Or perhaps code becomes just another disposable artifact just like compiler-generated machine code, so understanding or maintaining it will be unnecessary.
> perhaps code becomes just another disposable artifact just like compiler-generated machine code, so understanding or maintaining it will be unnecessary.
The compiler development teams make sure that the output of the compiler is correct according to the source code input, preserving semantics and issuing errors for incorrect statements.
LLM is kind of a nondeterministic compiler. You'll want to test the hell out of the resulting code, not only to catch flaws in the prompt but also those introduced by the LLM. I'm bearish on programming but extremely bullish on testing (disclaimer: I'm a programmer).
> You'll want to test the hell out of the resulting code, not only to catch flaws in the prompt but also those introduced by the LLM.
Imagine worrying about gcc or the python interpreter that much. No wonder they use the label "reverse centaur" for LLM usage. You must think carefully before coming up with a prompt, then review the code carefully for correctness. Double the stress for no reason. Or is it just going with the vibes and slinging slop?
I believe that is true, but more of it is still a liability. Good code tends to be simple. Bad code tends to be verbose, and verbose code tends to be bad. As someone who has been extremely prolific both before and after AI in terms of output, and who monitors the output of LLMs (including anthropic’s best models) I know that they are usually generating a bunch of junk. It will do what you ask but it’s largely terrible. Yes, you can mitigate that with a bunch of adversarial agents, but it’s still not great. Every line of code can potentially be a security hole or cause other problems.
It's clearly untrue that "everyone thought they were good". Even David Ben-Gurion knew what's up: "Why should the Arabs make peace? If I was an Arab leader I would never make terms with Israel. That is natural: We have taken their country." [0]
> She just can't give the money from those sales to terrorists
It's actually worse. She can't do anything else with the money either, because she doesn't receive it. As mentioned in the beginning of the article: "Irish writer of Normal People says she can no longer receive royalties from British sales."
> "it's the shiftiness of jews'. Racism doesn't exist anymore, and calling these discussion anti-semitic is me just shielding isreal as a tactic. Fuck off.
Can't find the quoted phrase in the referred comment: did you just make it up or did he edit it out? Other than that, he made some observations about Judaism. Off-topic perhaps but nowhere near racist. Fuck off.
> Given that all nation states are more or less "made up out of thin air"
Not really, they tend to be created through conquest and/or colonisation followed by stabilisation around a common culture. Britannica has an article on the subject worth reading:
Here's the key components of what make a nation state as listed in the article:
A nation-state is a sovereign political entity where a state governs in the name of a community identifying as a nation. Its legitimacy arises from the right to self-determination of a core national group, who view the state as their own and its territory as their homeland.
Key features include:
* Defined Territory A nation-state has a specific territory, over which it has exclusive jurisdiction.
* Sovereignty It possesses the power to govern its territory without external interference, recognized since the Peace of Westphalia (1648).
* National Identity A shared history, culture, and language often create a sense of national identity, though this isn't always the case.
* Compulsory Membership Citizenship within the state is compulsory.
* Monopoly of Force The state claims the sole right to use armed force within its borders.
In the case of "the Palestinian people" and "the Palestinian state" these were created in 1964 by the KGB which drafted the 'Palestinian National Charter' and staffed the 'Palestinian National Council' with 422 selected members. They provided training, intelligence, financing and directed operations all in a clearly successful attempt to portray the PLO as a legitimate national liberation movement. By manufacturing Palestinian nationalism and backing the PLO the KGB successfully promoted it on the international stage which helped the PLO gain observer status at the UN in 1974 and recognition from various states.
I know what a nation state is, just wondering what makes Palestine stand out as an especially artificial one in your view. Is foreign involvement the key factor here?
The fact that is was created by an outside actor to be used as a tool is the major factor. It is still used for that same purpose and only for that purpose, there is no real nation state as such other than in the imagination of those who use it as a tool. This "state" has not benefited its inhabitants in any way since their "rulers" have only used them as tools and human shields in their power plays.
Sounds rather hyperbolic to me. By similar logic, one could argue that Israel's only purpose is to serve as a Western outpost in the Middle East. There's some truth in that but hardly tells the whole story.
I'm not nearly as detail-oriented but I can certainly relate. The craft I've spent 20+ years mastering is disappearing and I'm not sure if I'll enjoy whatever replaces it. It's reassuring to know there are others who share the sorrow.
It's such a strange feeling. I have a similar amount of time invested as you. I'd always gravitated toward understanding how things work and bringing those insights back to whatever I worked on. Could be low level details, could be software architecture, or some obscure SQL. It wasn't that I knew everything, but that I could descend into the rabbit hole and re-emerge with something useful if needed.
Hard not to see it as tech killing competence in general, and cheering it on.
Kinda wish I'd gone to med school instead. Tech has only shown itself to be more unserious as time has gone on.
+1 I've been surprised at the relative lack of grief about this from working programmers. Certainly there is some, and I've read a number of posts on Hacker News from programmers working through these feelings, but it feels like the minority view.
Fascinating idea. On individual level I wouldn't agree, because whenever you take a strong stance about something you also tend to create enemies. Same for small groups of people. On state level however, it does sound more reasonable and should be the overall principle at least. Scale matters.
reply