I guess my point is for the problems it causes its probably not worth doing, balancing the two?
Making websites that no one needs to visit but poison or trap AI scrappers would likely be a better way to fight back.
Burnham to unveil £8.4bn nuclear submarine investment in major boost for UK defence
Cuddles, the family cat
Comparing x265 to AV1 with Grain Synthesis
The largest of yawns
Reform local media ban is a glimpse of what may happen with Farage in power
Picture of Poppy, my brother's cat ❤️
GlobalX, Airline for Trump’s Deportations, Hacked
The UK government is planning massive cuts to disability welfare.
Why are Google's Assistant(s) so bad nowadays?
Photosphere and all cameras now work on Pixel 9 devices via AGC9.2.14 V14
I benchmarked 6 different metal USB sticks
Caption this
Handbrake custom LapSharp values
I can kind of relate. There are a lot of parts of coding I find a little boring.
When you use an expensive AI agent, like Claude, it can nowadays handle these tasks competently, to the point where I only need to correct small things here and there.
When you give these tasks to an AI agent, it feels a bit like delegating to a junior, but without the guilt of giving someone a menial or boring task. That allows me to work on stuff I find more interesting. To me, THAT'S why it's adictive.
However, this isn't without cost. First, there's the societal costs: Environmental, centralization of power, contribution to hardware shortages and a bubble
Second, there are more personal costs. You'll come to rely more and more on these tools, and your skills will rust. You may end up avoiding learning things about a codebase because you delegate it away.
It's a tempting tool. One which in my experience can genuinely help, but is easy to misuse.