So true, just built a deterministic system to identify duplicated code. It's offline and doesn't use AI on purpose, since a gate that blocks your CI has to give the exact same answer every time, and finding dupes means comparing every function against every other (that's index work). It does NOT use AI. But ironically, I used AI to build it (https://github.com/Rafaelpta/dupehound )
This is a pattern I encourage - the AI might not be reliable, but with coaching, it can produce reliable tools. `colordiff` was causing issues with `less` when I was looking at diffs (character encoding issues I think), and when I asked Kimi K2.6 what to do, it built me a rust command-line diff tool in one shot that I've been using ever since (it even downloaded rust, wrote the tool, and compiled it).
This article misses the point. It is not about AI replacing workers, but about AI bringing more ROI. Can an AI convert twice as many customers as a $4k salesperson? It is reasonable to say that in a B2C setting, YES. I've seen that. Better SLA, fast responses during weekends, better adherence to existing playbooks, mapping out objections that are not in the playbook, and suggesting updates for the same prompt. In one week, the playbook evolved, and today we are converting more customers than the sales team. Does it capture the value of the $4k usd sales person ? If the ROI is superior, yes. Will I pay for it? That is a different story (we developed this ourselves).
“Instead of relying on generic GPT blog posts tools, external agencies, or interns, we provide a proprietary content engine that learns from client’s data, builds a data-driven content strategy, and publishes high-quality content automatically bringing organic traffic from Google and AI search.”
You’re right. I’ve just changed the title of the article adding “(un)” to the beginning. I can’t prove the errors are intentional, but given the author’s reputation it would surprise me if they weren’t.
Edited titles (without a reason, like abbreviating them to fit or removing elements suggested by the guidelines for elimination) just get reverted, you're creating work for the mods by not submitting the original title.
I sometimes feel guilty. I’ve tried to set goals (I really have) but it’s just not how I’m wired. I tend to improvise my way through things. Even as a kid, I remember never feeling that urge to "win" at anything. Sports, board games, whatever. Other kids would light up with competition. I’d just… show up, participate, drift through it. I always felt slightly out of sync with that whole dynamic. That’s why this line hit me so hard: “Some of the most powerful forms of progress emerge from people who stopped trying to win and started building new game boards entirely.” Maybe that’s been the point all along. Thanks for sharing this.
same for me, i see it also as a mirror of people's approach to a happy life, ie. ticking the checkbox goals: marriage, kids, career, house, money for x, etc and finding (apparently?) satisfaction in that.
while i never would or could, i live a comfortable life with a lot of freedom but never felt like i've achieved a goal. i just look for the next interesting challenge or path to walk because we have only one life, and sitting with one person in a concrete box somewhere and just sit it out would be a waste of mine.
so i constantly change/challenge the constraints/rules of the game i'm playing to keep life interesting enough to participate without falling into the hedonistic treadmill trap
I’ve always felt the same way. What’s the point of winning in a game? Why are some people so obsessed with that kind of competition? The rules are artificial, it’s somebody else’s box. You’re mostly just training yourself to accept external reward functions uncritically.
When these boxed-in competitive people age, usually money becomes their terminal external reward, but they don’t seem to know what they want to actually do with it.
I always thought of winning a game as proof of my skill in the game. All those hours of studying the rules, practicing moves, or whatever it takes have proven to pay off because I win once in a while - or if I lose it proves that I didn't do enough and is motivation to study/practice enough. Playing the game is in itself fun as well even if I lose and the constraints of the rules makes the game possible.
What I don't get is watching someone else play a game. I want to do it myself. If I'm watching the game it is to learn how someone else does it. OTOH, I can sit in the audience and watch someone else play music for hours... YMMV.
Agree. Winning a game is worth it if you want the prize and the prize will benefit you. But, as you say, doing this uncritically is bad. If the prize will not benefit you, or is so vague as to not matter, and you still feel the need to win, you're being manipulated.
reply