An intersting discussion on AI augmented programming

[CptTrips]

Give AI a physical presence with the physical capabilities of humans and every job is at risk. It is happening.

However it still has trouble coming up with unique solutions.

Or maybe he knows but is letting me suggest some things so I don't feel so unneeded.

He has absolute knowledge of anything that has ever been done by every technique.  But if it is a new idea, even rather simple in relative terms, he is completely blind to it.  Once described he immediately gets it and has perfect knowledge on how to implement with which coding design patterns and best practices in any programming language you prefer. 

But he was completely blind to the possibility because he didn't have a ready example already.

But then again most people have the creativity of a bag of hammers too.  But I do think that is going to be the hard problem.  Everything else is just simply a function of mem storage and CPU cycles.  Don't know were that magic spark to create comes from.  To see the thing not yet seen and know it could work without having an existing example.

I think it comes from Quantum Foam. 

[CptTrips]

Watch as she builds an app without coding or very little.

FYI, this video is a couple of months old. 

GPT5 and Agent mode are now available in VS Code with a paid Github Copilot account. 

I actually couldn't get it to work in VS Insiders at this time, but it works fine now in VS Code which is what I prefer anyway.

[Brooke]

Every AI innovation creates the feeling that it will keep going right up to the singularity.  But every time in the past, there is good progress, but it peters out at some point.

It happened with symbolic AI, expert systems, fuzzy logic, neural networks of the 80's and 90's, lisp machines, "5th generation computers".

I think we will see this with LLM's.

They are amazing and very useful for a lot of things.  But they have issues that will be hard to get around.  Learning new stuff quickly.  The problem with hallucinations.  Not having as much useful creativity as the more-creative of humans.

Also, LLM's are already trained on nearly the entire collection of recorded human knowledge.  At some point, we might be running into the problem of not being able to make LLM's larger, or we run out of enough data to well determine the parameters.  For example, I can take 10 data points, and fit it perfectly with a 9th degree (or higher) polynomial.  But it will have no predictive ability.  The LLM equivalent would be just more hallucinations.

We are assuming the step after LLM's will come with no time gap.  I'm not sure that will be the case.

[hazmatt]

I've been goofing around with Claude and figured I'd ask it the same question others have asked other AIs. Weird how the AI all seem to reach the same conclusion on some things. Even though I know this will set off all the defenders of the status quo, (which I think I already have on ignore already) I figured I would share it's response:

The subscription model appears to be a major factor in Aces High III's decline. The search results paint a clear picture of how the subscription hurt the game:The Death Spiral: Players say "This game is dying because they want $15 a month and very few people are willing to pay that for a game they aren't constantly playing, which in turn means the servers are dead and who wants to play a game on a almost dead server"  (Dexerto)The Core Problem:$14.95/month subscription for a niche WWII flight combat gameSmall player base - can't justify the monthly cost when servers feel emptyVicious cycle - fewer players paying means emptier servers, which drives away more playersCompetition Factor: Players directly compare it to free alternatives like War Thunder and IL-2, asking "what does it do better than Warthunder and IL2bos?"  (epicwin) When free games offer similar experiences, justifying a monthly fee becomes nearly impossible.Historical Context: One player nostalgically mentions wanting "AH grow back to the 2010ish era, where 400-600+ were on a night"  (esports.net) , suggesting the game had a much healthier population before free-to-play flight combat games became dominant.The Subscription Model's Fatal Flaw for Niche Games: Unlike WoW which has millions of players to fill servers, Aces High III's niche appeal (hardcore WWII flight sim) + subscription model created an unsustainable situation. Players need populated servers for a good multiplayer experience, but the subscription barrier prevented the player base from growing large enough to feel lively.It's a perfect example of how subscription models can kill otherwise good games when free alternatives exist and the niche isn't large enough to support the barrier to entry.

[The Fugitive]

I've been goofing around with Claude and figured I'd ask it the same question others have asked other AIs. Weird how the AI all seem to reach the same conclusion on some things. Even though I know this will set off all the defenders of the status quo, (which I think I already have on ignore already) I figured I would share it's response:

The subscription model appears to be a major factor in Aces High III's decline. The search results paint a clear picture of how the subscription hurt the game:The Death Spiral: Players say "This game is dying because they want $15 a month and very few people are willing to pay that for a game they aren't constantly playing, which in turn means the servers are dead and who wants to play a game on a almost dead server"  (Dexerto)The Core Problem:$14.95/month subscription for a niche WWII flight combat gameSmall player base - can't justify the monthly cost when servers feel emptyVicious cycle - fewer players paying means emptier servers, which drives away more playersCompetition Factor: Players directly compare it to free alternatives like War Thunder and IL-2, asking "what does it do better than Warthunder and IL2bos?"  (epicwin) When free games offer similar experiences, justifying a monthly fee becomes nearly impossible.Historical Context: One player nostalgically mentions wanting "AH grow back to the 2010ish era, where 400-600+ were on a night"  (esports.net) , suggesting the game had a much healthier population before free-to-play flight combat games became dominant.The Subscription Model's Fatal Flaw for Niche Games: Unlike WoW which has millions of players to fill servers, Aces High III's niche appeal (hardcore WWII flight sim) + subscription model created an unsustainable situation. Players need populated servers for a good multiplayer experience, but the subscription barrier prevented the player base from growing large enough to feel lively.It's a perfect example of how subscription models can kill otherwise good games when free alternatives exist and the niche isn't large enough to support the barrier to entry.

Im curious, what was the question you asked?

[hazmatt]

double post

[hazmatt]

Im curious, what was the question you asked?

The first question was: "how can WoW compete with ftp models with such a high subscription rate?"
Here's the answer to the first question:

You've hit on one of WoW's biggest strategic challenges. The subscription model is increasingly difficult to defend when competitors offer similar experiences for free. Here's how WoW tries to compete:Value proposition arguments:Content quality and volume - WoW argues that subscription fees fund higher-quality, more frequent content updates and better server infrastructureNo pay-to-win mechanics - Unlike many F2P games that rely on monetization through power advantages, WoW's subscription theoretically keeps gameplay fairPremium experience - Positioning itself as the "premium" MMO option with better polish and production valuesHybrid approaches they've adopted:WoW Token system - Lets players buy game time with in-game gold, effectively making it "free" for dedicated playersFree trial periods - Extended free play up to level 20 to hook new playersOccasional free weekends - Bringing back lapsed subscribersBut you're right to question this strategy because:The model is showing strain:That 50% discount you mentioned suggests they're struggling to justify full priceF2P games like Throne and Liberty can attract players who won't commit to monthly feesYounger gamers especially resist subscription modelsF2P games often make more money through microtransactions than WoW makes through subsWoW's real advantages:Brand loyalty - Many players are deeply invested after years/decadesSocial connections - Established guilds and friendships keep people payingSunk cost - Players don't want to abandon characters they've invested thousands of hours inThe subscription model may eventually become unsustainable. Many industry observers think WoW will eventually need to go F2P or adopt a more flexible payment structure to remain competitive long-term.

The answer I posted was to the follow up question which was: "How about Aces High 3?"