> But also, there still is a ton of programming that is fundamentally difficult. That's not going anywhere either. And LLMs are useful there too, but they're currently nowhere near replacing the expertise needed to do novel and non-trivial technical work.
Genuine question and not trying to be snarky here, I am actually curious: what fields or types of programming does this apply too? I think I've read anecdotes online about people in fields I previously (a few years ago lol) thought "oh yea an llm will never be able to help with that" and now see articles about how llm's are doing just that.
Why would it not matter? Maybe it doesn't matter to you that you have to spend your life doing brainless miserable work, but a lot of people don't like or want that.
Just because "a lot of people experience x awful thing" doesn't mean "it doesn't matter that programming is now x awful thing because a lot of people experience that". That makes no sense.
Yup this was super weird to me. There are other equally likely "world ending" things that they chose to ignore of nuclear, such as bio-weapons. Very strange list..
This is so interesting to me... Maybe it's because I grew up after (most of) the heavy anti-communist propaganda in the US, but the last thing I think of when I hear "communism" is "prosperity in large amount of people".
I grew up playing diablo II and super smash bros (super nintendo before that!). While I don't have as much time for it these days, gaming couldn't be farther from dead, IMO. There are incredible games and worlds being created both from AAA and indie studios alike.
So you think it’s a potentially existential threat but are bothered by people who maybe want to suppress it… Hopefully you acknowledge there is a bit of lack of self awareness here eh?
Hmm I might be completely missing something here (I’m not a machine learning person), but how is that “pro-active”? The mode is still taking in an input (or several inputs maybe in this case) and responding to that input, isn’t it? It doesn’t seem much different than current capabilities of the various agentic harnesses on the market right now. Again, apologies if I’m missing something obvious here…
I agree with most of the 'llm's are bad' section. However, I find it extremely hard to believe that llm's will make peoples thoughts sharper and faster. There have already been several studies published demonstrating the obvious. Not hard to imagine that long term, the negative cognitive effects of using llm's constantly will compound and be even worse.
I might be missing something but what exactly is being projected here? The US did what the author said. It's not farfetched to imagine geopolitical conflicts could, at some point, drive china to do something similar.
> all the frontier models from China are free to download
Maybe? Again, not hard to imagine that they might not be releasing their actual frontier models to the public.
I mean there are ads in certain chatGPT plans. There have already been multiple studies showing that regular use of genAI makes you less intelligent...
Additionally, it's pretty clear that the owners of this tech (dario, altman, etc..) do not have the best interest of "the people" at heart and only care about accumulating as much power and wealth possible. Not that it's their responsibility to save humanity or something, but I'm not sure this future is much better...
Someone could make the best agentic coding harness in the world and still have a hard time with the drastic changes that are happening in their profession. The two aren't mutually exclusive.
I don't think that's the point. The point is that if you outsource thinking to a machine, you will lose your ability to think and reason on your own, and overtime become a worse engineer. Maybe the software ai writes will be fine, idk... But eventually, you will be an objectively worse engineer than someone that doesn't need a machine to think and write for them.
Okay so circa 2011 it was powering some labs. Don't think there are many/any frontier labs in 2026 running ps3's, or at least no one has provided any evidence of that still..
Genuine question/not a critique-are you actually reviewing all that code or just sending it and hoping for the best? I just can't imagine someone is reading/reviewing that much code every day, but maybe I'm wrong?
I still just explicitly approve all actions and review all code (unless it's a personal/throwaway project no one else will ever touch/use/see). I know a lot of people that run in a sandbox though. That said, I'm sure there are lots of people that just yolo it and hope for the best.
What exactly is the car equivalent in this analogy? Codeberg is not a car if you're saying GitHub is the horse. Just doesn't really make sense to compare the two like that...