DarkTree

It matters because some people view code as a human art. Sure, AI can also probably produce a good sounding song, but that doesn't mean I will view it in the same way as a song created by a human.

Claude is not a single tool like a power drill or saw so I don't feel like this analogy fits well. Claude is more similar to the entire workshop and a robot using the tools and then you telling the robot what to build.

So maybe that cabinet wouldn't exist without the human element but I think it's fair for other humans to feel that's not quite the same as building it yourself.

> How much longer is knowing what you're doing going to be a moat?

To me, I don't see how this will ever not be an advantage. All software requires constraints. Some of those constraints might be objective (scale, performance, etc.) but a lot of them are subjective and require active decision making (architecture, UI, readability).

So if there was only one way to do something or only one desired output, then yes I think models would surpass humans. But like art, I don't think there is a objective truth to software and because of that, humans get the opportunity to play an important role.

Now whether that is valued from a business/industry perspective is a question that I think we all know the answer to unfortunately.

Agreed, and unfortunately for the group of us who did realize this and pushed back are seen as luddites and just don't understand how amazing the technology is.

> I genuinely want to invest time in learning Rust, but at the same time, I am terrified that all the effort and time I spend learning it will become obsolete in the future.

I would say ask yourself this: Who would be better positioned to build a Rust application using LLMs, someone who has never learned Rust or someone who knows it well?

$$$

Now do the comments

counterpoint: don't keep doors closed by being dismissive of other peoples' careers/interests like this person

Along with this, the thing that helped me the most was learning to run much slower. I would always run at an uncomfortable pace that would jack my heart rate up and have me huffing and puffing. Then I learned about "Zone 2" training which essentially boils down to running at a pace where you could comfortably have a conversation and more easily run for extended periods. This now only made it so I could run more miles per week, but it turned running from an exhausted effort to a more meditative, enjoyable one.

Things I think have helped me the most: 1. Correctly fitting shoes (I always wore shoes that were too narrow and short for my feet) 2. Wearing a heart rate monitor so that I could run at a pace that allows me to stay within the heart rate range that improves aerobic fitness while being easy enough to sustain (heart rate zone 2) 3. Increasing my cadence to the 170-180 steps per minute range, which has allowed me to improve my form/efficiency and avoid shin splints.

I think this parallels really well with the question of how much privacy people are willing to give up for the convenience of digital services. In both cases, it seems like we are increasingly willing to give up privacy and trust in the name of convenience, but I do wonder if there is a breaking point. If there is a breaking point, is it even a system that can be reversed?

> If there isn't a big event downtown, or it's a slow bar/restaurant night, you'll notice there's considerably fewer of them. If the weather is harsh, you'll notice there's considerably fewer of them.

You observe this and the conclusion you make is that, 'many of the 'homeless' people are absolutely not homeless and simply know they can make much easier money off of people coming/going from bars and restaurants.'

or maybe they are homeless and know that their best bet of survival is going to the places with the most people willing to help them out.

or maybe harsh weather means that they aren't capable of being out in the open exposed to the elements, and are instead hunkered down somewhere where they can at least get minimal shelter.

I think the point of the article is that your surface conclusions from simple observations are probably not entirely accurate, and more likely a false assumption made by someone who has never experience homelessness and can't possibly know the motives or circumstances of that population.

I actually find Amazon to be pretty amazing at discovery, but it's dependent on the "Customers who bought this item also bought" section under a book I know I like or am interested in.

I don't go to Amazon books just to start browsing aimlessly, but if I am yearning for a book in the same vein as another book I liked, I'll just search that book and look through the books suggested below. It does keep my discovery narrow, but that consequently keeps my reading wish list small and wieldy.

You left out the next paragraph which is may be one of the reasons it's not used:

> On rare occasions the native S. mutans strain escapes into the blood, potentially causing dangerous heart infections. It is unclear how likely BCS3-L1 is to do the same.

That's a crazy thought. It's also a crazy thought to extrapolate that process all the way to how current first world countries operate. You can kind of start to bridge the gap between the two and see that our society is just an extreme manifestation of that whole scenario you described. We know that in fact there was a direct set of events that got us here, but it's also easy to separate the way humans lived and how we live now, as if they are detached but you can see a lot of those early behaviors still operating in our industrialized society.