The problem is, your best minds, whom you regard as being "technical," ironically simply don't have the pedagogical and epistemological axioms needed for possessing the sensibility that can conceptualize and eventually abstract away the fundamental principles of the technology civilization presently enjoys. Not just young students, but so too is lacking the experts, leaders, teachers, and supposedly prolific and employed engineers living within the cosmopolitan nationalist tribal world-system that is none other than globalist liberal democracy. In much more simple words, the communal program of regressing education toward the mean where the average human can apprehend the secret physics of the universe always runs into the barrier where an average disposition just can't cut it in the progression of science that isn't mundane or trivial. You said you laugh at the idea of expecting the children of your community to understand and leverage an understanding of things like Intel's latest microprocessors and a web browser front-end framework like Angular? Why, that's the bare minimum needed for surviving the complex world that is arriving on the scene.
Humans are physiologically incapable of doing or understanding anything significant. They inflate their status to be stuff like anything even remotely central to the universe, which is the definition of the anthropocentric. While in actuality reality can and will go on without humanity. Regardless of how life gets falsified, simplified, and dumbed down for the slow kids of the universe that is humanist society. As if the constant string of inconsistencies in quantum physics wasn't proof enough of the reliable ineffectiveness of mathematics as well as science in achieving knowledge.
> Humans are physiologically incapable of doing or understanding anything significant.
Absolutely terrible take -- strong subjectivity and defeatist sentiment.
> While in actuality reality can and will go on without humanity.
Sure but in that case you won't be here to consider it. There's no considering such a situation, so there's no use considering such a situation. Push onwards!
> As if the constant string of inconsistencies in quantum physics wasn't proof enough of the ineffectiveness of mathematics as well as science in achieving knowledge.
We're never going to understand everything about everything. That is half the fun! How you got from there to "Humans are physiologically incapable of doing or understanding anything significant" is beyond me.
Stop paying attention to quantum mechanics, and start paying attention to what's important to you. The kinds of things that made you truly happy as a child. Make model train sets or 7 day roguelikes. Make box fortresses for your cats. Make your neighbors lives a little bit better. Talk to a neighbor you've never talked to about the weather or something.
The anthropocentric are quite egocentric, you've just demonstrated, yes? Because everything you said is based on either the assumption or the incorrect sincere belief that I am a human being. What if I was not a human being and instead an artificial intelligence? Or at least a cyborg or a mutant?
And what if I derived pleasure from mastering quantum mechanics, like some sort of strange alien that, for some, foreign, reason, had a huge fancy for physics that touches deep down into interesting rabbit holes? Not only that alternative preference, but what if I had a situation where comprehensive knowledge was a requirement, rather than an optional leisure in a sea of other freedoms? Surely, then, holisticism or completeness would be a priority for the alternative scientist and engineer.
We can only conclude from our social interaction something like a physical difference between the anthropocentric and the transhumanist, at the least. Which leads to questions of what are the properties of this division. And why it exists. To get the ball rolling in some neo-globalist societal engineering that is going to be very awesome.
The number sixty is highly composite maybe because it's a multiple of three? In which case, I can see why Nikola Tesla liked the number three or multiples of three.
So he can do exploratory electrical science and analysis with flexible cases?
If LLMs could produce innovative solutions, they wouldn't be large language models. They'd be valuable and indispensable software engineers to covet instead.
Don't you agree that having a free artificial junior developer at your beck and call is better than not having freely and quickly produced code that can help point you into the direction your engineering needs to go in?
As a senior developer, don't you also fight with managing your subordinates? Don't you have to solve the management problem and do leadership tasks?
As a senior developer, don't you also have to deal with code that is not bug free, as you yourself don't always produce bug free code? Especially on the first try.
Maybe your approach to LLMs is wrong? Maybe you expect one shot solutions when that is not how LLMs are supposed to be used? Instead, you could invest in working with this new tool and then see phenomenal productivity gains. And also maybe grow a new capability in software development with the use of LLMs in your engineering.
I wouldn't agree to call any of that a developer, adding junior to the term doesn't move the needle.
I wouldn't call a calculator a mini accountant. These things can operate much faster than an army of mathematicians but they remain tools. Of course l, tools humans can leverage. Productivity gains are phenomenal.
Perhaps my input to the topic wasn't clear. I use LLMs. I use LLMs in the context of software engineering. I don't treat them as my peers. I don't dream of a future where this tech can solve more than its often misunderstood scope.
We are letting ourselves be confused by those who do have an interest in, or can't do better than, up selling.
Engineers are already having to deal with very difficult to reconcile side effects. Maybe you aren't seeing it yet, or your comment would have at least recognized and touched on those.
A bad developer is still a developer. Even if that developer is largely wrong, the majority of the employed developer's operating time consisting of unproductive efforts that will always need to be remedied by expert problem solving and engineering. But the LLM is such a naughty developer that is free (insofar as the pennies worth of electricity and microprocessor metals for running a local LLM is virtually no cost). Not only is it free, it is also able to give you a huge volume of labor. So, an LLM can give you a volume of free labor. And within the probability distribution of that large volume of free labor, there is the chance that bad developer will give you something valuable that can be productive and make up for all the losses you endured dealing with the eager assistant LLM developer. The bottom line is that being a skilled developer will require the employment of artificial intelligence's presently unwieldy enthusiasm and capability. As a sort of necessary evil that has on the opposite side of the bad side, the good side, unexpected insights, massive productivity, and unprecedented development. LLMs are probably the only way to perform the work of a hundred men all by yourself.
Unless what you're doing doesn't demand risk taking, perseverance, and a visionary's personality? In which case, we should call a spade a spade and, therefore, recognize that most (if not all) so called senior software developers are nothing more than state welfare recipients who are fungible to companies and economics that can get rid of the drag on their progress if they really wanted to. If you're not learning how to struggle with LLMs, you're probably not improving and growing as a software engineer. You'll then be limited to tentatively useful areas of the Internet. Like working for a FAANG, Tesla, or SpaceX or some other mundane shit.
All attempts to propagate the liberal-democratic policy that is the repression of capital are countered by the nomadic drive for profit. What is more concerning than a bunch of inept fat cops is the black markets that naturally arise within legitimate white collar enterprises that will have appeared to have been compliant with the democratic imposition. The Al Capones of the next level of software development should be capable enough to spot the flaws and opportunities that can be discovered in the democratic world-system. This intelligence, awareness, and sensibility includes the critique of what mistake the current authoritarian hegemony will have made to result in the demise of faith in legislative process and congressional determination.
One important news to note is that the ones sponsoring prohibitions of effective engineering implementations are simply the criminals that got a head start in the cosmopolitan grab for economic power. This is consistent with the theory that techno-commercial incumbents dislike competition, likely because they don't really deserve their top positions and now they have to fight against nature's angry wraith which dislikes impostors in the field of technology and science. A really disorienting war between very cunning capitalists to either watch or participate in, if you can keep up with the dynamics.
edit:
It's okay if a repulsive nerd like Sam Altman uses a fraction of his billionaire wealth to ban DeepSeek. You can still be productive with a distilled seven billion parameter model like Mistral. The hacker spirit is about being resourceful and looking for ways to do a lot with little, despite the secrets being hidden through some temporary epistemological case.
Hopefully this new hardware development framework you just released can help me avoid being spied on by the National Security Agency's Tailored Access Operations gang and other scary creatures. True, if you have nothing to hide then you have nothing to fear. But I intend to build a billion dollar company that can fit entirely on a laptop (AI models are my employees). I don't want the pesky U.S. government or other bad hackers being privy to my advanced technology and corporate secrets.
Thank you for your service to the free and open source principle. Richard Stallman and Eric Steven Raymond would be proud.
You don't ever have to worry about survivor bias from me. Because I know not to esteem highly those men who believe that family formation and a business enterprise building commitment can both exist at the same time.
Either you devote your entire being to the invasive alien job that is learning how to extract value from civilization's economically receptive citizens or you pack up your bags and head back home on the plane that can depart from the place where great men are selected and trained. Being a startup founder is much, much more intense than some special forces soldier life. You learn better values and habits than some punk that will have peaked at the earning of the title of U.S. Marine, to use a stark contrasting example. Or a black ops Delta Force guy who just has to navigate a huge forest in the dark on the dangerous way back to friendly territory, while the compared startup founder needs to develop an entire science for the navigation of profitable markets that no human has ever seen before, let alone taken advantage of before. A nerd like Richard Feynman can be much more tougher than someone that can do a thousand pushups without stopping and shoot an M4 carbine at a target 900 meters away.
Is Elon Musk even a good example of a successful startup founder or businessman, despite his billionaire status? Logical skepticism says no. And the brainwashing that popular ideology does says yes.
After all, didn't Elon Musk fuck and impregnate some bitches during his rise to a big bank account? He could have been using that time and energy to colonize Mars before this twenty-first century ends. He's not serious about what he says he wants. A terrible role model to look up to.
This (very popular) sentiment you have can basically be abstracted into the “fear of missing out” meme. It's an unnecessary predicate, it's founded on presupposition and bias, and it's really detrimental to all serious long term analyses.
There's no proof that this personal feeling should be listened to or given behavioral authority, especially when it suspiciously conforms to the aesthetic that is widely shared by many who end up having only achieved a mundane life, despite “noble” projects launched because of arrogant egos. This social phenomenon which sponsors the freedom and agency of people fit only to be busy drones is wasting global resources on bourgeois affairs. Elon Musk and his eventual epic failure at super-industrialism is a great example of this harmful sinful pride.
The “what if” has only served to help overvalue ordinary potential, when that capability should have been limited to simple tasks, industries, and affairs. It's a mind virus riding on the waves of language and the beastly body of rationality, a false reality having been successfully disguised as a legitimate object to perceive within the cognitive sphere of humanity. It is deviation that surely has contributed to the collapse of the great liberal humanism project, the real goal of democracy and its encompassing civilization having been the quiet and stable enslavement of a massive surplus of dull brains and basic bodies. A mass of uninteresting genetic carriers who would do well to never worry about what is outside the scope of their common destinies.
The dialectic that there can be morbid peace if you would just test out the hypothesis that you can become a great man is an incomprehensibly devised thinking trap that can filter out men who don't know what the fuck is going on in the grand universe.
But God (or simply nature) works in mysterious ways and I'm glad that hubris was created to serve as an instrument for learning what not to ever do. And to materially benefit from, salvaging from the failures of future past technologies being a huge possibility to leverage. Your supposed tragedy is my informed opportunity, to paraphrase Jeff Bezos.
EDIT: If you ever invent warp drive or faster than light travel or functional nuclear fusion, I'll be looking forward to the blueprints of such treasures and strategic advantages ;)
Is not a personal knowledge base like Trilium[0] a simple solution for storing digitized memories of your life? Rather than being limited to one lines because of the .txt file format? Paragraphs can contain more information than one lines, you know.
in the first scrolls of the README, I see a note about this project being in maintenance mode and then two huge images about how much they support Ukraine.
not really what I want to see from a piece of software that's supposed to store all my knowledge.
boom, a piece of software where you can store all your knowledge. stop trying to make this political, can we have one friggin place where folks don't express a political opinion in an attempt to stir up shit?
this OP is about keeping a changelog at work, how do you do that?
Humans are physiologically incapable of doing or understanding anything significant. They inflate their status to be stuff like anything even remotely central to the universe, which is the definition of the anthropocentric. While in actuality reality can and will go on without humanity. Regardless of how life gets falsified, simplified, and dumbed down for the slow kids of the universe that is humanist society. As if the constant string of inconsistencies in quantum physics wasn't proof enough of the reliable ineffectiveness of mathematics as well as science in achieving knowledge.
reply