bheadmaster

If Go is a junior developer onboarding language, then I proclaim myself a perpetual onboarding junior.

Survivorship bias. The bots that go through are so human-like you don't even register them as bots.

> For complex enough and long-running application your run-of-the-mill Rust (so probably what AI would generate) will likely be slower than your run-of-the-mill Java.

That phrase "complex enough" seems to be quite load bearing.

At which point does complexity reach the tipping point where a Java implementation becomes faster? From my experience, the more complex the application, the more enerprisey the Java code becomes, relying heavily on dynamic capabilities that make it slow even by Java standards.

It seems to me that the phrase "non-deterministic", which has mathematical definition, is used as a fancy word for unreliable - same way that "misinformation" is used as a fancy word for lies.

Free Software was a moral & ideological issue to Stallman.

I feel people have the right to bring any sort of issue into the projects they make. Nobody is forced to participate.

FWIW, there's modernc.org/sqlite which already provides pure Go sqlite implementation.

Might be useful to test your own implementation against.

> more predictable runtime performance

Not really, reference counting can cause a single object deallocation to trigger an arbitrarily long chain of deallocations.

Thinking alone about fundamentally deep problems can be poweful, but most software problems are not that deep, they follow a pattern, and it's only a question of discovering them. Doing that alone is inherently slower and less efficient than discussing it with a colleague.

AI just serves as a substitute - an artificial conversational partner.

I feel like you consider yourself more virtuous for not using AI for discussion. Would you consider people who don't talk to colleagues at all, but do all the work themselves more virtuous in an analogous manner?

This is one thing I actually do with a chatbot, instead of an agent. Voice mode even.

I start talking to it while doing menial tasks like cleaning or doing the laundry, and I discuss the architectual decisions and options until I come to some resemblance of a plan.

Good side of this approach is that I can't just "skim over" or "copy paste" things - either I understood them and can repeat them myself, or I can't. It takes more time than /grill-me and similar approaches, but it's the only approach that doesn't make me want to claw my brain out.

Whatever the actual reason for choosing the liver was, we can be certain it wasn't its regenerative property, since such proprerty was unknown to the Greeks at the time.

I phrased it awkwardly. Simply put, in Ancient Greece, liver was something like heart in modern society. It was the seat of human emotions.

So by destroying Prometheus' liver, Zeus attempted to destroy his human emotions, including his pride and defiance against gods.

For what it's worth, Prometheus was a Titan, and Titan was immortal, so his liver regrowing the next day wasn't really that special. If eagle fed on his heart, or lungs, they would've regrown too.

The Greeks chose liver because it symbolized the defiance Prometheus had against gods.

No, this is not the first time. Scaremongering by frontier AI CEOs has been going on since ChatGPT came out, every time with a massive investment following.

OpenAI got $10 billion from Microsoft after Sam Altman claimed AI could lead to extinction of humanity.

Anthropic got similar multi-billion dollar funding from Amazon and Google after warning AI could develop biological weapons.

xAI got similarly massive funding after Elon Musk predicted a terminator-style future.

If you don't accept this as "empirical evidence", then there's nothing to discuss.

> Because we can't observe the counterfactual world, this actually is just an assumption.

If you discard all empirical claims categorically due to "inability to observe the counterfactual world", your own reasoning falls apart. Why would you assume people mean what they say?

> Diving their intention also still requires many assumptions about their intermediate beliefs that I find dubious

You're assuming CEOs of multi-billion dollar companies are honest. I find that dubious.