It's just continuing the process. Most of the internet these days is TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, Reddit, YouTube, etc and those are basically image + video sites at this point.

Yet OpenAI is losing $2 for every $1 they're making :-?

No, they would never...

What do you mean? They need to recover hundreds of billions in sunk costs?

> Let’s hear your argument against industrialization being net positive?

The main argument is that it's too early too judge it and at this point basically NO industrial process is sustainable.

Turns out, people are a lot better at detecting slop than expected. An uncanny slop valley.

And that is incredibly unfortunate to their business strategy.

But... food for thought: people are good at detecting slop, because it looks like slop. If it does not, people won't detect it. So there is a confirmation bias, where the "obvious slop" looks obvious, but the "better slop" goes by undetected.

1. I would argue that human directed and edited "better slop" is just... average content. Which leads to my next point.

2. LLMs have raised the floor of digital content creation ("democratized content creation"). Before lots of things would have not been created due to lack of knowledge, interest, motivation. Now the baseline for making something is a 10 word prompt. Personally I think it's a huge loss. Yes, we will get 5% "diamonds in the rough" who would have never approached a field due to gatekeeping, discrimination, whatever. Will that outweigh the other 95% of lazy creators flooding every field with around average content? I'm not convinced. There is a cost to that flood.

One line change? Pffft. That means you're still looking at the code, you're behind the times.

> I dont know how they make money here

That one's easy, they don't make money.

> GitHub is down

"No work today"

If Typesafe/Jev has 2-3 years of financial runway, this problem might solve itself.

The more likely scenario is either OpenAI or Anthropic just go pay some highly inflated price to buy Jev. Mainly just for its people and the PR, not tech.

Which is likely what all the VC, hype machine, and overinflated claims are really about anyways.

The tech etc is easily replicated. The hype / name, not.

I seem to remember reading that the Jev-founder-guy is ex-OpenAI anyways. So that's how these things often roll.

{ "answer": "might", "probabilities": { "might": 0.99, "won't": 0.01 }, "confidence": 0.99 }

> There are still news sources doing this today.

It's the opposite, all big news websites do this. Fairly sure it's part of the policy.

I would say only small, niche websites link to sources.