The thing about this is that you can choose how high level you go.
For example you can just tell it to make a website for a business with a webshop and it'll just generate thousands of lines of code and you have no control over anything. Or you can spend hours/days writing the specification and then have it generate it.
Or you can do what I do and work iteratively one feature at a time making sure everything is exactly the way you want it. I generally solve the problem myself then tell it what to do, or if I'm not sure what the best solution is I might discuss with the AI until we agree on a plan and then have it execute it. Often this leads to me learning useful things, like it will suggest a tool/feature that I didn't know about that's perfect for my usecase or it will identify a problem in my plan that I wouldn't have found until after spending hours on the implementation.
I've always been very detail oriented and I care a lot about code quality, I want my solutions to be clean, consistent and as simple as possible while solving the problem. To me, AI tools let me do that more quickly and better, it's not a compromise it's just flat out better in every dimension. It's about how you use it.
A lot of people seem to think that it's a binary choice, either hand craft a high quality bespoke solution or just vibe code a pile of trash. There's a whole spectrum in between those two, and I think there's a sweet spot where you still maintain control and understanding, it's just much faster and the result is actually better because it's not just you and the knowledge in your brain it's also the AI that practically knows everything - it will teach you things and suggest solutions you wouldn't have thought about, it makes you a better developer. It's a force multiplier and the smarter you are the better you will be at using it.
It's not a replacement it's an enhancement. It's like imagine a developer with Google vs one without, obviously the one with Google will be better because they have access to more information. The AI is like automatic google that just googles everything all the time, things you wouldn't have even thought to Google or things you couldn't possibly formulate a good search term for. With AI you can just show it a screenshot or describe an issue in detail and get a really solid answer a lot of the time. It's like having an expert on standby all the time, sure it's sometimes wrong but most of the time it's not and if you're smart you'll recognize when it isn't.
I'd say anyone who isn't using AI today aren't using their full potential. I don't see how anyone could possibly perform better without this tool than with it. I do see how someone who doesn't care could produce a lot of slop, but the people who refuse to use it aren't that guy. That guy has been using it to produce slop for years already. You can use it to produce top quality code if you choose to.
Yeah but we were kids, we didn't give a shit about any of that. Kind of still don't give a shit about any of it tbh. There's security holes in everything anyway.
I just do my job to the best of my ability. I have to change jobs every couple years anyway to get proper pay bumps, so I don't really care what the higher ups think of me. The people near me are who I'll use as references and they generally know I'm great at what I do.
My experience working with other peoples code is that they often use too many wrappers. I don't mind using some wrappers, often they're just necessary. But I'll often see components with like 4+ nested divs where half of them or more can just be removed with no visual change. Not to mention spans, some people just use spans for everything, it's all divs and spans.
Personally I like to try to use semantic HTML where possible, as it helps with a11y and is nicer to read and work with. But I don't mind using some container/wrapper divs to make things look right.
Across a large enough area it's always sunny somewhere. And clouds don't interfere as much as you'd think. Add in wind, hydro, nuclear and some gas and you can handle pretty much anything just fine.
That has nothing to do with where factories, mines, farms etc are already located. You have to buy land to connect the power plant to the load and some guy in the middle wont sell. Handle congestion/maintenance of those lines etc. Lots of issues beyond just generation that the grid already is dealung with even though massive solar plants have been built. But main thing is weather forecasting has to get better because even with existing huge plants constant surprises happen.
There's this thing called the power grid, it transports electricity across great distances.
And everything you're talking about is an issue with any kind of production, I don't know why you're bringing it up as if it's unique to solar. If you're building a factory that needs high amounts of stable power then you plan accordingly. Doesn't change the fact that solar is a useful way to generate electricity. I don't think anyone is saying we have to use it exclusively. We can use different solutions for different problems.
Lots of probs with existing grid . Certain routes are already overloaded/congested, building new ones is not as easy because of land acquisition costs compared to the past. Repairing, upgrading and maintaining old routes to handle new loads raises costs of moving electrons to your factory etc. One hurricane or blizzard can shut a route down so redundant routes have to be built. People just under estimate how complex things have become.
Also that's impossible. It is impossible to simulate reality exactly using digital computers. The best we can do is approximate. Doesn't matter how powerful it gets, it'll always just be an approximation.
What does "simulate exactly" mean? To me, exact simulation is not so much an impossibility as a nonsensical concept. What subset of reality are we simulating, and to what degree of precision, and with what certainty? An "exact" precision as it relates to real world objects is not a well understood or defined concept. For integers, I can say there is exactly one Earth orbiting exactly one Sun, but I think that statement is riddled with assumption, inaccuracy and imprecision. For example, it is assumed that I am referring to the present Earth, but is the statement of when the statement is made or when it is heard? Even the word "is" is inexact.
I agree, exact simulation is nonsensical which is my whole point. Did you read the comment I replied to?
It is nonsensical to claim that anything other than my brain could produce the same consciousness that my brain is producing. It's obviously far beyond anything any conceivable digital computer could ever reasonably simulate, and even if you did create a "good" simulation it obviously wouldn't have the same properties that my brain does because it's an entirely different thing than my brain is.
Assuming you don't believe humans have any metaphysical component, then the only remaining question is whether there's some essential component to being human that depends on impossible-to-precisely-simulate portions of reality. Nothing we currently know of biology suggests that that would be true, as much as it continues being pursued by people who need there to be something mysterious about consciousness or brains.
In any case, a closely-but-not-perfectly-accurate simulation of a real human brain is still going to be human, unless you believe that someone becomes less human when they're experiencing some kind of cognitive decline, or a stroke, or other biological malfunctions. The point is, there is nothing essential to the having of a physical brain that creates the concept of consciousness or sense-of-self.
How can a simulation be human when it isn't human? It's a simulation. A human is a human, a simulation is not. Anything that is not a human, is not a human and can never be a human.
And there absolutely is something essential to the concept of being human that we are entirely incapable of replicating artificially. In fact as far as I know we are incapable of synthesizing any kind of life whatsoever. We can't even create the simplest type of living cell imaginable.
So to claim that we could just create consciousness, a fundamental property of this "life" thing that we don't properly understand, within a piece of rock is beyond naive. We don't even know what it is or how it is.
It seems to be important to you that consciousness is mysterious.
We understand quite well where in the brain the sensation of self-awareness / self-experience / sense-of-self comes from. We have evidence that disruption of that part of the brain breaks those sensations.
I don't know why people always need to assign agendas to me in discussions like this. It's not "important to me" it's literally just reality. Consciousness is mysterious, we don't know much about it. The fact that you can mess with it by poking the brain does not mean you understand it.
Okay now tell me where in the LLM its alleged consciousness comes from.
Its a computer program. It is literally just a lot of zeroes and ones, sitting there doing nothing.
Then a request comes in, and the system does a bunch of calculations using those bits, and spits out a result. The bits are unchanged.
When your brain receives input, it is changed. It is constantly active. If it ever stops being active it's dead.
So, what exactly is the claim? Are the bits constantly conscious? Do they snap into consciousness when the computer does math with them? Or is it maybe the computer that's conscious while it's processing these bits? How about when it stops doing that and goes back to doing other stuff? Why are these particular bits special? Was the computer always conscious?
I feel like the only way anyone could believe LLMs are conscious is if they don't understand how computers work. Of course it isn't conscious, how could it possibly be conscious? Its literally just bits. It's like saying the text in a book is conscious.
So, what exactly is the claim? Are the bits constantly conscious? Do they snap into consciousness when the computer does math with them? Or is it maybe the computer that's conscious while it's processing these bits? How about when it stops doing that and goes back to doing other stuff? Why are these particular bits special? Was the computer always conscious?
These are all fine questions, and they don't become any easier to answer if you replace "computers" with "brains" and "bits" with "neurons".
Of course it isn't conscious, how could it possibly be conscious? Its literally just bits.
"That's ridiculous. How can meat make a machine? You're asking me to believe in sentient meat."
What is even being argued here - neuroscience is hard, so programming your PC thus makes it conscious?
We don't understand how combining a bunch of obviously(?) non-conscious biological components can produce a larger system that is conscious, so it's unwarranted to be certain that that can't happen with software.
Cells are living entities, can't they be conscious? I think they are. Is not that human consciousness comes out of raw materials. They are alive, not as bits or circuits. That can't be discussed.
For example you can just tell it to make a website for a business with a webshop and it'll just generate thousands of lines of code and you have no control over anything. Or you can spend hours/days writing the specification and then have it generate it.
Or you can do what I do and work iteratively one feature at a time making sure everything is exactly the way you want it. I generally solve the problem myself then tell it what to do, or if I'm not sure what the best solution is I might discuss with the AI until we agree on a plan and then have it execute it. Often this leads to me learning useful things, like it will suggest a tool/feature that I didn't know about that's perfect for my usecase or it will identify a problem in my plan that I wouldn't have found until after spending hours on the implementation.
I've always been very detail oriented and I care a lot about code quality, I want my solutions to be clean, consistent and as simple as possible while solving the problem. To me, AI tools let me do that more quickly and better, it's not a compromise it's just flat out better in every dimension. It's about how you use it.
A lot of people seem to think that it's a binary choice, either hand craft a high quality bespoke solution or just vibe code a pile of trash. There's a whole spectrum in between those two, and I think there's a sweet spot where you still maintain control and understanding, it's just much faster and the result is actually better because it's not just you and the knowledge in your brain it's also the AI that practically knows everything - it will teach you things and suggest solutions you wouldn't have thought about, it makes you a better developer. It's a force multiplier and the smarter you are the better you will be at using it.
It's not a replacement it's an enhancement. It's like imagine a developer with Google vs one without, obviously the one with Google will be better because they have access to more information. The AI is like automatic google that just googles everything all the time, things you wouldn't have even thought to Google or things you couldn't possibly formulate a good search term for. With AI you can just show it a screenshot or describe an issue in detail and get a really solid answer a lot of the time. It's like having an expert on standby all the time, sure it's sometimes wrong but most of the time it's not and if you're smart you'll recognize when it isn't.
I'd say anyone who isn't using AI today aren't using their full potential. I don't see how anyone could possibly perform better without this tool than with it. I do see how someone who doesn't care could produce a lot of slop, but the people who refuse to use it aren't that guy. That guy has been using it to produce slop for years already. You can use it to produce top quality code if you choose to.
reply