But here's the thing: learning Android dev is nothing like "learning" to use an LLM.
Obviously there are tons of tools and systems building up around LLMs, and I don't intend to minimize that, but at the end of the day, an LLM is more analogous to a tool such as an IDE than a programming language. And I've never seen a job posting that dictated one must have X number of years in Y IDE; if they exist, they're rare, and it's hardly a massive hill to climb.
Sure, there's a continuum with regards to the difficulty of picking up a tool, e.g. learning a new editor is probably easier than learning, say, git. But learning git still has nothing on learning a whole tech stack.
I was very against LLM-assisted programming, but over time my position has softened, and Claude Code has become a regular part of my workflow. I've begun expanding out into the ancilary tools that interact with LLMs, and it's...not at all difficult to pick up. It's nothing like, say, learning iOS development. It's more like learning how to configure Neovim.
In fact, isn't this precisely one of the primary value propositions of LLMs -- that non-technical people can pick up these tools with ease and start doing technical work that they don't understand? If non-technical folks can pick up Claude Code, why would it be even _kind_ of difficult for a developer to?
So, I'm with the post author here: what is there to get left behind _from_?
Not quite on topic but as an engineering manager responsible for IDE development, explaining to recruiters and candidates I wanted engineers who developed IDEs, not just used them. Unfortunately, that message couldn't get through so I saw many resumes claiming, say 5 years of Eclpse experience, but I would later determine they knew nothing of the internals of an IDE.
Presumably, people now claim 3 years of machine learning experience but via ChatGPT prompting.
My theory is that they're going to release a new Mac Pro that's about half the size of the current one. Enough space for some PCIe slots, but otherwise smaller given the enormous amount of wasted space in that thing since moving from Intel to Apple Silicon. Guessing the rack-mount model, should they continue selling it, will be 3 or 4u instead of 5u.
I know everyone thinks they're going to just kill it, but I don't see it. Apple's move under Tim Cook has been to exhaust supplies (see: filling the Intel Mac Pro chassis with air and not updating the CPU), letting people predict its death (see: 2013 -> 2019 Mac Pro silence), and then redesigning it into something people want while utilizing it as an opportunity to segment specs across their SKUs.
The Studio will remain the high-powered creator machine, whereas the Mac Pro will be retooled into an AI beast.
Why people buy the Studio with the high ram config is actually the unified memory. This is unique to Apple. I'm not sure what Mac Pro would do with PCIe cards . It would be useless for AI because what you want is unified memory that can be used by the GPU/AI not just ram.
Its not entirely unique to Apple: the Ryzen AI Max platform (in the e.g. Framework Desktop) is a unified memory platform. The PlayStation 5 also has a unified memory architecture (which given the chiplet was made by AMD, not too surprising) (people sleep on PlayStation hardware engineering; they're far better at skating to where the puck is headed than most hardware tech companies. remember Cell?)
> I'm not sure what Mac Pro would do with PCIe cards .
Video and Audio Engineers [1] would like to have a word. Not to mention PCIe Network Card. And they do use all the slot in the Cheese Gater although I believe a modern version could have cut those in half.
PCIe cards would indeed be useless for AI unless Apple supports third-party GPUs, but there are certainly some pro creators that would still prefer to have them. I myself work in large-template film/game scoring and while we all love our Mac Studios, they're usually housed in a Sonnet chassis so that we can continue to use PCIe cards. Had Apple kept them in parity with the Studio w/r/t CPU and RAM, the rack-mount version of the Pro would've been a no-brainer.
It is already a walking zombie, Apple clearly no longer cares about the workstation market, regardless of how many "I still believe" t-shirts get sold to wear at WWDC.
The article specifically talks about B2B and MDM-like features. The "average consumer" isn't the point here -- rather, governments, defense, high-security corporations, etc.
I always try and keep in mind that we typically think of software as having three versions -- alpha, beta, and release -- but for it's considered even kind of "finished."
In my own work, this often looks like writing the quick and dirty version (alpha), then polishing it (beta), then rewrite it from scratch with all the knowledge you gained along the way.
The trick is to not get caught up on the beta. It's all too tempting to chase perfection too early.
I have a co-worker who has spoken excitedly about creating AI-generated music. I listened to him talk (and some brief music clips) and didn't tell them I have no interest in it, because he seems passionate about it. But it does not interest me.
My point is, though, it occurred to me why he's excited about it. He has no ability whatsoever to write music in notes, or song lyrics. But with his tool, he's able to make music that he finds decent enough to feel excited about helping to shape it.
No criticism to those who can't do a thing on their own, but are excited to be able to do it with a tool. And yes, you can certainly elaborate on and debate craftsmanship, and the benchmarks and measures of quality of an end result when made through expert skill and care, or by amateurs with a powerful (and perhaps imperfect or imprecise) tool.
So personal anecdote, using generative code has not interested me personally, because I love writing code, and I'm very good at it, and I'm very fast. Of course machines can do things faster than me (once I learn the different skill of prompting), but speed hasn't really been a massively limiting factor for me when trying to build things. (There are lots of other things that can get in my way!)
I'm reminded of the oft used quote, "He who can, does; he who cannot, teaches" - George Bernard Shaw. (Just, now the teaching is that of a machine, who then does.)
There's one interesting phenomenon that I noticed in myself and others with generating music with AI. You develop this kind of outsized emotional connection with it, even though your contribution to the 'work' was minimal, the fact that you saw this (arguably not) new 'thing' come into being creates an atypical bond. Not that it's 'mine' but that it's this beautiful thing.
So you (or in this case I) get all excited about how fantastic it is, but others that hear it are just kind of 'meh'. The only way I know this is listing to songs shared in that same exuberance by others, and to me they are 'meh'.
I shared this sentiment with some folks and one person said 'yeah, you should try writing your own music sometime...same thing happens' xD
Yeah, seriously. I've seen musicians nearly come to blows over tube vs solid state amps. Music has even more anger associated with brands and technique than gaming or tech. It's just not flooding the algos like AI currently is
I'm so tired of this kind of design -- that basic dev tool splash page/Tailwind-y/Shadcdn UI thing that's just seemingly everywhere nowadays. It's so basic and tired, like Material Design without any of the little bits of personality that make it decent.
Give me some life and color and personality, damn it.
I hear you and it's coming up next. I needed/wanted to lay ground work for stuff that's easier to tweak to match your own branding. Many Rails apps are similar in niche so I tried to compensate on that front.
reply