The problem is that software is much more forgiving than real life engineering project. You can't build a skyscraper with duct tape. With software, especially the simple webapps most devs work on, you don't NEED good engineering skills to get it running. It will suck of course, but it will not fall apart immediately. So of course most "engineers" will go the path of least resistance and never leave the higher abstractions to dive deep in concrete fundamentals.
Many devs are never even coming into challenging projects like that. For a large part of the dev community its just simple webapps for most of their professional life.
We don't know how we are different, but its pretty clear that we are fundamentally different. Modern machines calculate much faster than humans, if human thoughts and reasoning would work like LLM, we would already sit in front of general purpose hard AI.
But we don't, so obviously there is something missing. Unfortunately its quite hard to know what is missing, because we don't know how conscience and reasoning actually work and we can't formularize them.
Thats why its fair to assume we won't see general purpose AI that fast (probably not in our lifetime), which a lot of AI researchers seem to support, especially those who are not working for companies who try to sell AI.
Well, the same thing goes for you - just because someone posts on HN doesn't mean they know what they're talking about. And if I have to decide whose assessment I trust regarding AI, I take the Turing award winner who worked for almost 40 years on AI over a random guy from the internet.
Sure. But I'm not standing here saying my argument is valid because SolidAsparagus made it.
> And if I have to decide whose assessment I trust regarding AI, I take the Turing award winner who worked for almost 40 years on AI over a random guy from the internet.
I'd encourage you to do your own thinking and make up your own mind.
