This very much depends on the place and the level of maturity in how you share the negativity. Good managers will try to understand and help you, that's a large part of their job.
Also, if you are a high performer then being an attrition risk isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's in the companies best interest to try keep people who are important.
I entered a prompt, was then asked to sign in, signed in using Google, then had to choose a completely different prompt which I couldn't scroll through on mobile, for it to tell me I have no credits. I then opened a tab to Gemini and entered my prompt to get an image for free.
Thank you very much for trying the product and for pointing out the issues with the website. As a token of our appreciation, I have credited a certain amount of coins to the accounts of all trial users, including yours.
You’re welcome to come back and try it again anytime.
This is exactly the point OP is making, fans of pure stealth games don’t want you to be able to muscle your way through, that cheapens the experience.
It doesn’t matter that you think you only have time to mindlessly mash buttons, and it’s not about being realistic, it’s about a game doing one thing very well and not making it optional, it’s a particular type of puzzle to figure out.
> fans of pure stealth games don’t want you to be able to muscle your way through
Those fans don't want me to be able to muscle through, or don't want themselves to be able? The former is questionable logic at best so I'll assume the latter. The fan of stealth who plays a game that gives them the option to muscle through and chooses to muscle through is responsible for their choice. Don't blame games for giving you a choice, especially when they usually support and motivate one style or another with achievements, specialization trees, or meaningful choice-based narrative.
Stealth fans aren't upset the game gives them the option of violence, as most stealth games involve quite a bit of killing and disabling. So this is a pretentious distinction and arbitrary line coming from a very small but vocal minority, like complaining you can lower the difficulty in a game.
> It doesn’t matter that you think
See this here? This is the problem. You insist that it doesn't matter what I think in the same breath as telling me it matters what you think. The market is telling us both which opinion mattered. People overwhelmingly chose the games that are fun and give freedom of choice, not the ones that "do one thing very well". There's room for these too but there's a reason they're not super popular or common.
Perhaps this is regional? I would identify this Friday as the 15th, and next Friday as the 22nd. Next Friday always means the Friday after the next one, which I notice is insane as a matter of logic, but is the local usage I am familiar with.
I think I hold a similar view to you and have the same question so maybe what I’ve been thinking about might be useful to you. Everyone is upset about CSAM but when you talk about it, it’s only about deepfakes.
I don’t think we can avoid a world where people can generate CSAM easily, so we have to separate the discussion between being able to do that privately and grok being able to do it.
It makes sense to me that we don’t want widely used websites to contain images of CSAM that you can’t easily avoid, it’s simply repulsive to almost everyone and that’s almost certainly a human instinct, I don’t think it needs to be much more complicated than that.
In terms of generating CSAM privately or even sharing it with other people, I think this is a much more interesting discussion. I think at this point it is an open question on whether it is harmful. Could this replace the abuse that is happening to create some of the real content? Does the escalation argument hold water - will people be more likely to sexually assault children due to access to this material? I don’t think we know enough about pedophilia to answer these questions but given that I don’t think there is a way to stop generating this content in 2026 we really need to answer these questions before we decide to simply incarcerate everyone doing it.
Is that a useful thought experiment? Claude benefits you as an individual more than a coworker, but I find I hard to believe your use of Claude is more of a value add to the business than an additional coworker. Especially since that coworker will also have access to Claude.
In the past we also just raised the floor on productivity, do you think this will be different?
No that’s not true at all. Humans can deal with ambiguity and operate independently. Claude can’t do that. You’re trading one “problem” for an entirely different one in this hypothetical.
Isn't that what polishing 'the prompt' does? Refine the communication like an editor does for a publication? Only in this case it's instructions for how to get a transformer to mine an existing set of code to produce some sort of vaguely useful output.
The human factor adds knowledge of the why that refines the results. Not just any algorithm or a standard pattern that fits, but the correct solution for the correct question.
people talking as if communication overhead is bad. That overhead makes someone else able to substitute for you (or other one) when needs happen, and sometimes can discover concerns earlier.
So what happens if this wins after a very low number of plays? What if it won twice in a row? Would the plays be reset because it isn't representative anymore? Or should it be left up to give a different message?
Also, if you are a high performer then being an attrition risk isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's in the companies best interest to try keep people who are important.
reply