Yes? It's a back and forth discussion, where the model's output (that is much more pluridisciplinary than Terrance will ever be and therefore benefits from the common knowledge of not just an entire field, but thousands of fields over thousands of cultures) actively drives his responses and verifications. Literally, the entire set of messages is "you said X. Does that therefore entail Y in what you said ?". Terrance being an expert knows how to drive the conversation in angles which he explored, but it remains that the bulk of the work is done by Claude.
If I keep asking clarifying questions to Albert Einstein, that doesn't make me the inventor of relativistic physics, no matter how much I know about the subject.
I'm not contradicting OP's expertise on the subject: they seem to at the very least know what they're talking about. But saying "I" did this when all you did is prompt the funny slot machine and approximately none of the code is reviewed (6 commits per day, each being 50+ files on average is not something you have reviewed or understood.) is lying to others and to yourself.
I couldn't build this even with Claude Mythos, I have no freaking clue what this stuff is, and I'm a full time software developer that understands performance optimization and even has used SketchUp a lot.
I'm telling you, I simply couldn't do it. Unless the prompt is "copy every single feature in AutoDesk Fusion 360" and sit back, and even then, I wouldn't even know where to start with testing it, knowing whether it works properly, and whether the various tools are useful, performant, etc.
Let's not assume that the code is the most important part, it's important, but domain knowledge is still very important.
Yes for some reason people are really bad at being honest. For that reason all my AGENT.MD files instruct the AI to write a disclaimer at the end what kind of involvement I had and how much the AI did.
Most of the documents have something like this at the bottom:
"Primarily written by AI based on human design discussions."
And I don't feel ashamed to let the AI do the writing because the output is reasonably good because I let it generate a TOC then I rework the TOC by hand, then for each TOC chapter I just have a discussion giving it the information and then I let it generate the text. I didn't even directly tell it what to write about. Instead there is a loose discussion that contains all the needed information to convey.
So it is really silly to then slap your own name on the final end product and claim you did all of it, even if it took weeks of prompting to finish the document.
This is absolutely horrible advice. If you do this you will over time experience worse health care.
Documentation errors have always been an issue. They were when there were paper charts, or human transcriptionists, or when manually typing into the EMR, or when using speech recognition (which is AI/ML!) to do the typing for you.
Not all e-scribes use LLMs, but most of them do rely on ambient audio recordings for speech recognition, which nowadays runs entirely locally. That text then needs to be processed into your clinical documentation, and there are tons of ways to do that (including LLM processing).
The author has obviously never talked to clinicians or hospital administrators about the challenges of maintaining clinical documentation, and knows little to nothing about the reality of software that runs in clinical contexts.
In aviation there's a saying, "Aviate, Navigate, Communicate" which describes the hierarchy of things to pay attention to while piloting an aircraft.
Autopilot can be thought of better as "auto-aviate". That is to say, if there is already a navigation plan, the aircraft can follow that plan. Simple autopilots just keep the wings level, others can hold an altitude and change heading. More sophisticated ones can change altitude or even fully land the plane.
All of those things, however, require people to manage the "Navigate" part. "Aviate" is a deterministically solved problem, at least in normal flight operations. As you point out we trust autopilots today, including on (nearly) every single commercial flight.
LLMs are a poor alternative to "aviate", but they could be part of a better flight management automation package. The parent article tries to use the LLM to aviate, with predictable results.
If paired with a capable auto-pilot (not the relatively basic one on that C-172), the LLM could figure out how to operate the FMS and take you from post take-off to final approach and aid in situational awareness.
Currently, I don't think there is a commercial solution for GA aircraft that could say, "Ok, I'm 20NM from KVNY, but there are three people ahead of me in the pattern, so I have to do a right 360 before descending and joining downwind on 34L".
Having an LLM propose that course of action and tell the autopilot to execute on it definitely would be an improvement to GA safety.
I don't think it's an easy problem to solve at all, that's why I quipped about making it an interview problem. :) In an interview, I'm just interested in hearing people talk through trying to solve difficult problems. Getting to a solution is incidental. And it's way more fun when I don't know of a go-to solution, either.
Not to be contrarian, but if you cared, you could easily rule out your suspicions.
It's not even worth it to say why or how, since not even doing rudimentary research means that you aren't interested in developing a well-informed opinion.
>> Not to be contrarian, but if you cared, you could easily rule out your suspicions.
That's just false. You might try to rule it out yourself to see. My comments here and the responses demonstrate that it's a waste of time to argue against people in the purity cycle of global warming. My position is one of moderation not denial - and I'm downvoted, told I don't care, and I haven't done even the minimum of research. Pffft. HN is not what it used to be.
You are being down-voted not because of some imaginary "purity cycle", but because you discard without reasoning a vast amount of evidence to the contrary of your hypothesis.
You've heard of the saying that extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence? Holding a hypothesis of water-vapor from air travel being the primary driver of warming trends is extraordinary.
Invoking the oft-repeated "do your own research" rhetorical crutch and referring to scientific consensus as "hype" doesn't help your case.
Mid-day sun in a clear sky is very white, in the 5k-6k color temperature range. It's hard to get a sense of how white it is because of how bright it is. In fact, the color temperature on the surface can be even higher than in outer-space!
Compare this to a "warm" light bulb, which is around 2.5K. Sunrise/sunset is also around that range.
Perhaps the "warm color" sun mindset comes from the only times that people can look directly at it. That is to say, around sunrise or sunset.
Would you tell Terrance Tao that they didn't produce [this conversation](https://chatgpt.com/share/6a5fdc7a-d6f8-83e8-bbea-8deb42cfed...), the model did?