pbw

This will happen for real. But then a JIT-like process will generate regular code for efficiency, on the fly in the background.

Rather than “the book explains how bread is made” say “the sheets of paper which make up the book have ink in the shape of letterforms which correlate with information about how bread is made”.

I’m going to give this URL to Claude, ask it to propose uses of state charts in my codebase. Yes, it already has this in its training data, but I find giving it a URL brings it to top of mind.

This is only 33 years after I took a networking class and learned all about IPv6 and the IPv4 address space crisis.

There's certainly a risk that an individual will rely too much on AI, to the detriment of their ability to understand things. However, I think there are obvious counter-measures. For example, requiring that the student can explain every single intermediate step and every single figure in detail.

A two-hour thesis defense isn't enough to uncover this, but a 40-hour deep probing examination by an AI might be. And the thesis committee gets a "highlight reel" of all the places the student fell short.

The general pattern is: "Suppose we change nothing but add extensive use of AI, look how everything falls apart." When in reality, science and education are complex adaptive systems that will change as much as needed to absorb the impact of AI.

This sounds good, but I wonder if AI has changed the calculus on conflict resolution. It can not only chase down the conflicting changes, but also read those commit messages and PRs to divine intent. It might be that git is "good enough," given we have AI.