I guess I'm just lost on things not being solved to a degree. Maybe its that I'm an iOS engineer where things are so locked down as far as goals and efficiencies that AI doing the work is verifiable by running the program, setting up some pre and post verification of code, and writing tests that look for certain edge cases. To be frank, it just seems like a trust thing. I trust it to the degree I am willing to to verify it.
Seems like an odd criticism given that programming has always been about abstraction. But sure, I don’t know tree-level details (functions) but I also wasn’t doing leaf-level (bits) understanding because that became obsolete. Now I’m on forest level and expanding to eco systems.
You can always know more but at a certain point, after you’ve built enough validation and safe guards, you find it’s not the best use of your time and the things you can make beyond your specialization is quite remarkable.
Also, I think the toothpaste isn’t going back in the tube with this
idk, I develop a lot of connected systems: Pis, Macs, lights, Google speakers, custom ESP32 boards. Understanding the capabilities and communication methods to pool them together is still very much part of what I do. If you're thinking one prompt -> production via AI, sure. But I don't think we are anywhere near that because there are so many moving pieces which still require human sign off: legal, design, QA, etc. To me, it just shift ups the level of understanding rather than replaces it.
Given that LLMs are non-static and can be honed, why isn't it seen as value that you pass your theory-of-mind to the the LLM so that it can present information that is the most effective for your ability to learn?
That's the same thing. Your filter is the quality of composition such that if it doesn't meet your expectations, the message is not worth knowing. My point is that the message, the idea, can still be worth communicating and not accepting it based on the writing is dismissive.
Nothing wrong with having preferences, dismissing people outright based on them is problematic if you're rejecting the ideas because of the medium and method shared.
I think the core functionality of human cooperation boils down to getting ideas from one mind to another or many. In that, I think AI is a boon for people with limiting abilities such as learning disabilities, low language fluency, or generally poor writing skills. It evens the playing field for new and interesting ideas to spread. I can't help feeling, sometimes, this is about people who excelled at something demanding they still have their place at the top. High literacy such that you can discern LLM Voice is quite an accomplishment but blanket dismissal reeks of privilege.
That being said. Yes, I hate some LLM Voice moments too and still sometimes judge people for copy and pasting, expecting others to do the comprehension when it seems they haven't done it themselves.
Maybe. I've been able to spin off crash fixes, CI/CD improvements, and even demoing my personal projects as AI exploration. So my visibility is at an all time high.
I really don't understand some of the comments here. I've honestly been automating so much of my work that I spend most of my days working on personal projects and checking in on what's being done on my behalf by AI. This, of course, after spending a few weeks setting up validation tools so I can trust the output.
As a life long and continuous Apple user (and iOS SWE), I recently got a $150 Samsung Android tablet that I can use as a claude interface. It can take in voice commands, and create new builds of itself on a network Mac. So I can essentially have whatever screen or interface I want for any given moment. Right now I'm tuning my motorcycle with an OBD bluetooth device and recording engine behavior on rides.
I find that fascinating because I was able to get Claude to jailbreak my Kindles and add them to my tech ecosystem at home. I also was able to get it to use jailbreaking hacks on my Spotify car thing and implement some alternative ways for my raspberry pi to drive it.
The feeling and indifference mixed with joy for causing suffering. Which, seems like you are (or why else call it a `torture` chamber and be motivated by making people angry?).
I think it's inevitable because it passes the Turning Test as far as our psyches are concerned. It interacts in a way that can influence us like another person. Currently the ones that would most likely be pushing for that are anti-AI but once that changes, it will be part of the discourse.
I've been a Swift/Obj-C engineer for my whole 15 year career. I now have all these odd jobs I have going on Raspberry Pis around my house that LLMs have written in Python. I'm now having them convert some of them to Rust and I am astonished on how fewer resources are used.
I'd assume it pulls at the very human desire to do less so you can spend your time as you want. Collectively, we are really good at making systems we don't understand and still have to exist in this world: Laws, taxes, internet check outs, etc. This is trying to flatten the curve between desire and result for things someone genuinely doesn't want to or doesn't have the time to become an expert in.
I worked for twitter and there was a guy like this. I made a big stink that "yo, everything this guy says just needs to be in a linter" and they actually implemented it.
I'll put it this way, my argument was pro native. And in the context of the article, if a large company had unlimited resources, they would choose native. I'm not discussing the business case for it, but the end result of it being the better option. It can be seen as "Shopify tried Reactive Native and left it behind the second they could after sinking resources into it for 6 years".
Challenge not accepted but deferred to the article where one of the largest business wants to sit at the intersection of native apis without a a middle layer for the sake of saving money. Put another way, given unlimited resources, native wins out over shared.
Not sure why you are defining my vindication. Its purely rooted in native is the better solution for mobile apps. Which they are using. Not sure how that makes it the opposite.