The community portion that unironically think AI is good enough now, are mostly managers and non/semi-technical people, and engineers who do not engage in critical or complex problems. HN has always been too much of the velocity-alignment-synergy class of professional talkers; it's just so much more obvious now that they feel emboldened in false confidence.
I've been paying attention to that line of division and came to the same conclusion. We're seeing the "tiers" diverge as AI becomes more capable. As the saying goes, you don't know what you don't know.
Ah yes, the good old No True Scotsman fallacy, where we smugly proclaim that anyone who thinks AI is good now must be working on unimportant and easy things.
There's some of that, but more often it's developers whose arguments are a year behind the frontier models or, just as common, they're dramatically overstating their abilities.
It's an inherent tension that every discipline has to wrestle with. The most experienced developers are in the best position to evaluate where LLMs are, but those who are the loudest about their own abilities generally aren't in this camp. Humility tends to come with experience, and arrogance tends to come with inexperience.
It's just cope. I'm so close to just never coming back to HN because the quality of thought has just gone through the floor. Anything whatsoever to hedge one's way to fellating a phallusless chatbot
Incredibly impressive how, the moment AI becomes the topic of conversation, trivial things such as speaking in relative terms become incredibly difficult for the more addled of the prompting users.
Why must so much gumflapping involve the spew of any words but those which encourage not using the clear problem tool more.
"the question becomes how teams will manage cognitive debt" the question is why it is allowed to occur when it is avoidable. Farcical nonsense. Write the code yourself or be silent.
Why is it always so consistently a comparison to a technology of a fundamentally different order? Perhaps what has been lost is the ability to recognise distinct and incommensurable categories.
You aren't thinking myopically; it's a fundamental contradiction the root of which is in how human brains take in and understand new information. No amount of pontification or bollocks hedging as this and all other "thinkpieces" on this issue do, will change that. It is beyond preference and perspective. There is only doing the very task that produces skills pertaining to that task. Prompting alone or even in dominant is too far from this task. They can only write the code.
If sufficient numbers of the population perceive to have lost their livelihoods due to AI, then I'd expect to see data centers burned to the ground and a lot of people swinging from lamp posts. Jury nullification solves the rest, but even that that assumes you can even find an impartial jury.
On a creative level, I remember McCarthy describing scalped heads as like wet polyps blue in the moonlight. The more generic ways of describing something like that would never give me such a visceral reaction to the violence he was trying to tell me something about.
I already lose interest reading books where the phrases are recycled and the max sentencelength for the whole book grazes 40.
If people communicate to me without personality through prompt wastrelry I'll discount theirs and wait till they're willing to actually have an opinion. In this specific context style and substance tend to come in a pair or not at all. If you can't beat 'em you can at least filter 'em out.
reply