zkry

I see things this way too. Another point is that the FOSS software movement was extremely unique and I don't think there's anything analogous in any industry. This provided the backbone by which LLMs became so good at manipulating code. Without FOSS and platforms like GitHub, LLMs would be severely lacking in terms of writing code.

I think one could make the case that the human life lived during pre-agriculture was one which matched the evolution of our biological organism.

So this is kind of a pedantic point, but 95% of our history is us doing things exactly as we evolved to do. I don't doubt either that hunting must have been a very engaging activity, especially when done as a clan or tribe.

I know, right. A real showcase of ingenuity, creativity, resourcefulness, precision, and technical excellence, just the type of thing I come to HN hoping to see.

> The OP is still in the "denial" phase.

This was written in July 2023. ChatGPT was released November 2022. No matter your views on AI, surely you can't blame the OP for writing this after a few months ChatGPT was released.

But isn't getting an LLM to n-shot something just going to produce non-unique, non-original interpretations of an idea?

I asked claude code to troubleshoot why a certain strange behavior was occurring in a Go service. Only then I realized that the behavior I described wasn't actually occurring. A few minutes of thinking pass and Claude code confidently makes up some scenario why this was definitely happening. It was then I though, "oh shit, these LLMs are just complete BS machined telling us what we want to hear."

I can imagine in these cases the LLM is telling the "contributor" how smart they are and how much the project is loosing out, maybe saying something like: "It's not about maintaining project boundaries, it’s not about ensuring code quality; it’s a gatekeeping mechanism designed by traditionalists who feel threatened by forward-thinking creators like you who truly master the efficiency of AI."

At least this Schadenfreude is better than the Schadenfreude AI boosters get when people are made redundant to AI. I can totally see some people getting warm fuzzies, scolling Tiktok, watching people crying having lost not only their job, but their entire career.

Im not even exaggerating, you can see these types of comments on social media

I don't think this line of reasoning holds. The only thing people should look at are peer reviewed studies, lots of them ideally, and with no conflict of interest. Who's getting productivity gains? What kinds of work are they doing? What doesn't work so well? All of these questions should be investigated by studies. People feeling productivity gains doesn't imply the gains exist.

Otherwise it sounds like "many people have had their lives changed by {insert philosophical/religious movement}, so if you're not finding it true you should look into what's wrong with you."

And I have to say that the whole trope of "Emacs may be able to do anything but you have to configure a lot to get it to work" has has got to be pure exaggeration at this point with things like eglot. I had the most painless experience setting up LSP for Java (among many others).

I was thinking the exact same thing. As long as you're not depending on any external packages things are very stable. Like, if you're package depends on adding advice to some other package's random internal function, then yeah, it could easily break.

It's a great feeling knowing any tool I write in Elisp will likely work for the rest of my life as is.

On the other hand though, automated refactoring like in IntelliJ can scale practically infinitely, are extremely low cost, and are gauranteed to never make any mistakes.

Not saying this is more useful per se, just saying that different approaches have their pros and cons.

From reading this, it sounds more like a management problem more than anything else. For example, retention goals should be such that all a companies experts (at anything, not just language) don't evaporate overnight and hiring goals should be such that experts are retrained and re-hired.

I think the analogy is also off a bit. I't be more apt to say a good surgeon should be expected to use electrosurgical units from different manufacturers, which is a completely fair expectation.

Magit is truly a magnificent application and it's telling how it's ideas are ported to other editors.

Reference to the previously posted "You Can Choose Tools That Make You Happy"

> Emacs is a Gnostic cult. And you know what? That’s fine. In fact, it’s great. It makes you happy, what else is needed? You are allowed to use weird, obscure, inconvenient, obsolescent, undead things if it makes you happy.

Juxtaposing Emacs with the adjectives obsolescent, and undead is sad to read. Emacs is constantly reinventing and readapting itself, and just like Emacs takes and incorporates the best ideas from other tools, ideas from Emacs find their way to other environments.