I apparently forgot to reply to this earlier, but I got my numbers mixed up and that's where my misinterpretation came from.

I think my mistake came from thinking of the US top 1% as some 3.3 million ish slots on the list, then forgetting that by adding in the rest of the world wide population the number of slots for people who would qualify would expand out to some 80 million ish slots because that quantity is determined by a set percentage.

I played around with the numbers on that website and it seems like you need to make more than about $68,300 USD annually (after taxes) in order to be considered in the top 1% globally. I'll also agree that (based on my experience where I live) that's just a decent job and not a particularly good one. Because of that I would agree that this person's filter of the top 1% globally easily could include they them-self.

I think I get the idea that they were going for by trying to include more people than the usual "all billionaires" I've seen in these comments, but yeah the specific number they chose seems like it would include hundreds of millions of people who I think likely would still prove a net benefit to society.

Thought I had posted a response about it earlier, butit was a mental mixup I had made. I think my mistake came from thinking of the top US 1% as some 3.3 ish million slots on some hypothetical leaderboard then forgetting that when you introduce the rest of the global population the top 1% is going to expand to some 80 million slots instead of remaining the now more exclusive 3.3 million slots at the top.

I'm also not the guy who claimed that offing the entire top 1% would solve most problems. I'd also agree with what you're saying especially after seeing the global statistics in my comment's other reply. If memory serves, according to that link 1 person would need to make more than $68,300 USD annually (after taxes) to be in the top 1% which I'll also whole heatedly agree includes a lot of people who I think both earned that money fairly and are very positive net benefits to society.

I will say I think the intention of the 1% idea was the include more people than just billionaires as there are plenty of multi millionaires who are just as bad off as the billionaires but with less capital, but I also think a lot more thought should be put into any such hypothetical list rather than just looking at raw numbers for net worth, income, etc.

And so the solution is to enable more people to be able to do this faster with lower quality end products?

I'm not going to argue clones or even slop are new problems caused by generative AI, but this counterargument feels like saying "people killed each other before guns, therefore guns aren't the problem and its fine to give every person one".

Regardless of if the problem existed before, it's still enabling people to do worse.

EDIT: Disregard most all of this as I got my numbers mixed up. I no longer stand by the point I was trying to make.

If they make less than $450k USD annually, then they're not in the top 1% of just the US. In order to be part of the global top 1% then they'd need even more than that, likely quite a bit more.

Not to make assumptions about someone I don't know but I'd put it at about 1% odds that they make that much.

From what I've been reading in the comments here, the primary reason seems to be the game crashing a lot ever since the change to Easy Anti Cheat, even for unmodded players. I haven't played it for a few days so I don't know myself.

Yep, I'm familiar with it, though I've never used one before. I don't think it's as accessible right now as LLMs are considering its a fairly bulky physical device one would need to bring with them to any locks, and to my knowledge I believe it'll still struggle with security bits which I believe are fairly common.

I guess a better comparison would have been something like some "Pickless Lockpicking App" to emphasize that such a thing would have similar accessibility to LLMs, but much further than that and the comparison starts to break down.

I don't disagree with that, but my point is more along the lines of enabling low effort "theft" (or if you so dislike that term then perhaps "cloning" would better suit your tastes) demoralizes and thereby disincentivizes high effort creative works, on top of making high effort work harder to find by muddying the waters they're both going to be put in.

Suppose I put in the work to craft a brand new style of game. Something that nobody has ever seen before. I now have to promote it in order to get sales, but by promoting it vibe coders now see it and can make a low effort clone. Because these particular vibe coders are trying to cash in on the hype I'm trying to build up they don't necessarily care about quality, only about getting a return on the investment I put in on designing my original idea, so they're able to produce something functional and ship it within the weeks of time I'm trying to use to build up a fanbase.

Depending on the success of my marketing, how much time I dedicated to marketing before release, the technical requirements to execute my game design, etc then I might still have a successful game and people are able to recognize the difference in quality between my games and the slop cash grabs but I also might now be fighting an uphill battle against the reputation the slop cash grabs have created around my original game design. What incentive do I then have the next time I come up with a new idea for a game?

Getting back to reality, I think many people can recognize a cash grab when they see it but I still think that LLMs enabling them made the already existing visibility problem for indie devs so very much worse.

This is voting with your wallet. I don't see how this is significantly different from boycotting a company for any sort of reason, aside from the difference in scale.

The company was advertising the product in a way this person disagreed with, this person informed the company that they were not going to purchase said product for said reason, then the company seemed to value them and/or others like them enough to change their advertising.

My boss used to work in auto repair and loves sharing stories about how ChatGPT is very wrong about error codes for certain cars, many times in a way that's very easy to look up.

He then nearly spent $1000 on parts that would have been totally useless to the company because he couldn't be bothered to read the spec sheet and trusted ChatGPT to tell him which part we needed rather than the person actually working on that project.

Didn't realize the bar minimum to expect of a technology is not killing everyone. I guess if you lower the bar down to "not committing mass genocide" then it's a lot easier to like every new tech regardless of any other standard.

As far as I see it LLMs and vibe coding will not prevent people from coding by hand, but they will enable people to steal far, far more easily than they ever could before.

If something built an Automatic Lock Picker 3000, able to pick any lock in the world at an 80% success rate otherwise just try again ad nauseam, then a lot more people will steal shit. People obviously could steal before the ALP3000's release, but it wasn't trivial for just anyone to do beforehand. Now it is.

In a similar vein I think LLMs trivialize the process by which people can "steal" concepts. It's pretty damn demoralizing to know that you spent months to years working on a game, start promoting it, then someone with a Claude subscription can make their own clone of your game then sweep the rug out from under your feet. You're trying to build a good and successful game, then you could easily have legitimate claims that you're the clone since someone else released something similar several weeks before you did.

That's not even to mention all of the code and other assets GenAI stole without consent in order to enable these vibe coders to steal your ideas your ideas.

No it's not going to be the end of the world (but it sure will enable climate change) but it's going to make things a lot worse for the people who actually care to craft something good while enabling the people who only care about having that thing done.

Why don't we raise the speed limit if that's how fast everyone wants to go?

Because then everyone would drive above that new limit instead.

I'm not so sure about that. If the speed limit in my neighborhood was 80mph I don't think I'd be going that fast much less above it. If the nearby interstate reduced the speed limit to 25mph I don't think I'd naturally be driving it at 35-40mph as you state.

In my experience, it's more a thing that I think many people disregard the speed limit for the most part and have a certain speed they feel is natural and comfortable for them to drive on a given road in a given situation.

Going through the neighborhood? Some people think 15mph, some think 25mph, some think 30mph. See some kids playing on the side of the road? Most people generally would slow down a bit. Roads are tight and narrow? Well now I have to be a bit more careful in this area so I need to slow down even further.

In my experience the psychology trick has everything to do with the road, what's around it, the condition it's in, etc, and less to do with the sign itself.

I think it's hard to say they're assuming it was first seen there in a post where they're literally trying to verify that claim. At best you might be able to say they previously assumed that was the case, but for all we know they're checking someone else's assumption having never believed that that's the case.

The two words you omitted in your original quote make that much more clear: "was it first seen in LOTR movies?"

On a related note: "I don't see why you'd stop being friends with someone over politics"

Especially these days with what basic human rights have been made political, politics is probably pretty high up there on my list of reasons I'd see in why not to associate with someone.

To a sensible person it wouldn't be a daily driver. I've seen some people who are not sensible on my daily commute.

Not OP but I take it that you're asking because you're trying to figure out why they weren't visually assumed to be a foreigner and why they were assumed to be able to speak Japanese?

Tbh I also completely missed it. This post was the first I heard about it. How long was it going on?

One of my jobs I was working next to an older man who didn't believe in climate change because "they told us dinosaurs had scales and now they're saying they have feathers!" He also once told me to fix an electrical component by "spraying WD40 on it" as if the electrons just needed some lubrication before they'd start moving again.

Both of those incidents helped me to realize who not to go to for help with that job and shortly afterwards he was let go after having an entire week with no work completed.

One of the most stressful times I've ever had at a job was when I was disassembling old tech to remove hard drives and batteries like this one, particularly when my boss wouldn't understand that inflated batteries are a huge fire risk and are very much pressure sensitive.

After hearing all of that he picked one up as if it were some phone and tossed it around in his hands looking at it all over meanwhile I'm trying to simultaneously tell him to stop that immediately because of the fire risk I just told him about and simultaneously create distance between us in case it does go off.

Knowing what I know now it would have been very fitting if it popped on him, injured by his own stupidity and inability to listen when people are telling him what to do or what not to do. Eventually he put it down then I had another stressful month or so waiting for a proper disposal method to be implemented.

There was some stealth game I was trying out that did this. Before you start the game, it's mandatory to set the brightness level so one logo is barely visible. I figure since it's a stealth game I might as well just so I can see what areas are supposed to be light and what areas are supposed to be dark. Get into the game, soon find some guards and a nearby alcove in total darkness so naturally I dash over to hide before they notice me. The guards walk by and immediately see through the dark to spot me as if they had night vision goggles.

I stopped playing the game not long after because there were a lot of things about the game I really didn't like, but those first few minutes were a tone setter for me. To this day I still wonder why the devs felt it was so important to make sure some things were dark enough to not be visible to the player if everything was going to be visible to the NPCs.

It's not uncommon for people to make games for fun and to not get as much money as possible from them. It's less common for companies and studios to not try to get as much money as possible from games, even less common for them to make games purely for fun.

Because generating fun doesn't pay bills.