gh0stcat

How does that make any sense? Why do you assume that someone more intelligent would not be able to wield any AI tooling better than an average or below average human? Just curious if you're thinking short term or long term on this.

Why would you kill for this? Why not just generate svgs with any editing software?

These are helpful reminders, appreciate it. Right now I'm also just navigating through testing myself before sharing with our leadership team. Asking deeper questions during this process is of course helpful, I plan to dig into each problem they want to solve with AI and why.

I really was just curious about any interesting gotchas anyone else has run into. Historically, Microsoft is a balance between "this is great because it's already here, we just need to turn on a button to enable it" and the quality or reliability being not what we expected, to put it mildly. That and onboarding is a headache for external tools, but is often a tiny fraction of long-term maintenance so isn't necessarily the highest-weighted issue.

Fair enough, our users are a broad range of severely non-technical to technical. We have our IT team manage the admin portals for these kinds of things, so not sure there's a huge difference between IT managing the copilot admin vs chat admin.

I somewhat agree with this... but what is the long-term viability of vibe-coding? Of paying someone/something else for intelligence? Do you feel that you have stopped learning or could not create software now without the tool? Is it all just going to be local models? I'm not as confident that long term, we will be happy that the knowledge of software building itself might be broadly lost. Happy to hear thoughts of those who are writing code daily.

Funny enough, it was what programming had turned into just before the onset of rapid AI adoption that drove me to find my identity and meaning outside of the hobby and work. It took me a long time! I'm only now feeling more confident about it and it's been years. Definitely worthwhile though.

As another poster mentioned, I also wanted to add that this attitude is why there is so much stress and pressure on kids these days to figure out everything in their lives by the time they're 22. It's pretty amazing to me that anyone can look at a PhD in Chemistry and say that was a wasted decade. Why was he not competitive? What skills were you looking for? In what way are you already biasing candidates based on your preconceived notions about what makes someone helpful, useful, intelligent, etc. I know broad generalizations aren't too useful, maybe this specific person had real significant shortcomings compared to the other 22 year olds you interviewed, but I encourage you to consider why we are doing "all of this" anyway (is it money? productivity? prestige? big houses?) and why someone might prioritize going so far in a field to actually CONTRIBUTE something new to the field (as one does through a PhD). Maybe consider why someone might not slot perfectly into your idea of the perfect economic pawn, though nevertheless have chosen an absolutely fine way to spend ones life (or ten years of it).

I'm struggling to understand what they define "problem finding" to be in this context, did anyone come away with a more concrete definition?

AI

Wait this is really funny, it still just does what it wants, no matter what:

You can have it not use bulleted points, I turned this on, thinking it would be more concise and not so... listy. However, it just uses the same format, without the bullets. I was confused why it was writing 5 word sentences, separated by line breaks. Then I realized it was just making lists, without the bullets.

Great job OpenAI!

We always had the technology to do things better, it's the money making part that has made things worse technologically speaking. In this same way, I don't see how AI will resolve the problem - our productivity was never the goal, and that won't change any time soon.

I thought this was a joke ie you need to be a billionaire to be able to use agents like this, but you are correct.

I think we need to stop listening to billionaires. The article is well thought out and well written, but his perspective is entirely biased by never having to think about money at all... all of this stuff is incredibly expensive.