partyficial

All those accidents you mentioned are "breaking a few eggs". The omelette is speed.

When the car was invented, there were a lot of accidents. Horses were slow and safe. Today, very few know how their car works, but none would go back to horses.

Same thing with programming in Assembly -> high-level-languages. The next logical step is the highest level language (natural).

women control the inside, men the outside.

that's just biology and it's the case the world over, not only spanish countries.

literally the first point under Why Goose -

"Faster than C++ and than safe Rust, ..."

perfectly legible ?

we need an equivalent of the medieval "stand under the bridge you built" trust system.

would you fly in an airplane if the software was written mostly by Claude?

If an engineer who mostly used Claude left the company, can his replacement understand his mental model, given that he himself doesn't ?

what about today ? is today the worst day of your life ?

yeah

that's messed up

At the end of the day, all programming is language. it just happens to be languages normal people don't speak.

All these translation layers exist because the computers only understand 0s & 1s. Imagine talking to a person who only understood binary numbers.

a good teacher remembers the journey, not just the destination.

socratic method exists. almost none follows it.

> you don't plan to read it

Not in full. I plan to read the LLM's summary. Most people could benefit from brevity.

author : writes the summary (prompt). LLM expands it to article.

reader : LLM summarizes the article. reader reads it.

both author and reader are free to use, or not use LLM. I don't see the big deal here.

both. they wanted to deceive people (lie). so they made up a reason (hallucinate).

the author can ask the same question - why should I write something if you're just going to use a LLM to summarize it ?

This is an unnecessary argument both ways. Whether you use a LLM or write it yourself or read it yourself (and then comment on it), you're putting your signature beneath it. I don't care whether you use your natural brain or an artifical brain (LLM)

> We (ideally) change our beliefs with every new piece of input. That's good.

sounds like a cope. like shifting goalposts. or no true scotsman fallacy.

if I see a tree in front of me, and 2 seconds later I close my eyes, and someone asks me if there is a tree in front of me, should I say yes because I "know" it, or because I "believe" it ?

In that 2 seconds, the tree could have fallen down. So if i said "yes", I wouldn't be lying but I would be incorrect.

Therefore all "knowledge" is belief about some past "truth". Whether you call it faith, evidence-based, dogma etc. they all do fall under the same bucket if you think deeply about it.

Rarely do I sit through a 40 minute youtube video end to end, fully engaged - above was one of them.

It is the only video in that channel, and worth it.

75 years and we get to play Victor Frankenstein ?

seems like a very short timeline to me.

> feasible in 2-3 years from now

> long ways away

I'm constantly amazed by what people think is "long-term" on HN.