and once you've got your wish: ugly code without tests or a way to comprehend it, but cheap!
How much value are you going to be able to extract over its lifetime once your customers want to see some additional features or improvements?
How much expensive maintenance burden are you incurring once any change (human or LLM generated) is likely to introduce bugs you have no better way of identifying than shipping to your paying customers?
Maybe LLM+tooling is going to get there with producing a comprehensible and well tested system but my anectodal experience is not promising. I find that AI is great until you hit its limit on a topic and then it will merrily generate tokens in a loop suggesting the same won't-work-fix forever.
What you wrote aligns with my experience so far.
It's fast and easy to get something working, but in a number of cases it (Opus) just gets stuck 'spinning' and no number of prompts is going to fix that.
Moreover - when creating things from scratch it tends to use average/insecure/ inefficient approaches that later take a lot of time to fix.
The whole thing reminds me a bit of the many RAD tools that were supposed to 'solve' programming. While it was easy to start and produce something with those tools, at some point you started spending way too much time working around the limitations and wished you started from scratch without it.
I'm of the opinion that the diligence of experts is part of what makes code valuable assets, and that the market does an alright job of eventually differentiating between reliable products/brands and operations that are just winging it with AI[1].
I would think that the better the code is designed and factored and refactored, the easier it is to maintain and evolve, detect and remove bugs and security vulnerabilties from it. The ease of maintenance helps both AI and humans.
There are limits to what even AI can do to code, within practical time-limits. Using AI also costs money. So, easier it is to maintain and evolve a piece of software, the cheaper it will be to the owners of that application.
NVDA has more money than they know what to do with. One strategy when you have extra money is investing it in equities. You exchange money for a slice of future profits. Not sure what the confusion is here
It's all about efficiency. You can store heat in anything, but the question is for how long and how much energy can you get back out later. The first part is easy and how we got ovens and stoves, the second part can be pretty tricky depending on your requirements. Large scale energy storage sometimes uses massive amounts of sand for example, but they heat it to hundreds of degrees which is not really feasible in most settings.
Fine piece of what it's really about. The feeling of losing one's joy and possible applause for doing a good job.
But the inevitable is not a fact, it's a rigged fake that is, unfortunately, adapted by humans which flock in such large groups, echoing the same sentiments that it for those people seem real and inevitable.
Humans in general are extremely predictable, yet, so predictable that they seem utterly stupid and imbecile.
No, those things aren't nearly as important. Handling stress and therapy can also be replaced by some physical activity as well.
General advice that would work for 95% of people shouldn't be criticised because it doesn't address the other 5%. If people did it then there'd be far more money in the system to pay for usefully targetted specialist treatment for those people.
If we are talking about overweight people, then I think your 95% figure is backwards. Maybe 5% can stick to that regimen without addressing what’s going on between their ears. Likely, your perspective is skewed by the crowd you hang out with or from seeing other people at the gym. That’s not a representative cross-section of the population, particularly with respect to people who are overweight.
The emotional/psychological side is important, because the person must make long term changes in their lifestyle.
People tend to over-eat for a reason, and typically it is a reaction to stress or some emotional/psychological need which isn’t being met.
Intermittent fasting can help with appetite suppression and blood sugar spikes. Our bodies didn’t evolve to snack all day long. More likely, we gorged and fasted depending on what was available.
There’s a book called “The Carbohydrate Addict’s Diet” which promotes intermittent fasting to lose weight, and I think it’s on the right track, although the book recommends taking in calories only during a one hour period each day, which for me was too extreme.
I do think it’s beneficial to fast for at least 6 hours once a day, if possible. It’s good for your blood sugar as well as your gut. It can give you more energy and help you feel more like exercising.
Since we are pulling numbers out of our asses can you tell me what good advice that 95% of the people aren't capable of following is? It's great that our national health institutes advices us, but can you explain how the advice isn't completely useless in this particular context? To me it comes off as arrogant and rude.
I didn't say 95% of people aren't capable of following some advice. That would be bad advice. I'm saying this is good advice, because 95% of people can follow it.
Code today can be as verbose and ugly as ever, because from here on out, fewer people are going to read it, understand and care about it.
What's valuable, and you know this I think, is how much money your software will sell for, not how fine and polished your code is.
Code was a liability. Today it's a liability that cost much much less.
reply