galaxyLogic

What is often overlooked is that we are not trying to just produce programs, we are trying to produce "systems", which means systems where computers and humans interact beneficially.

In the early days of computers, "System Analyst" was a very cool job-description. I think it will make a comeback with AI.

I was not aware of that. WHo has that duty and when do they have it?

:-)

" ...accidentally shipping your source map to npm is the kind of mistake that sounds impossible until you remember that a significant portion of the codebase was probably written by the AI you are shipping.”

When you're thinking you are speaking in your mind which means you can not really listen to yourself at that same time. You don't hear yourself from yourself. You are too busy talking (in your head to yourself) that you can not really think about what you just said to yourself. You are producing language, not consuming it

But when you read what you have written, you can pause reading and do some thinking about what you just read. That makes it easier to understand what you are saying, and more easily see logical errors or omissions in it.

"Great question! I can see you're working with a loop. Let me take a look at that. That's a thoughtful piece of code! However,"

And they are charging for every word! However there's also another cost, the congnitive load. I have to read through the above before I actually get to the information I was asking for. Sure many people appreciate the sycophancy it makes us all feel good. But for me sycophantic responses reduce the credibility of the answers. It feels like Claude just wants me to feel good, whether I or it is right or wrong.

I think we are already in the stage where AI can and does improve itself. But why should this stage be called "Singularity"? Like a Black Hole? That sounds like hype to me.

When AI can improve itself, wouldn't it still be able to explain to us how it has improved itself? If it can not it still has a lot of improvement to do.

Or are we saying that some things are "unexplainable" and AI will discover such things without being able to explain to us what they are? That sounds like mysticism, or hype to me. Or religion. We can not explain God, right?

Wittgenstein said "From what we can not speak of, we must be silent about". That sounds like a tautology but I think there is a deeper meaning behind it.

It means simply that once you start talking about what we can not talk about, you are already talking about that and therefore it is NOT something you can NOT talk about. Clearly we can talk about it because we are already talking about it. And therefore it is not something that can not be talked about. That is a paradox, a bit like Godel's, but something that doesn't contradict itself.

Society as a whole will be better off because there is more output, better quality output. Then it's for us to vote in a government that shares the fruits of AI with everybody, by way of progressive taxation. Government, use the taxes you collect to give us free food. We don't need 5-star restaurants, just healthy food. We can do this, in a democracy.

For instance my boss couldn't call me while I'm out and about. What you expect me to carry my landline with me?

return 0,

x;

I find this a mildly amusing discovery for myself because it took me a long time to figure out a useful use for the comma-operator.

There are limits to what even AI can do to code, within practical time-limits. Using AI also costs money. So, easier it is to maintain and evolve a piece of software, the cheaper it will be to the owners of that application.

But then I also wonder if this attitude "Why should I waste time thanking it?" will also spread to human-human interactions?

AI, and different AIs, give different answers to the same question, so it may be useful if you can provide a good summary of the different responses you got.

That, would give the responder the chance to modify the prompt and get a perhaps better answer from the LLM?

I guess my question is does Tidewawe only work with a fixed set of known "frameworks" like React and Next, or is it a more general purpose tool for analysing an app based on its source-code and the HTML it produces for the browser?

And when you make the decisions it is you who is responsible for them. Whereas if you just do the coding the decisions about the code are left largely to you nobody much sees them, only how they affect the outcome. Whereas now the LLM is in that role, responsible only for what the code does not how it does it.

Should we protect developers and their rights? Surely, and users' rights too definitely. But protecting source-code as such seems a bit abstract to me.