Actually, all of them are fallible, very incompetent machines that are good at writing text. They're not people, they don't have any qualities of people except the really bad ones, and they are absolutely miserable at reasoning.
The only people I know who use Gemini are unemployed.
The only people I know who use Claude vibe-code everything, often including their communication -- they probably let Claude kiss their kids goodnight.
Everyone else uses ChatGPT, and the world is worse off for it.
They are machines. "it" is the only acceptable pronoun, and personifying these machines adds emotion into the discussion and the use of the tool. They are not people. They do not behave like people. If you feel like they do, and you're e.g. autistic, that's entirely fair, so please take my word that they do not behave sufficiently like people in any way.
Nothing they do mirrors the behavior of engineers. They instead mimic the language of engineers. I understand that this is all it takes in a lot of circles to gain respect, which is quite a sad state for those circles, but that doesn't mean its a universal experience.
I'm actually tired that people put stupid questions in ChatGPT and then present in with a straight face as a source of truth. Sometimes it hallucinates completely, sometimes the conditions or regulation have changed and it gives false answers and no-one cares. Simple collaborations that was possible before now turn into unnecessary arguing. Some ChatGPT users aren't even aware that LLMs hallucinate, I just pointed it out recently and was accused of mansplaining and being a tinfoil hat.
> Nothing they do mirrors ...
"Mirror, mirror on the wall, who is the fairest of them all?"
Gemini writes pretty shitty code in my experience. We tried it out for a grand total of half a day at work before deciding it wasn't worth our time and switched back to Opus.
ChatGPT writes like it's life depends on it and refuses to correct its own mistakes. It'll figure out a way to write 4k lines for something that could've been done in 500
If programming requires LLM/AI then regulation by government is needed to stop this overreach, which has the primary goal of banning you permanently forever making sure you can never come back to programming, in the event some AI in their system decides you have done something “wrong”.
They aren’t, but we’re riding an exponential here. It’s like saying ‘you can still build a computer out of transistors’ in 1976 - as true and irrelevant today as it was then.
> Christian Simpson has said many times that’s what Commodore is
Well he’s wrong. Commodore’s original spirit was all about entering the new digital era, not running away from it. We learned programming, games, demoscene, BBSes, and even Internet on our C64s and Amigas. C64U makes this even better thanks to USB ports and Wifi support, so it’s trivial to keep it connected to the new material while experiencing the nostalgia closest to its authentic form.
Is that before or after the OpenAI and Anthropic pay off all the people and companies who's copyrights were violated when they used their works for free to train their models?
If everything goes to plan everyone involved with big US models will be trillionaire and everyone else will poor and unemployed. If there are open and cheap to run Chinese models (and please god silicon) the financial house of cards that we have build will fall, people involved with big US models will be poor and unemployed, and everyone else will be slightly less poor and unemployed than in the first scenario.
How so? Everyone would still have their skills to provide goods and services and everyone would still have wants for other's goods and services, so an economy would still run. AI can shift the economy but it doesn't lock the entire population out of the economy. It can lock out any one group because everyone else gets the good/services of that group for cheaper from the AI, but if everyone else can't afford the AI, if the AI locks everyone out, then they trade between themselves instead. And that is the sort of 'worst case possible' outcome, not even what is likely to happen as the AI makes some things much cheaper.
in other comments, you're arguing for banning deepseek because it is "against democratic capitalism." And here you are, arguing for governments to protect domestic companies against foreign competition.
Competition is a good thing sometimes. It forces companies to innovate.
Of course, organizations like ycombinator gave that up many years ago. Now our industry is mask-off about their desire to create monopolies so they can collect exorbitant rents.
Claude is that easy to get along with smart hard working guy who just gets on with it and builds it double quick.
ChatGPT is the eager senior developer who says it can be done but can’t actually work it out and fluffs it.
reply