kmoser

> But someone nudged me: can't you have a look at it?

> My reply: "Haha sorry no! My experience is that adding more people will not solve this problem any quicker".

That seems like snark, bordering on pedantry, and makes one come across as an ass. If they know the answer, or can deduce it faster than any of the others, then it will definitely solve the problem quicker. Much depends on the qualifications and experience of those currently trying to solve the problem.

> Will you win if you try?

Pretty sure that depends on the court, and isn't something you can determine in advance.

I'm on Firefox/Windows and see no scroll bars.

Navigation was easy. What I didn't like was having no idea where I was and how much farther there was to go. It was like the world's least intuitive HyperCard stack.

Do you mean as opposed to operating in an analog fashion? My guess is because keeping it digital means it is as close a possible to a drop-in replacement for today's electronic digital computers, including all the firmware, OS, and software that has already been written for them.

Even more impressive to me than finding the bug is the clear way the article was written. Even if they used AI to write it (which I don't think they did), it reveals an incredible maturity and ability to communicate a complex topic.

Except they're not replacing power plants at all, they're adding batteries to the grid to store and distribute power. After all, something has to charge the batteries.

Interestingly, Saragossa seems to be wearing a dress (jodhpurs? breeches?).

I don't know if we're there yet, but I have no doubt that LLMs will increasingly crank out better and better code, along with better and better logs, fuzzers, unit tests, and analyzers that, taken together, will maybe--just maybe--produce more solid code per dollar than working with human engineers.

What I'm not convinced of, and what I fear most, is the lack of accountability. When something does go wrong, who will take responsibility? I don't mean who will be tasked with fixing it; I mean who will stand up and say, "yeah, that was me, I screwed up, lesson learned, I will do better next time?" Who will then look into the code for similar issues, to find them before they wreak more havoc? Who will prioritize the different pieces of the giant puzzle in a way that makes it work better for humans, not just machines producing a sterile end result?

This trend concerns me because I see an increasing lack of ownership and a disconnect between what are ultimately human processes at either side of the computation equation: a human being (e.g. customer) trying to accomplish a goal that affects another human (e.g. business owner).

As an analogy, I'm reminded of an aspect of Japan that is in stark contrast to the US: people in Japan take deep responsibility for that which is assigned to them, especially things that aren't necessarily someone's official responsibility. Every public place is immaculately attended to. Not so much in the US, and it's not for lack of budget; anybody with five minutes to spare can sweep up the cigarette butts; they just don't care to.

So sure, your LLM steam engines may be faster and more powerful than John Henry the developer, but what happens when something goes wrong? How do I know the LLMs aren't just spitting out logs and test results that they think will please us? At a certain point, you have to dig into the code, otherwise you're no better than a CSR who is reading from a script and pretending to give a damn.

Yep, that was it. Our department (Humanware) was quite forward-thinking, and an anomaly in an otherwise conservative institution. Unfortunately we never ended up using VR in any of our products! They also brought in Edward Tufte, whose show-and-tell included his personal copy of what was likely Sir Henry Billingsley's 1570 English translation of Euclid's Elements.

In 1989 I was consulting for a large company in NYC that hired you to give our small UI/UX team a demo of your VR system. I still remember strapping on the headset and looking around the virtual world. I might even have your business card somewhere!

The point of questions like that isn't necessarily to ascertain the actual answer; it can be used to engage the interviewee in conversation to see how they think and communicate, or how they react to minor curveballs being thrown at them.