dack

i mean, i think a lot of people probably know the 29th best chess player in the world. they may not be world-renowned but i bet the experience of that person is that they get a lot of respect for being super good at chess. people still play chess at all levels to try to better themselves - i think most people who play chess don't do it because they think they'll eventually get to #1 in the world (same with basketball, or any sport).

a business analyst who edited spreadsheets already wasn't particularly high status - i'm not convinced their life would be worse if the job was removed from their lives and they could do whatever they wanted instead.

i think he's bummed out that a cool thing has shipped but: 1. he doesn't get any information about how it works 2. he doesn't get to use it

sure, it's still a cool accomplishment but i can understand being a little bit frustrated / not as excited for such an announcement.

this is a great idea and i imagine that somebody could generate the entirety of their catalog. it's tempting. would be nice if ikea paid for this service but it's doubtful!

yeah, i think so. it has always been the case that having a single mind build something from start to finish gives it a level of cohesion and uniqueness that is hard to do with one or more teams. it's just been really hard to build fast/good enough to actually ship. Now, that's completely doable with one person as long as they don't relinquish too many decisions to their AI agent.

very annoyed they aren't showing fable on the graph.

i might never know what it's like to learn programming after LLMs became powerful (I started programming in ~2002). But if someone forced me to give advice to such people, I'd say just start building things and stay curious.

That means, use LLMs to build whole sites and then dig in where you are curious. Look at the code, ask your LLM how it works and keep digging until you understand how the program is constructed. A benefit is that you're looking at a REAL program, not a toy example. And also, if your program stops working well (bugs or perf issues), you can debug it with the LLM and start asking it to teach you why things were slow and the concepts behind it.

I think you can basically build your own on-the-fly curriculum these days and do it with a real-world example WHILE you build cool stuff.

I think the biggest barrier will be motivation - many people don't want to be curious, and they just want it to work. they won't learn anything that way.

If it's a boring reason, they should just say so. To decline to comment seems very fishy.

aaand, somebody did it!

I think this could lead to the tests getting harder to reason about over time because individual test size will just grow (many iterations of deleting the simple test in favor of a more complicated test that also asserts the simple things)

and if you start simplifying the more complicated test later, you may not realize that you're accidentally deleting checks that don't exist anywhere else other than incidentally here. So it's less clear what's important without thinking it through each time.

now all that to say I don't think it's strictly that big of a deal either way - there's always tons of room for taste that can make one or the other way better in practice. But that was my gut-reaction when reading your comment.

i doubt that's the goal for them. i bet they just really don't have capacity for people using it a ton, yet they wanted people to be able to try it out while it's new. so they compromised and made it temporarily available. and then hope they can get costs down or capacity up so they can make it more available again

sounds like the link with AI is tenuous at best given the other comments, but I'll take it as an opportunity to say a few things I believe anyway:

1. AI is really helpful for a lot of things

2. to the extent that AI can do something perfectly for us, we probably shouldn't try to force people to "learn" it the hard way

3. people who don't want to learn won't, and will suffer naturally later

4. if the material didn't need to be learned anyway, then using AI to do it for them is a win. that's how the real world works anyway.

5. if AI makes some knowledge obsolete, we should stop trying to teach it.

i think the only thing for the teachers to do is to properly warn students of the consequences of using AI to skip learning ahead of time (because by the time the natural consequences hit, it's too late), and to do their best to devise tests that incentivize the right knowledge, while also showing how to use AI properly.

the problem is that the education system isn't set up to change this quickly so I don't really know how they are going to properly adjust every semester

i guess i don't blame a writer who's job is threatened by this technology to write a piece like this. but the perspective is ultimately one where they are complaining about how it affects them, without regard to the end user.

it's the same as toll booth operators complaining about fastpass

i don't think it's marketing so much as excitement

i think mostly it's that people feel threatened. i can't even say it's irrational