@glitterbean Mine too!

@meltedcheese @darthnull @hrbrmstr Don't do this

@meltedcheese I did.

@donaldball @drwho I think I need to get on the Zig train

@hrbrmstr @darthnull Hell yeah. I've always really disliked the Tailwind approach. I'm the rare duck that prefers writing my own CSS.

Is there anybody out there who still wants to learn programming by hand?

@sten Thank you, Stephan! I'm glad you enjoyed it.

@inw You're welcome! Glad you enjoyed it.

@julie Woof, he's not the only one

@lumiworx The good/fast/cheap triad is actually in the post

Machine speed is a con and we don't have to buy it.

https://taggart-tech.com/speed/

@Robinzz3 That's a valuable and important perspective, and I certainly can't speak to your experiences. However, would you agree that your careful, intentional use is uncommon? And if so, is the deluge of language generated without that care is deeply corrosive?

@tehfishman Thank you! I really appreciate it.

And yes, I agree. Survival requires community and, like, access to medicine.

@r343l @glyph Language is of course an imperfect transmission mechanism in the best of circumstances. But underlying the whole of our written culture is the conceit that a mind somewhere is trying to convey meaning and thought. This conceit is what LLMs erode.

@tehfishman Same boat. Forest hideout seems better every day.

@glyph With whom does the user converse in a prompt? What do they receive back? How can it be anything nourishing? And over time, what happens to the mind that speaks mostly to the thoughtless machine?

@tehfishman I used to use it as a counter to parents who were terrified of the internet. Joke's on me.

@glyph Yeah for me "language" is broadly "the ordering of human thought into speech or writing" in all forms.

@brass75 @astraluma I actually don't think it is the smallest part. By severing constructed language that appears human from human intent, and flooding our world with that intentless language, erodes the fabric of meaning that binds us

@cR0w I actually don't think any amount of semiotics or epistemology would prevent or undo the craven nature of these people. But yes, perhaps the metaphysical danger would be better understood.