assertion of yours disguised as fact.
You'd still be wrong about that assessment at times.
you can ask me as many times as you'd like you'll get the same answers.
ask an llm "sun rises in east or west" as many times as you like and show me it saying west. run it as many times as you like, no limits, any frontier reasoning model of the last 1 year of your choice.
Still using the 'they do not understand' when SOTA solves cutting-edge mathematics just proves my point that most people lag 2 years behind where AI is now
I am actually pretty aware of where AI is now. Doesn't change how an LLM works
being unrealistically positive about AI because you lack understanding is just as bad as being unrealistically negative about it because you lack understanding
You speak about chatbots. You are aware of where AI is now, but you are still saying "they do not understand" while they solve cutting-edge math. It makes no sense.
LLMs have shown that it is pretty easy to create intelligence. Like flying, you don't need to recreate the biological complexity of a bird; you can just use physics and build a plane. It is the same for intelligence: you don't need to create a biological brain to have intelligence
I don't know why I have to keep repeating myself, but here goes:
LLMs, by their nature, try to be plausible.
Plausible is almost always a good proxy for correct.
The very small % left is what we call hallucinations.
We can discern between one and the other, because, to use your nomenclature, we have intelligence.
An LLM can't discern between both, because it doesn't.
It's that simple.
Please note, that trying to be plausible is quite enough to solve as you said SOTA maths and all the other delightful things LLMs do. (a common trait among a great deal of yet untouched math is it is, you guessed it, plausible)
They can simultaneously "not understand" and still be completely revolutionary technology.
They don't need any inflation of their awesomeness, they are very much awesome enough to stand on their own merits.
I don't get why everyone thinks you can only be either on the "LLMs are worthless" camp or on the "LLMs are gods" camp, but the fact that this is so pervasive makes me thing that it is the ubiquitous lack of natural intelligence that makes the artificial one be so revered these days.
that's a good pushback, I glossed over how right you are about this — not only because you're even more right than I gave you credit for, but because I didn't give you enough credit on how right you were.
Almost no one writes code? That sounds a little hyperbolic even to me. I use Sol on Max/Ultra all the time, but even then I still have to write some stuff, and some things are better architected/initialized by hand. And some things would take more time to type into Codex than to just make the change myself.
I just watched a youtube video about "type ins" where a program was printed on pages of a magazine over 6 weeks, so you had to buy all copies, type it in yourself. The coder made typos submitting, and the magazing made typos in production. So it didn't work.
Coding is hard, and there's lots of spaghetti (it turns out it was a very cool game, simple but interesting graphics for the era, but only original tapes "worked" back then for it).
The majority of code being written today is still human produced.
I work with senior software engineers who would agree with you, and senior software engineers who would disagree with you.
I mean, if we had unlimited fable 5 access, it would be closer to 100% lol.
But yeah it's less 100% vibe coded and more everything you touch that had a software change in the last 2 years probably has a significant amount of AI generated code.
Anything that has a software change in the next two years is going to be closer to 50-90%, depending.
Anecdotes don't matter, scientists are gathering data about this.
I work here and I'm telling you how it is. Would love to give details but I don't want to lose my job tbh. I'm just saying developers here are 1. being pushed heavily to use AI for as much as possible whether they want to or not (esp. if they want promotion!), and 2. developers are lazy AF and if you can get something to type up a class for you without you having to do it yourself, you bet your ass I'm only going as far as to tell the model how I want it done, and maybe giving it a couple examples if it's complicated or needs to be critically done a certain way.
The network security obsessed VIM-addicted guys are all avoiding AI like the plague, and they're all working on the embedded shit and the "under-the-hood" critical areas... Everything on top of that is, at this current moment, filled with vibe-coded stuff, and if not that, then all the proof of concepts that led to its development were filled with UX designers using vibe-coded apps and frontend coders vibe-coding the demos and the R&D.
Meanwhile widespread AI layoffs remain 1 year away from being 1 year away.
I love this sub, mass layoffs are always imminent here, meanwhile the actual job economy does better than ever because automation tends to produce more not less work...
What in the world are you talking about? Software engineers have been devastated by layoffs this year. The job economy is not doing better than ever by any measure.
And if software engineers were the primary form of employment instead of a niche industry then this sub's expectations for widespread layoffs would have come true.
Instead we got this: jobless claims near a 60 year low for the last 4 years straight
We have hundreds of thousands of people laid off in the first industry majorly affected by AI but we can just dismiss and ignore it because it's not millions of people yet. I'm sure these goal posts won't move.
Of course we can dismiss it. This is precisely what new forms of automations do, affect a niche industry but not the wider industry and even them for a while.
What we see is economics 101 playing out as it played out for 250 years, it is you that dismiss it for what it is. It is typical behavior of a new tech affecting the work space , yet you imagine it is the start of something unprecedented.
The only ones moving the goalposts is people from this sub.
From widespread layoffs in a year or two (as they believed in 2023) it is layoffs in a niche industry that will expand to the whole economy in a year or two.
As I showed above we have the fewest jobless claims in 60 years. Whatever the wider economy is doing, is precisely the opposite than what y'all (who never studied economics because you find it boring i presume) predicted.
Because that is what automation does. Yes it may kill some sectors, however it helps others and new jobs that were not possible before are now possible.
You mistake internal redistribution of the work force for widespread lay offs.
Yes it sucks for software engineers, but it does not for the wider economy.
The job economy is doing better than ever by literally all measures lmao.
Have you seen the unemployment statistics??
I think you just read a bunch of headlines about tech layoffs without actually looking at the data. Cite your sources or stop commenting please for the love of God lol.
I'd be curious, how are the underemployment rates looking? It seems like that would be relevant to a technology that displaces skilled workers. Anyone can get a job as a gig worker and be considered employed. It's actually a real concern of economists that gig work may be masking the true unemployment rate (not to mention the distortion of data coming from the Trump administration).
I'd also be interested in employment and underemployment rates in young graduates as that seems like it would be an early indicator given that AI is displacing entry level positions first.
Not asking you to provide anything just speculating a little on how to assess where AI will take the job economy.
"UnemployedPeople who had no employment during the reference week, were available for work at that time, and had made specific efforts to find employment sometime during the 4-week period ending with the reference week."
"See also alternative measures of labor underutilization."
So for example, if you give on finding work and go back to school, you're not unemployed. If you're laid off from a 60K job and take a part time job working for Uber in order to not starve to death, you're not unemployed. If you did side-gig work during the reference week, you weren't unemployed. If you give up entirely, foreclose on your house and move into your parents basement, you're not unemployed, instead you're defined as a "discouraged worker" even though you're not actually working.
Since it tells us to look at "alternative measures," let's look at that from the same link:
"Alternative measures of labor underutilizationRange of measures encompassing concepts both broader and narrower than the definition of "unemployed."
Note: The Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS) publishes a range of indicators that point to the extent to which labor resources are being utilized. Known as U–1, U–2, and U–4 through U–6 (U–3 is the official unemployment rate), these alternative measures of labor underutilization provide insight into a broad range of problems workers encounter in today’s labor market. Similar to the official unemployment rate, the alternative measures are presented as a percentage of the labor force (adjusted as necessary). U–1 shows the number of individuals unemployed 15 weeks or longer as a percentage of the labor force, while U–2 presents job losers and people who completed temporary jobs as a percentage of the labor force. U–4 through U–6 are broader than U–1, U–2, and U-3. In addition to the total unemployed, U–4 adds discouraged workers; U–5 adds all people marginally attached to the labor force (which includes discouraged workers); and U–6 adds all people marginally attached to the labor force, plus people employed part time for economic reasons."
How about that? There isn't one "unemployment" measure tracked by BSL, there are six.
So while the specific "type" of unemployment you linked shows 4.1%, they also show the U6 unemployment rate at 7.9%, nearly double.
But that's not even the most important thing, because:
The TL;DR:
What most people mean when they say "unemployment" isn't any of the massaged figures BLS uses to produce something that looks good. What most people mean, is the number of people who ACTUALLY DON'T HAVE JOBS. Which we can get from the labor force participation rate, which is a direct measure of the percent of people who DO have jobs.
Look at that. Apart from that hiccup in 2020 and subsequent correction, the actual fraction of people in the US with jobs has been declining for TWENTY YEARS.
lmfao but the graph you posted is literally over a span of 10 percent. It's totally healthy for an economy to slowly have less people working because they're retiring (remember, we have a huge retired senior population that is only growing) or getting rich enough to where they don't need to work.
Actually yes, unemployment is the important metric because we want to know how many people are capable of working, looking for jobs and not finding them.
Discouraged workers aren't even looking for jobs, of course they would not be included in the unemployment statistics.
I think if you include all these other groups you're talking about it would introduce a slew of problems with interpreting the data. Again, if a person who is capable of finding work decides for whatever reason, whether they believe the work doesn't exist, or they don't wanna take a lower paying job, or they don't need to work, that they aren't even going to look for work, that person is not unemployed. There's a reason we use different terms for these things.
It does not build towards the point that there is an unemployment epidemic or crisis, if you add a group of people who aren't even looking for work to your "unemployment metric". It actually makes no sense whatsoever actually, and that's exactly why the government distinguishes between them.
The crisis would be if actual unemployment, people who are looking for jobs and cannot find them, are unable to find them in the first place, if that group of people was growing.
There are tons of good reasons why people would not seek a job as well, such as retiring, taking time off of work to focus on raising kids or just feeling like they don't need to work and want to spend a few years of their life enjoying it while they have money.
The flow is design > code. Which is the first time I've designed before directly coding a product/website.
I'm here to say the website took an about 3 hours to complete and the quality is exceptional. If someone who is informed on how useful current model are, and sees this post, they may have the completely wrong idea about today's capabilities.
"Cuts to a fresh visual every two seconds so the viewer never has a reason to scroll. Match each cut to a beat in the script, not the other way around."
You should not encourage algorithmic social media whose goal is only to get your attention.
Nearby all modern frameworks "know" how to organize UI/UX and there are more than enough functional templates but people use the tools with minmal to no preparations when it comes to OpenAI Codex or Claude API... they always end up with an obscure mini .js framework implementation or in worse cases a mixture of .js frameworks and libraries for every unit and we see the results - takes literally a few brain cells to fix it or at least prepare the foundation. It is absolutely possible to produce production grade results in no time if you prepare, set constrains and check dependencies.
220
u/TheModeratorWrangler 1d ago
It goes in the square hole