zlacker

>>laurex+(OP)
> Its “almost there” quality — the feeling we’re just one prompt away from the perfect solution — is what makes it so addicting. Vibe coding operates on the principle of variable-ratio reinforcement, a powerful form of operant conditioning where rewards come unpredictably. Unlike fixed rewards, this intermittent success pattern (“the code works! it’s brilliant! it just broke! wtf!”), triggers stronger dopamine responses in our brain’s reward pathways, similar to gambling behaviors.

Though I'm not a "vibe coder" myself I very much recognize this as part of the "appeal" of GenAI tools more generally. Trying to get Image Generators to do what I want has a very "gambling-like" quality to it.

>>vansch+T6
it's not like gambling, it is gambling. you exchange dollars for chips (tokens -- some casinos even call the chips tokens) and insert it into the machine in exchange for the chance of a prize.

if it doesn't work the first time you pull the lever, it might the second time, and it might not. Either way, the house wins.

It should be regulated as gambling, because it is. There's no metaphor, the only difference from a slot machine is that AI will never output cash directly, only the possibility of an output that could make money. So if you're lucky with your first gamble, it'll give you a second one to try.

Gambling all the way down.

>>dingnu+L7
So how exactly does that work for the $25/mo flat fee that I pay OpenAI for chatgpt. They want me to keep getting the wrong output and burning money on their backend without any additional payment from me?

>>squeak+sb
For the amount of money OpenAI burns that $25/mo is functionally the same as zero - they're still in the "first one is free" phase.

Though you could say the same thing about pretty much any VC funded sector in the "Growth" phase. And I probably will.

>>kimixa+Sf
Is it really gambling, if the house always loses? :-)