preordained

> Has Codex started overusing “seam” too? I thought that was a Claude-ism

Honestly, it's pretty good about this. Its terms are pretty fitting. Load-bearing, seam, etc. I'd actually say these were nice gifts to our developer parlance.

Astrology. I think there is something to it (and I perfectly well understand if others don't). I've been attempting some "cold" natal readings by having an LLM giving me a person who isn't outrageously famous but has a well known enough life, giving me only their birth parameters and then letting me supply a reading to compare against the details it reveals.

This is very important question that demands answer

I can't be the only one to think it is silly to interact with tools in this way. Honestly, I see skills, "hooks", and other monkey-patch efforts as things that will be short-lived investments, weird kludges from an era where you had to "hand-crank" your AI, more often. Something to go the same way as using HTML tables as bastardized CSS

Terrible, honestly. Betrayed, gaslit. Don't tell me it's just a tool and it's my problem...hell no, fix your stupid tool. The whole point is to immerse yourself so you don't feel any different than having an energetic and resourceful junior or some perhaps limited but useful companion at your beck and call. If that illusion drops, it's on the tool.

Delightfulness? I'm seeing some indication "delightness" may be a word (can't say 100%)...but it seems a poor substitution for IMO the natural version of it

They are utterly cooked. The only ones I've ever seen on the "it's not so bad" side of this argument are aloof boomers and anyone young enough to never have experienced at least a good swath of the 90s--i.e. has no truly visceral basis for comparison/has no clue how bloodless and sick the vampires have left society

Is there no pipeline--or a job fair? A way to get a moment with prospective employers? It seems tragically stupid if MIT offers no such thing. Applying into the void seems like a fool's errand.

I think as-applied now, the author's take strikes a chord with me. LLMs are a technical marvel, but their results feel very cheap and tacky...it doesn't take much to catch at glimpse at the fallible man behind the curtain. They are lauded more for how impressive the illusion they render all things considered more than what they are actually GOOD FOR. Weird hallucinating search, smart but untrustworthy coding intern...people hold these things up in a way that suggests we've arrived instead of acknowledging their disappointment and saying "yes, there is a lot of power here, but we still haven't found the killer application or the thing that takes this from an impressive but flawed trick to indispensable".

"I think the problem is you haven’t shifted your mindset to using AI correctly yet"

There is an indictment of AI "products" if I ever heard one

That sounds terrible! Some people just take these things in stride I guess, but I have no interest in going through these kind of hurdles for something like this...

I wish this was a joke...

"pay-to-win"

Yah, good luck with that. Anyone who has played competitively knows you will absolutely get stomped by a higher skill opponent even if your deck is more powerful on paper unless the discrepancy is ludicrous. Garfield made his game too well to fall to such trite criticisms...he outdid himself, its immune to his own potshots, lol

This is real thing I'm glad you've acknowledged as more than just a figment of my imagination. There are things I want to do outside of work programming that are there own level of mental taxing and/or creative...side projects, competitive Magic the Gathering...and I while usually find some juice to squeeze into these, I do agree that it seems like many other professions leave a lot more in the tank.

Weird troll, or sociopath?