> That leads to a harsh conclusion: human beings aren't that valuable as individuals. We are in fact very disposable and replaceable.
Wait until you get to the part of philosophy that hinges on this being an invention of our own making. Human beings have decided that human beings are disposable. Just like we decided that gold was valuable (and to many, more valuable).
More likely that they spend a lot of time getting Apple devices to work just right, and not nearly as much on the rest. Same result, but less malicious.
We should qualify that kind of statement, as it’s valuable to define just what percentile of “professional developers” the quality falls into. It will likely never replace p90 developers for example, but it’s better than somewhere between there and p10. Arbitrary numbers for examples.
Can you quantify the quality of a p90 or p10 developer?
I would frame it differently. There are developers successfully shipping product X. Those developer are, on average, as skilled as necessary to work on project X. else they would have moved on or the project would have failed.
Can LLMs produce the same level of quality as project X developers? The only projects I know of where this is true are toy and hobby projects.
> Can you quantify the quality of a p90 or p10 developer?
Of course not, you have switched “quality” in this statement to modify the developer instead of their work. Regarding the work, each project, as you agree with me on from your reply, has an average quality for its code. Some developers bring that down on the whole, others bring it up. An LLM would have a place somewhere on that spectrum.
> I feel like most good programmers are like good chess players.
A specific type or area of developers, I'd say. There are many types and not all of them require understanding sizeable code bases to do their work well.
Understanding your large codebase is a few prompts away. You can ask a model to trace through and provide reports on the project's design, architectural and implementation. From there, you can drill in with followups.
Done right, you may not know specific lines or chunks of code by heart, but much like a tuned-in company CEO, you have eyes and ears on the ground and retain global oversight and insight of the project itself. For specifics, you can learn what you need as you need it. If that means knowing how every single module works, that's just a conversation with your agent.
> It is hard to express in more definitive terms on which side of that liberty-versus-security trade-off the U.S. was intended to fall.
While I agree with Henry, and intend for _my_ life and social impact to fall there, "where the U.S. was intended to fall" is a misnomer here. That quote was one man's opinion. The U.S. is millions of living beings who, if they have liberty, should get to do whatever they want with it (which in itself is an oxymoron).
Not to sound pedantic (I believe this is a very important distinction), but as far as I'm aware most slaves were not _given_ last names by their slavers. They often had (if taken into slavery) or were given (if born in slavery) their own names within their own cultures.
The number of different cultures in Africa, each with its own set of traditions and ceremonies makes that a very difficult question to answer in a generalised way.
Fair. I was curious since English only started having last names in the 11th century, once the population has grown too large for local governments to effectively govern without some way to better differentiate people.
Wait until you get to the part of philosophy that hinges on this being an invention of our own making. Human beings have decided that human beings are disposable. Just like we decided that gold was valuable (and to many, more valuable).
reply