I agree, but then learning to code isn't much of a hurdle. It's a similar effort to learning vim. The difficult part is getting to know the language. I never coded in Haskell for example and learning to use that language would take effort. On the other hand, it would be pretty easy with an LLM at hand.
It might even help in figuring out whether Haskell would be a good fit. Something I couldn't do, as I do not know the language. Then again, it's not a question that really gets asked much in a corporate setting. Most things are just solved in a few popular languages, whether that makes the most sense or not.
> learning to code isn't much of a hurdle... The difficult part is getting to know the language.
I agree. The people who depend on chatbots to write their code for them won't have either of those skills though. They don't know (or are in the process of forgetting) how to code, and they're missing out on the opportunity to really learn the language by turning off their brain and letting a bot spoon-feed them code.
An LLM would only get in your way if you actually wanted to learn Haskell.
We’re like 6-7 tiers deep on that aren’t we? Does every c developer understand the instruction set on the cpus their code is executing against? Does every c#/java/other managed memory language deeply understand their garbage collector?
It’s abstractions all the way down and most people aren’t going to have an intimate understanding of every layer, and it’s not economically worth it for the vast majority to even try
Abstractions are very different from having a bot regurgitate code for you. Abstractions are an aspect of the programing languages we use. Using them means using the language.
LLMs just give you results (of highly variable quality) and if you lack a solid understanding of the language being used that result gets blindly accepted as valid (especially if it manages to 'do the thing' when you test it). Learning how to type a prompt is not the same as learning how to code or learning a programing language.
Actually, if by “learning to code” you mean “writing good usable code”, my experience is that many people struggle to code. Especially when you consider planning a (human-level) complex project.
Maybe you don’t know those people. I work with them every day.
I don't think there is a wrong pixel, each of them maps into thousands of galaxies but many of them may be outside of our visible sphere of the universe. The fact that even light from those subjects can't reach you is surely just a minor technicality
Yeah not seeing it for technical writing. Especially in industries with even a hint of regulatory compliance, the imprecision is too significant. It's not for lack of trying or wishful thinking.
Either your colleagues are facing stiffer competition off-shore (not LLM driven) or their jobs were more about organizing, checking and sorting topics and data (LLMs can take that away)
As a tech writer myself, I often hear from other tech writers around the world that they find themselves as editors for llm-written slop. The main problem is that even before llns, almost no senior manager understood what the TWs actually do. As a result, there is a strong desire to get rid of the editor team.(see the case of Snowflake when a team of 70 documentarians was let go in a single day).
The company I work for also encourages us to use agents as much as possible. Now, I spend more time in the terminal than in VS Code. However, the situation is different for those who work in regulated areas.
> You are one person. The corporation is not. Scale matters
Correct, if you violate it too often to count, you have to pay around less than ~2.5ct per violation.
So the lesson here is: Create a company to do torrenting professionally, and resell its values for higher prices. Then get sued and pay a dime on the dollar you made.
More like how using hand-held computers programmed for dopamine hits could further entrench a sedentary lifestyle, reduce social cohesion, and lead to individual brain rot
Amazingly ironic that the administration most deeply in bed to the finance sector's bidding is now identifying the result of the finance sector's 50 year push to offshore everything a problem for National security
I remember a big push by business journals back in the 2000s with claims that "executives who offshore work get 18% greater bonuses than executives who don't".
The office I worked in back then subscribed to lots of business journals. The one I remember the most was Harvard Business Journal. I'm certain that the articles were based on a McKinsey report. I started working there in 2004, so it would have been sometime in the 2000-2006 timeframe. I had a long bus ride, so I would take a couple with me every night to read.
"The company’s marketable equity securities include $80 billion in shares subject to short-term restrictions and $14.1 billion subject to long-term restrictions"
Actually more like $14.1 and whatever value the other $80 is worth when they sell. Which is probably going to be worth well North of whatever is lost on the $14.1 B long-term... All part of the scam to inflate the value of the AI bubble
Does this answer your question?
/s
reply