Most of my recent interviews have been mostly people telling me that I am an idiot because I can't leetcode proficiently enough, so those jobs going away doesn't really effect me and at the same time makes sense. LLMs should be good with the leetcode classics that are the basis for rating software development productivity.
There are ways to advance rapidly without causing problems for large numbers of people. LLMs are being forced everywhere and the result is a mess. Being serious about a promising new technology usually means going slow and emphasizing what tools and practices work for particular contexts. Instead we are all being told to use the latest because we will be left behind. It doesn't make sense to be slinging slop everywhere and then complain about journalism and public discourse because that is an option that was rejected.
Currently I am working on a code base that is rapidly evolving for customer fit and is hoped to be around for a while. Going over recent decisions about what abstractions to focus on and what to cut it really seems like LLM tools would have been a waste for any aspect of this work. This is not a situation where some existing process needs to be encoded, and every choice about naming and structure ends up making a big difference as changes trigger refactors.
And this piece focuses on the early adopter point of view. Sure there were problems at first, but then whatsit tool thing version whatever came out and now roses are growing out of the rocks. For a large fraction of what is done with coding that makes sense, but there should always be attention to the rough parts and the gap that forms where capabilities fall off. Even a small amount of modesty can go a long way, but the conversation keeps starting off from every developer, all development, the change is now or else, and I for one am not buying that, especially not with actual money which is what these services will be charging soon in order to pay their trillion dollar debt service.
This actually showed up in the first run, agents that invest more energy into offspring vs ones that fork cheap and fast.
the ones that survived population crashes were the ones passing down leaner, better-inherited brains. Cheap forking works when there's plenty of energy around, falls apart in famine.
Just imagine if this move cascaded out of control and it ended up being the Trump administration that got blamed for pricking the AI bubble. This could become one of the most expensive power grabs in all of history.
I might be misreading your comment so that being said:
If you wear a body cam because you feel threatened, hopefully you tell others that you're potentially recording them. The other catch is that the smart glasses do more than simply record video such as facial recognition and so on. Often these are things that have privacy ramifications that neither the wearer or the observer know exactly.
Do you misunderstand the risks or just accept them personally?
The issue is usually that you are imposing the risks onto others without consent. I did not sign the terms and conditions of your cloud providers data collection.
You can be recorded in public, it is not a forgone conclusion that everyone can be run through data capture systems without their consent, society is still working through that. We can still decide on a more fair outcome.
There seems to be a great variance here. Maine, for example, has been making available computers and educational assets and as a result some prisoners have become quite technologically adept and left prison as skilled technologists.
That is some nasty garbage right there. The Israeli tech startup scene is very large and dynamic with including basic software development tools, wireless infrastructure, and so on. If anything it is more like 90% either consumer infrastructure or non-LLM developer tools. Whether it is politically advantageous to talk about or not, a very large fraction of all economic activity is still down the chain near the child needs bowl of rice level. Grandiose claims without support only obfuscate the situation instead of focusing on what needs to be done to protect people.
reply