Agree, Peter Naur famously said programming is theory building. Code you do not understand can be considered dead code.

Great distinction! Ideally, friction occurs at the edge of your ability instead of on tedious tasks where you learn nothing, and it's more like work.

yeah, friction should be designed to be meaningful and not just feel frustrating or like a barrier. it should empower the user.

in our research, we found that an AI agent which involves the user in each step of the process (e.g. asking them to check the AI’s assumptions, or edit them directly if they’re not good) ends up being a bit slower -- i.e. more friction -- but gives the user more control. And when compared with an AI agent that provides less control but faster, users preferred the slower agent which provided more agency.

https://dl.acm.org/doi/abs/10.1145/3654777.3676345

Basically this. Not sure why people here love to doubt AI progress as it clearly makes strides

because per corps statements, AI are now top 0.1% of PhD in math, coding, physics, law, medicine etc, yet, when I try it myself for my work it makes stupid mistakes, so I have suspicion that corp very pushy on manipulating metrics/benchmarks.

I don't doubt the genuine progress in the field (from like, a research perspective) but my experience with commercial LLM products comes absolutely nowhere close to the hype.

It's reasonable to be suspicious of self aggrandizing claims from giant companies hyping a product, and it's hard not to be cynical when every forced AI interaction (be it Google search or my corporate managers or whatever) makes my day worse.

I’m sorry but you will be the first to go in this new age. LLMs today are absolutely mind blowing, along with this image stuff. Either learn to adapt or remain a boomer.

Go where mate, to Sam Altman's retirement home for UBI recipients ? I studied neural networks while you were still a "concept of a plan" in the mind of your parents and unlike you, I know how they work. As one of the early and paying adopters of the technology, it would have been great if they worked as advertised. But they don't, and the only people "to go" will be idiots who think that a technology that 1) anyone can use 2) produces un-reliable outputs.. 3)..while sounding authoritative makes them an expert. Guess what, if both you and your buddy and your entire school can spin up a website with a few prompts, how much is your "skill" worth on the market? Ever heard of demand and offering? To me looks eerily similar to how the smartphones and social networks made everyone "technologists" ;)