I am yet to hear about painting factories or teams of painters creating complex paintings. It's a great hobby, just like coding will soon be. There are a few fantastic painters, and there will be a few fantastic software engineers, I guess.
TomTom isn't OSM, they just use OSM as one input among many into their mapping model. OSM has significant limitations as a standalone mapping model but many companies find it useful for augmenting more sophisticated mapping models.
I didn't say it was "everything", whatever that even means, nor do I have any fucking clue what you're talking about with Russian gas, so I have literally no idea what argument you're even responding to. The article claims that technology does not lead to growth in human production or consumption:
> technology is not meaningfully expanding the total amount humans consume
This is clearly, unequivocally false, considering we went from a population of 1.5 billion people to 8 billion people off of advances in farming technology, over a span of barely 100 years. It makes the stupid claim "There are real biological and physical reasons for this ceiling. You can only eat so much.", while missing the fact that 8 billion humans, do, in fact, eat more than 1.5 billion, and we achieve producing a mind-boggling amount of food without 90% of the population being farmers to boot, thanks to technology. Not to mention Americans are on a mission to challenge the biological impossibility that "you can only eat so much", given obesity rate was 40% and rising until they got the idea to solve the problem with drugs. Hundreds of years ago, being obese was itself a sign of wealth, but technological advances made it a privilege of even the relatively poor. Even if there were consumption limits, technological increases in production capacity lower the cost of consumption and lower the amount of people who have to labour to produce that consumption, allowing them to produce other things instead or simply work less. This is such a monumentally stupid argument that it is completely wrong about everything it supposes from five different angles.
Same with this:
> Consumer spending as a share of US GDP moved from roughly 61% in 1980 to about 68% today
What the fuck does this even mean? US GDP, as imperfect as a measure as it is, went from $3 trillion ($12t adjusted for inflation) in 1980 to $27 trillion in 2025. In other words, the estimate of human productivity in the US has doubled in that timespan. Does the LLM that spat this out expect the percentage of consumer spending to double from 61% to 122%? It's a fucking percentage, even if it remained the same 61% of 27 trillion is more than double 61% of 12 trillion.
I deeply regret the time I wasted reading this mind-numbingly stupid article that was generated in 3 seconds, the time I spent bothering to point out how stupid it is, and the time I spent trying to parse your incoherent reply that seems to be a complete non-sequitur to anything the article or I said.
Couldn't agree more. Growing up in a civil war certainly did not raise my chances of getting a job at a good company. Of which there are none, so it's fine.
I don't think that reviewing code is so important as reviewing results. Nobody is reviewing the IL or assembly code when they write in higher level languages. It's the end result that matters in most cases.
But we don't evolve IL or assembly code as the system evolves. We regenerate it from scratch every time.
It is therefore not important whether some intermediate version of that low-level code was completely impossible to understand.
It is not so with LLM-written high-level code. More often than not, it does need to be understood and maintained by someone or something.
These days, I mainly focus on two things in LLM code reviews:
1. Making sure unit tests have good coverage of expected behaviours.
2. Making sure the model is making sound architectural decisions, to avoid accumulating tech debt that'll need to be paid back later. It's very hard to check this with unit tests.
We get stuck reviewing the output assembly when it's broken, and that does happen from time to time. The reason that doesn't happen often is that generation of assembly follows strict rules, which people have tried their best to test. That's not the behavior we're going to get out of a LLM.
Yes, prompts aren't analogous to higher-level code, they're analogous to wizards or something like that which were always rightly viewed with suspicion.
reply