Sure but here OP was left wondering why prompting didn't make them feel like they had done/accomplished anything. And the reason is because they didn't do anything worthy of giving them a feeling of accomplishment.
Society was been better without the internet. We have lost all our privacy, our third spaces, the concept of doing hobbies for fun instead of as content, and much more.
That's a "yet you participate in society" argument. It's not at all contradictory to use this communication medium to describe my perception of its negative impacts.
That’s like saying that the human brain is based on simple physical field equations, and therefore its behavior is easy to understand.
Right, which is the point: LLMs are much more like human coworkers than compilers in terms of how you interact with them. Nobody would say that there's no point to working with other people because you can't predict their behavior exactly.
This thread is about what software developers like. It’s common knowledge that many programmers like working with computers because that’s different in specific ways from working with people. So saying that LLMs are just like people doesn’t help here.
Working with people != socializing, those are two very different things.
You can be professional and collaborate productively at work with people who you don't like at a personal level and have no intention to socialize with. The Mythbusters were the best example for this.
I get along great with all colleagues but I stopped joining them for coffee and watercooler smalltalk since we don't vibe and have nothing in common, so not only is it a waste of my time, it's also an energy drain for me to focus and fake interest in forced social interactions. But that doesn't mean we can't be productive together at technical stuff. I do think my PoV resonates with most people.
Yeah there's a reason there is a stereotype/trope about programmers not liking people. I like a lot of people. But I would hate to work with many of them even if I like hanging out with them.
That said, I do like having an LLM that I can treat like the crappy bosses on TV treat their employees. When it gets something totally wrong I can yell at it and it'll magically figure out the right solution, but still keep a chipper personality. That doesn't work with humans.
> LLMs are much more like human coworkers than compilers in terms of how you interact with them.
Human coworkers are much more predictable. A workplace where people act similarly to LLM would be a complete zoo. Imagine asking for an endpoint modification and the result is a broken backend. Or brainstorming with a PM and the reply are "you're absolutely right, whatever I was saying was completely wrong, but let me repeat it in a different manner".
> Or brainstorming with a PM and the reply are "you're absolutely right, whatever I was saying was completely wrong, but let me repeat it in a different manner".
"...there's no point to working with other people because you can't predict their behavior exactly."
Because you CAN predict coworker behavior to a useful point. Ex, they'll probably reply to that email on Monday. They'll probably show you a video that you find less amusing than they do.
With LLMs you can't be quite sure whether they will make something up, forget a key detail, hide a mistake that will obviously be found out when everything breaks, etc. Stupid things that most employable people wouldn't do, like building a car and forgetting the wheels.
Yeah, I find NIMBY vs YIMBY arguments interesting because they're almost entirely orthogonal to traditional left vs right. This alignment chart is the best I've seen; for me you can just circle the whole bottom center: https://www.reddit.com/r/transit/comments/1dz4ssk/where_are_...
> Everyone wanna get down with a gang in America these days. "I'm liberal!" "I'm conservative!" Be a fucking person, ok? No good, decent person is all one thing. I got some shit I'm liberal about, and I got some shit I'm conservative about.
I think he's absolutely right, and that labeling things as "left" or "right" is a thought-terminating cliche that one should strive to avoid. What matters is the idea, not which faction people might stereotype it with.
This is amusing, because the usual NIMBY argument I hear is about "gentrification", i.e. it makes the neighborhood better and that's bad.
terminally online young adults who are bitter that they can't afford to live precisely where they like
More accurately: they would like to live in a particular location, the owner of that location would like to sell or rent it to them, but a third party wants to forcibly prevent that transaction.
> This is amusing, because the usual NIMBY argument I hear is about "gentrification", i.e. it makes the neighborhood better and that's bad.
Change is bad as far as existing residents are concerned, which is why external YIMBYs are particularly annoying. I live in a pretty nice area so gentrification isn't really possible, and the people who want to live there but can't afford to are the ones agitating for change.
> More accurately: they would like to live in a particular location, the owner of that location would like to sell or rent it to them, but a third party wants to forcibly prevent that transaction.
No, the accurate description in CA (and YIMBYs are trying to replicate this elsewhere) is that a group of people collectively decided how land can be used in their area, and people who disagree are going over their head to change the rules.
None of the stuff I've learned over past 20 years was handed over to me in this easy fashion.
Yeah, kids these days just include stdio.h and start printing stuff, no understanding of register allocation or hardware addressing modes. 20 years from now nobody will know how to write an operating system.
Also some layer of arrogance
As compared to "if you claim AI is useful for you, you're either delusional or a shill"? The difference is that the pro-AI side can accept that any specific case it may not work well, while detractors have to make the increasingly untenable argument that it's never useful.
This would make the situation slightly better for people who want to buy houses.
To the extent that it has the effect of transferring some properties from rentals to sales, it's only better for the renter who wants to buy and who just barely wasn't able to. It's worse for renters who either don't want to buy or who still can't afford it, because rents will increase due to reduced supply.
It's not the opposite of a problem, it's orthogonal.
In this particular instance, what's happening is that it's crowding out and destroying diversity in the home builder market.
The model is built to rent out, and it's taking capacity out of the build-to-sell market. It's putting regional and smaller homebuilders that have traditionally provided most of the housing out of business because of their greater access to national capital.
We are seeing this everywhere in the economy. If you have access to Wall Street capital, you can put basically everybody outside of business and then set the price. That's exactly what's happening.
