nouveaux

I think open source code would sit in the opposite end of the spectrum to Juicero.

> Silly and pointless criticism. Why do the semantics of the word intelligence matter?

It matters because, we're still sorting out what intelligence means for an AI agent. As you pointed out, language evolves over time. The question remains whether or not attributing intelligence to the current iteration of models is correct. This is not settled and I don't see why it's wrong to bring it up.

They're buying compute for 11 billion and the 50 billion in stock growth is a bonus if it happens.

9a-9p 6 days a week

Why compare the M1 MBA discounted at Walmart but not give the same edu discount to the Neo? The target audience for Neo is likely people who would be able to use the edu discount.

I know many people who would not care about the differences you have outlined and gladly pay $499 for the Neo.

This is is no way dismissing your concern but I think this reinforces my point about branding. Whether or not Microsoft is handling AI in a responsible way, we don't trust them due to their poor practices on Window.

Coca Cola would like to have a word with you.

These models respond differently and have their own "personality". Even in coding, there are people who swear by one model over the other. I know engineers who just stick with Claude and could not care to try Codex. For them, if it's not broken, why fix it?

> Some will be sad, sadness is unavoidable.

That's one way of putting it. The other way of putting it is that the affected are bearing the cost of climate change imposed on them by the rest of society, who are benefiting.

Overlapping expertise is another form of replacing someone. At a basic level, employees need to go on vacation, parental leave and all sorts of other personal leave. If you were irreplaceable, you couldn't go on leave.

Companies who develop these systems successfully are able to allow employees to go on leave for 4-6 months and have them easily come back. This is a good thing.

It sounds like what you're arguing for is that companies ought to have employees that are irreplaceable. Wouldn't that impose a huge risk to the company? If said employee gets hit by the proverbial bus or leaves, the company should just fold?

Companies need to build systems where everyone is replaceable to de-risk the business and not because they don't get programmers.

The mistake here is equating Putin to Trump. One is a mastermind and the other is a puppet.

Java was so bad that Android took a hard pivot to Kotlin. If anyone understands the importance of code maintenance, it's Google. They built a language for it (Go). I think it's ok to look at historical Java for what it is and learn from it's mistakes. Modern Java is better. Unfortunately, it's developed a bad rap, and it looks like it's in a decline. Fortunately we have Kotlin, Go, Typescript, etc.

And what is wrong with being a cog? Not everyone is going to invent the next ai innovation and not everyone is cut out to build the next hot programming language.

Bugs need to be fixed. Features need to be implemented. If it weren't for cogs, you'd have people just throwing new projects over the fence and dropped 6 months after release. Don't want to be another cog? Join a startup. Plenty of those hiring. The reality is that when you work at a large company, you're one of 50,000 people. By definition, only 1% are in the top 1%.

Someone has to wash the dishes and clear the tables. Let's stop looking down at jobs just because it's not hot and sexy. People who show up and provide value is great and should be appreciated.

Have you spent a lot of time trying to hire people? I guarantee you there is no shadow council trying to figure out how to hire "busywork" worker bees. This perspective smells completely like "If I were in charge, things would be so much better." Guess what? If you were to take your idea and try to lead this change across a 100 people engineering org, there would be "out of the box thinkers" who would go against your ideas and cause dissent. At that point, guess what? You're going to figure out how to hire compliant people who will execute on your strategy.

"talk about their past projects, their past teams, how they learn, how they collaborate"

You have now excluded amazing engineers who suck at talking about themselves in interviews. They may be great collaborators and communicators, but freeze up selling themselves in an interview.