Because the pyramids, the theory of general relativity and the Linux kernel are all totally comparable to ChatGPT output. /s
Why is anybody still surprised that the AI bubble made it that big?
Why is anybody still surprised that the AI bubble made it that big?
If Einstein came up with relativity by standing on "the religious non-sense and superstitions of the medieval ages," you'd have a point.
- (1) A lot of developing can be just chores around managing scaffolds and repeatable work, and due to this macros, autogenerated code and other tools have been a thing at many layers for a long time; and
- (2) I remember copy-pasting from Google/StackOverflow (i.e. mostly search + pattern matching with some minimal reasoning) being criticized as a low-effort mode of development during the 2010s, before ChatGPT and AI assisted coding tools took over that part.
So yes, I'd argue a huge amount of software development problems can be solved without ever actually reasoning from first principles, AI tools just made that more visible.
They have so many ways of saying "God" without saying God.
You might be missing the point of science.
It's ultimately an endeavor of finding testable descriptions of the world in the face of being fallible. It's not about the "why". It's about "how" the world is. No faith required. "Why" the world is is a philosophical question and perhaps a religious one. But that has nothing to do with testable theories.
Any scientific theory gains credibility by providing ways to test it. Each such experiment that fails to disprove the theory increases confidence in the theory's validity. There is no faith required for any of that and no god either. If you can predict that conditions A and B lead to C happening, and I can try it and see that indeed C is happening, then you have science going on, without any faith.
Scientists only do safe experiments that will 100% verify the findings they are paid to attain.
Nobody will do peers review of whatever study unless its controversial- in which case they will come out of the woodwork to "discover" how correct/not THAT wrong their peers were/are still.
It is nonsense that we consider what comes from such a system to be "knowledge" - Modern science is many things, faithless science validating experimental theory -> that is not a real thing.