2013 vs 2026 in camera mods and software

[Anaconda_]

Thanks for correcting me, but please don’t cut out the ‘From my limited understanding’ caveat. 
 

But that also proves my point of not releasing my vibe code projects. And leaving releases to experts who know what they’re releasing. 

[Andrew - EOSHD]

Don't worry nothing will be worth releasing at this rate anyway, as the social media influencers would have flooded the market with magic lantern based bait for free and sucked up all the attention out the room.

Mario (NES version) on 200D has millions of views on Instagram.

Mario 64 on a camera never hacked before (R8 and R5)... Crickets.

If this has taught me a lesson, it is that the internet is no longer about merit.

[Emanuel]

AI-assisted development doesn't eliminate engineering expertise. Quite the opposite, it amplifies it : )

Reverse engineering, validation and support still take real knowledge and effort ; )

AI can speed things up, but proper testing and reliability still take time and resources.

Nothing wrong with charging for that.

EAG :- )

[Andrew - EOSHD]

Exactly it's a multiplier not a remove the human from the loop clanker.

More people should embrace it!

[brucethemoose]

Yeah. There’s just a huge lack of nuance in online discussion about this, like everything is either “AI or no AI” absolutism, mostly from people that seemingly haven’t done any development.

Social media was always doomed too. Attention optimized algorithm's don’t surface stuff by merit. But there are still corners of the internet that appreciate this stuff.

[cpc]

On 11/9/2026 at 11:35 PM, Andrew - EOSHD said:

Exactly it's a multiplier not a remove the human from the loop clanker.

More people should embrace it!

There is a pun on the statistical nature of models that goes "AI lifts a bad programmer into a mediocre programmer, and it lowers a good programmer into a mediocre programmer". The first part is definitely true, and the second is mostly there for symmetry.

With the risk of sounding like a grumpy old man, the two main issues I've noticed working almost exclusively with (much) younger tech people:

1) AI gives a false sense of having super powers. While models grow more and more capable, they still lack taste and judgement of purpose. And taste and judgement need time in any line of work, one doesn't magically acquire these by having a tireless slave worker do one's bidding. Or as that fella Hegel put it: a quality leap needs a gradual accumulation of quantity.

2) Related, and looping back into your OP. It removes incentive to deeply understand how systems work and click together. This, too, requires a lot of time, an analytical mind and a long attention span, and the skill to do this appears to go extinct in the coming generation. Somewhat paradoxically, the dwindling of another prerequisite -- natural curiosity -- seems to be amplified by the fact that solving the mystery of any question is a prompt away.

The first point probably self-resolves when the world feeds the person back a reality check at some point. The second I'm not optimistic about.

[Andrew - EOSHD]

Computing was once about a machine always waiting for the inputs from a human, in a deterministic way, it sits and waits - you enter the inputs. Coding was like this, you write all the code, you look stuff up on stack overflow and cut and paste algorithms occasionally and then with a lot of testing and iteration you get what you want after many many months.

For those whose skill was 90% this and 10% ideas its obvious they'll want to carry on the old way and that they're on the defensive about the new way. For those with 10% coding skills and 90% ideas it's working out much better.

1. You can't say "AI gives a false sense of having super powers" as a blanket statement 🙂this applies only to those who lack technical thinking, ideas, taste, purpose and so on. As a blanket statement, it falls down. It's also very easy to get out of date with your experience of the tools - they can evolve in extreme ways in a matter of weeks, as was case of Claude Opus 5.0 and 5.5, the step to 5.5 was a massive step change so all the people basing their judgement of AI's capabilities on 5.0 were out of date over night.

2. I agree it removes the need to "deeply understand how systems work and click together" but only in the details, not the broader picture. It is better at understanding how systems work and click together than most humans on this planet, at this point. What you need now is the type of brain that can take the new way and run with it rather than a mind that gets bogged down in the details or tries to duplicate what the AI is better at.

Coming from a position of ideas and imagination is great, because you don't feel on the defensive about your syntax skills and whether its better than you at your main job or not...

Ideas people don't feel threatened by it and are happier to let Claude get down to business without constantly micro managing and looking over its shoulder... or worse, looking at the code.

We have to face facts. Computing is never going back to human comprehension, writing or reading of millions of lines of code, our minds are no longer the best tool for this.

The capability of the AI to understand more complex problems than a professional programmer or even a whole team of them means you can be much more ambitious.

Between February and October in one year, I went from making a teleprompter app for the iPad, to porting Quake to the S9 and developing an NLE, and an F1 sim. My coding skills didn't change, they're still in the pre-2026 days, but my tool use did.

It has lifted me up from the muddy field and put me on the road at 200mph to finished products.

There are some like the lead dev of Magic Lantern that simply refuse to take the wins, but everyone is entitled to their own principals and beliefs.

I'd just prefer to be on that 200mph road to amazing software, than to still be stuck in the mud figuring out how to get a 1100D to write a .txt file to an SD card.