> "could argue that it has been harmed by the diversion of the funds to a different field. But that argument would likely take so long to sort out in court that all the money would have been spent by then."
So if I steal from someone and spend it fast enough, I wouldn't be responsible anymore and can get away with it? That's how that sounded to me.
Just thinking about how this could be useful and it could serve as an interesting counter example. So if you have an idea and you find it on this graveyard, it's probably something not to do or it might be worth thinking on a little longer before proceeding.
I spun up an old laptop the other day and it has Windows 10 on it. I can't believe how snappy and fast that old laptop felt in comparison to what I've been experiencing on Windows 11.
Especially when you consider that the old laptop has inferior hardware to my newer one with twice the RAM.
I will say, I love the idea of re-thinking PR's in the age of AI. I think it will be needed and I don't see GitHub pulling it off. I think they will just double down on trying to get AI to review it for us.
I haven't signed up, but I'm not convinced the stacked PR's is a good route. This is mostly because I'm thinking about it in terms of how I work now, so maybe after a trial run I would see it differently. My experience with launching software is people don't want to change their workflows.
So the way I imagine how this would get used by real accounts is they will still review individual PR's and merge them in like normal and avoid doing stacked PR's because a lot of us mostly care about the final result and less about the how you got there.
That is until we need to understand the how lol So being able to visualize this is probably a very useful tool for retroactive inspection over being part of the PR review workflow.
I hope the author doesn't feel like I'm dunking on them, I really love the idea of re-thinking PR.
It doesn't work if you're treating it like a peer engineer. It only works if you treat it like you're a customer with no concern with how it works behind the scenes.
That's what's being asked of me in my last two jobs. Vibe code it, if it's bad just throw it away and regenerate it because it's "cheap". The only thing that matters is that you can quickly generate visible changes and ship it to market.
Out of frustration I asked upper management (in my current job), if you want me to use AI like that then I'll do it. But when it inevitably fails, who is responsible? If there's no risk to me, I will AI generate everything starting today, but if I have to take on the risk I won't be able to do this.
Their response was that AI generates the code, I'm responsible for reviewing it and making sure it's risk free. I can see that they're already looking for contractors (with no skin in the game) that are more than willing to run the AI agents and ship vibe code, so I'm at a loss on what to do.
Even in the video it looks like it does a terrible job. Hilariously he drives past all the other potholes that was just shown at the beginning of the video.
In my opinion you're undercutting your own argument. You should be working to remove tablets from the schools instead of advocating for making us register our ID's all over the internet (which has proven to be insecure on an almost monthly basis now).
I don't think AI is the cause, it's merely the mechanism that is speeding up what has already been happening.
Social media was already isolating people. It is being sped up by the use of AI bots (see dead internet theory). These bots are being used to create chaos in society for political purposes, but overall it's increasingly radicalizing people and as a result further isolating everyone.
AI isn't eroding college institutions, they were already becoming a money grab and a glorified jobs program. Interpersonal relationships (i.e. connections) are still present, I don't see how AI changes that in this scenario.
I am not a fan of how AI is shaping our society, but I don't place blame on it for these instances. It is in my opinion that AI is speeding up these aspects.
The article does highlight one thing that I do attribute to AI and that is the lack of critical thinking. People are thinking less with the use of AI. Instead of spending time evaluating, exploring and trying to think creatively. We are collectively offloading that to AI.
I like the design, but I can't see myself owning it beyond having it as a hobby vehicle to around town. I've grown far too used to a GPS screen, rear camera and an entertainment system (free of ads thanks to my streaming subscription).
I think it's mostly about squeezing consumers for more money, even after they already paid a premium, because they simply can and nobody will do anything about it.
So if I steal from someone and spend it fast enough, I wouldn't be responsible anymore and can get away with it? That's how that sounded to me.