Or maybe the author just wanted to share a nice drawing he did, without trying to start an intellectual debate on wether AI doing art is equivalent to AI doing code or whatever

Agreed. That's half the reason that no matter how accurate a virtual synthesizer can be (like the Mac App Moog Model D), there's just no substitute for being able to physically fiddle the knobs and dials.

I have a rough time calculating how much more productive AI tooling has made me, because when it does save me time (simple mocking, greenfielding, proof-of-concept), - it saves me a ton of time. Conversely when it fails hard on me I can lose a lot of time and also patience.

The trick is developing the intuition to know when to cut your losses early and instead of continuing to fight the LLM, just implement it yourself.

This entire post reeks of astroturfing - almost every single comment here is from accounts with 1 karma. OP didn't even take the time to remove the em-dashes from the blatantly obvious LLM generated text.

+1

It's a fun little game - the minimalistic UI/UX suits it well. I'd consider lowering the volume on the music. It doesn't really feel like it suits a casual puzzle game either.

I feel like I see this A LOT these days. If you do a Show HN (for example) and your project is directly inspired by somebody else's who came before you, the least you can do is give nominal attribution.

What is it about software development in particular that makes people so seemingly ethically unfettered by blatant plagiarism?

It has always been this way. How many people who grew up on text terminals, and despised GUI-based utilities that are essentially just thin graphical wrappers on top of a CLI tool at 20x the size?

This argument gets repeated by every generation ad nauseam, even though they're oblivious to the fact that it keeps reoccurring. Everyone loves drawing an arbitrary line in the sand.

GUIs are a step over CLI's.

What does Discord improve over Kopete by using 20x more resources except for the video resolution?

Also, it should run far snappier if the improvement was just a video resolution improvement and a new codec often accelerated by the GPU such as h264. But it doesn't.

I love when people say this, because everyone has a different relative arbitrary starting point for the term "basic".

So let's take you, for example.

How far back did you start ? Did you write a basic HTML site in notepad?

Did you program your own TCP/IP stack?

Of course you at least configured the actual Web server using Apache on your Debian vps, right?

See how tired this argument is?

As for me, I just directly manipulate the platters of my hard drive using a magnetized needle to encode sequences of ones and zeros.

None of these things are fundamentals

I don't know a lot about this particular approach but your comment that it's just using Google results is blatantly false. It all depends on the search engine that the brave user is leveraging, or no search engine if they type in the URL directly into the header.

Nonsense. This naive idea that Brave innocuously looks at user's traffic patterns.

Google owns 95% of the market in most Western markets. There's no "blatantly false" about that.

They scrape search engine results and present them as their own.

Do 10,000 searches on Google and Brave and you'll see how similar they are. It's as simple as that, scraping by sleight of hand.

Why can't they be a normal search engine - because they need to scrape others. Simples.

I had a discussion about this on Twitter with Brendan Eich. He became hostile very quickly. He is not a very nice person.

I would expect most people today find interesting content via social media, and not search engines.

This comment makes zero sense considering that mod/XM type tracker files are mere kilobytes in size as opposed to a streamed OGG or MP3 file which is megabytes.