temp00345

I read such articles more or less every day. This article would be 100% correct if it came out 1 year ago, 75% correct 9 months ago, 50% correct 3 months ago and it's probably 25% correct now if not less.

I totally understand where this is coming from. I too am struggling with accepting that my 30+ years of programming experience is quickly becoming obsolete. I'm losing sleep about this, it's tough.

But just go ahead and give the latest models (Opus 5.5 / Astra 6 as of today) another try. See what they are capable of and read the code which they produce. Any problem area, low level C++ or high level Typescript or Clojure or a weird combination of these..

Don't be shy, give them a big task, let them build an entire app, UI and all..

Now compare the output to Opus 4 or gpt-5 from 1 year ago - when they couldn't put together a single function without it being weird and buggy.

This is exactly my problem, not that the models are very good already, but how fast they got so good. So if coding is not solved yet, it'll get there very soon.

> The law of supply and demand is like the Newton's laws of physics, it works.

Adam Smith was not aware of advertising. Suppliers can fabricate demand to manipulate the price. It's not a law, it's an assumption about human psychology and a wrong one.

In the case of Barcelona, supply is limited due to the geography of the area (sea/mountain) and the inner city is already extremely dense.

Don't get discouraged too soon. There's still a long way to go until we reach 'models do everything and make everyone irrelevant'.

Yes, there will eventually be just one application which can 'do everything', but somebody has to build that.

Humans must still review the generated code and figure out the 'business logic' - eg. what they (humans) want from the app, even though the code typing will be largely automated.

Also, for the AI to develop to those levels, society and the economy as a whole needs to keep being relatively stable, which is not guaranteed, given challenges like political instability, possibility of war, climate..

But yeah, things are changing fast for us devs (and many more professions out there), AI makes solving problems easier and cheaper, so demand for problem solvers will inevitably go down. On the bright side, those same people who are not in demand also have access to these tools, so they can use it to create their own thing with less effort.

As for getting old, yeah, I think about this more than I used to.

I dedicate a big amount of time to staying in shape and doing physical activities, going into nature, using my body.

I feel like I've wasted decades of beauty while typing all that code and not being in nature.

I like how the images seem to go towards magical, mystical and psychedelic with more iterations. Mushrooms just start appearing out of the blue..

How about layers of LLMs which gradually process the input data before turning it into commands with side effects ?

Text -> Layer1 (IL) -> Layer2 (validator) -> ... -> LayerN (execution).

Eg. The external text is fed into a LLM that doesn't have access to any tools. The layer is instructed to produce intermediary output, which is then fed to the second layer.

Second layer also without tools, instructed to further validate the output of the first layer and produce structured output for the third (or nth) layer.

The third (or nth) layer has access to tools and ability to perform side effects.

> I genuinely believe that C++ is just a toxic wasteland of time. It's not even that productive, fun to work with or secure. I would take C, Rust, Golang, Python anywhere, anytime.

Please reconsider bashing it that much, if not out of respect for the people who use this tool daily, then out of the observation that the program you used to write this message was probably written in or uses libraries written in C++.

It's a powerful tool and has been used to create amazing things in competent hands, so maybe its flaws, that we like to bash so much, are a great thing - it's what drove people to create all this other languages that we love to experiment with.

Funny how in making this prediction, the author of gmail seems to forget that google also has.. gmail and a gazillion other products which bring in revenue.

ChatGPT can't find videos or images or company home pages or the tax office website or the electrical utilities, etc.

It could, but that would turn it into a search engine and I think it's reasonable to assume that Google would come up with its own version of ChatGPT sooner than OpenAI would build a search engine.

Personally, I don't want to waste my energy reading generated text.

At the core of it, people write in order to transmit some deeply distilled messages about life. It is about sharing the experience of being alive, either as advice or warning about what might happen or will inevitably happen to us. The love, the pain, the emotions, the fear of death, the acceptance - good writing is where we read these things in between the lines, where we feel and empathize with the author and as a result gain some deeper insight which helps us adapt to the ever changing circumstances around us.

There's a lot more encoded in that text than just semantic meaning of words or phrases. Not that all human writers have the 'talent' to encode more than that, but the ones who do manage to shift something inside us.

As of right now, I can feel that a text was generated. Same with images - and with sound. I can't exactly explain it, but it's the same kind of 'plastic' feeling and it's similar regardless of the form (text, image, sound).

I'd really like us to be able to keep this edge over the algorithms, but this might be impossible in the long run.

It's writing correct Clojure code and Clojurescript components, it's producing the CSS and the SQL migrations and it has context of what it is working on, so you can just say "repeat the same CSS but use a green tint".

I'm amazed.

However you turn it around, you are the Universe experiencing itself subjectively. That's easy to understand without any drugs.

Having felt that during your trip might have led you to the wrong conclusion that your social life will somehow magically be improved by this knowledge alone. It could be, but not without a lot of good old work and effort. Even after all of that, there's no guarantee that you'll get what you want and won't get what you don't want.

A lot of people waste their lives with or without the drugs, so maybe it wasn't just this substance that led to those setbacks.

I'm curious about several things:

- does this process require expensive equipment ?

- I assume you can apply this process to other cells/substances - cocoa ? coca ? tobacco ? oranges ? potatoes ?

- if equipment became cheaper, could we envision people having a device for cellular agriculture at home?

It would be easier if they just addressed the 6 candidates in the world that fit these requirements by their names.

Hey John, Jack, Matt, etc.. would you like to join us ?

Well, engineers created the.. engines, which burn the fossil fuels and that led to climate change, no ?

There's a simple rule I use: -> is for maps and ->> is for collections.

Functions that take a map should take it as first argument, functions that take collections should take the collection as last argument. This is how the clojure core functions work, eg. -> `assoc`, `conj`, `dissoc` vs ->> `map`, `filter`, `reduce`, `some`.

If you follow this rule in your code, threading is nice and looks good. If you want to force different argument position, use a lambda, like so (->> coll (#(my-fn %))).

However, I recommend against it. Use a binding and then use the other threading macro if necessary.

If 'cars' as means of transportation are analogous to bitcoin as currency, then the car would cost a fortune and you'd keep it in the garage, while driving around on a horse.

Amazing accomplishment !

Not to detract from the technical breakthrough, but won't this be a major gift to virus writers ?