> There is absolutely no reason why software today has to be written like software of yesterday.
I get what you're saying, but the irony is that AI tools have sort of frozen the state of the art of software development in time. There is now less incentive to innovate on language design, code style, patterns, etc., when it goes outside the range of what an LLM has been trained on and will produce.
Personally I am experimenting with a lot more data-driven, declarative, correct-by-construction work by default now.
AI handles the polyglot grunt work, which frees you to experiment above the language layer.
I have a dimensional analysis typing metacompiler that enforces physical unit coherence (length + time = compile error) across 25 languages. 23,000 lines of declarative test specs compile down to language-specific validation suites. The LLM shits out templates; it never touches the architecture.
We are still at very very early days.
Specs for my hobby physical types metacompiler tests:
LLMs aren't like a screwdriver at all, the analogy doesn't work. I think I was clear. LLMs aren't useful outside the domain of what they were trained on. They are copycats. To really innovate on software design means going outside what has been done before, which an LLM won't help you do.
No, you weren't clear, nor are you correct: you shared FUD about something it seems you have not tried, because testing your claims with a recent agentic system would dispel them.
I've had great success teaching Claude Code use DSLs I've created in my research. Trivially, it has never seen exactly these DSLs before -- yet it has correctly created complex programs using those DSLs, and indeed -- they work!
Have you had frontier agents work on programs in "esoteric" (unpopular) languages (pick: Zig, Haskell, Lisp, Elixir, etc)?
I don't see clarity, and I'm not sure if you've tried any of your claims for real.
This is just another aspect of the failure to foster a positive society. The rich who are balls deep in AI don't give a fuck about what happens at a societal level. They want numbers to go up and the result is dumb people in charge of things they shouldn't be in charge of.
No, game companies are simply unwilling to pay for the talent and man hours that it takes to police their games for cheaters. Even when they are scanning your memory and filesystem they don't catch people running the latest rented cheat software.
Cheating is a social problem, not a technical issue. Just give the community dedicated server possibility (remember how back in the days games used to ship with dedicated server binaries?) and the community can police for free! Wow!
Yes, I would also prefer that servers were community run as in the hl2 days.
I would still argue that there are technical issues leading to some amount of cheating. In extraction shooters like Hunt Showdown, Escape From Tarkov and a few others, people can run pcie devices that rip player location and other information from the machines memory in order to inject it into an overlay with a 2nd computer, and they do go to these lengths to cheat, giving them a huge advantage. It wouldn't be possible to rip that info from memory for these "ESP cheats" if the server didn't needlessly transmit position information for players that aren't actually visible. IMO this is a technical failure. There are other steps that could be taken as well, which just aren't because they're hard.
Yes, because players want to spend time moderating other players instead of playing the game. Sounds fun!
Community servers literally invented anti-cheat. All current big name anti-cheats started as anti-cheats for community servers. And admins would choose to use them. Game developers would see that and integrate it. Quake 3 Arena even added Punkbuster in a patch.
Modern community servers like FiveM for GTAV, or Face-It and ESEA for CS2 have more anti-cheats, not less.
It could be a side effect of China pursuing more markets, having more industry, and not financializing/profit-optimizing everything. Their economy isn't universally better but in a broad sense they seem more focused on tangible material results, less on rent-seeking.
It's actually very easy for skilled people to deliver good products when they aren't just tasked with sucking off shareholders. Public trade of companies makes them worse every time.
I get what you're saying, but the irony is that AI tools have sort of frozen the state of the art of software development in time. There is now less incentive to innovate on language design, code style, patterns, etc., when it goes outside the range of what an LLM has been trained on and will produce.