(Just kidding, I know what happens... they will fire you and hire someone who doesn't have kids.)

(Unless the job gets you burned out, in which case it was selling indeed.)

For example, now it may seem that the models are becoming mere infrastructure, and the value moves up to apps and data. But if the models of tomorrow become able to write the apps themselves, then the value moves back. I won't need to pay some to write me a wrapper for the LLM, if the LLM will be able to write the same wrapper, maybe even better because it will be customized for my needs. The app providers are currently profiting from the gap between "what a software company can do using the AI" and "what the AI can do unaided", but that gap is going to shrink, possibly to zero.

Sounds like: https://www.lesswrong.com/w/aligned-ai-role-model-fiction

I guess this means that you have some good instincts or habits that would be good for a programmer, even if you didn't choose that path.

Programming is more than just knowing the syntax of the programming language and the APIs you want to use. It also requires clear communication and clear thinking, checking things, etc.

There is no reason why a non-programmer couldn't also think clearly or carefully. It's just a fact about humanity that most people don't; and many people have jobs that do not require this, so they never develop the skills. Some people develop them for job-unrelated reasons.

Now we are at the moment when the LLMs can do the syntax and APIs for you, but they still fail at clear thinking and proper caution. That elevates a good potential programmer to a good vibecoder.

At some moment it just stopped making sense for me to ask questions on SO, because if you can google the answer then what's the point, but if you can't google the answer, then some angry competitive user is likely to close your question for some reason.

AIs are useful tools in programming, whether you like it or not. Yes, there is a lot of hype. There is also a lot of ignorance. AI is not going to write an entire complex application for you, but can easily make its development 10x faster.

That's actually how competition is supposed to work in capitalism. If you sell your products at much higher than the minimum price, someone else can make a profit by selling slightly cheaper and taking over your market share.

He wrote that the reason he chose chess was because it was objectively measurable. You play the game, you either win or you lose; there is no way to dispute the outcome.

Imagine that you have dozen children, each of them genius at something different, and that you are surrounded by people who want to prove you wrong. Whatever the artistic genius does, the people who hate you can simply say "yeah, he did something technically impressive, but it's lacking the... nebulous artistic qualities that only we can judge... therefore, not a true genius". Now the chess genius comes and wins every tournament against the adults, there is no way to argue that "yeah, he won all the chess tournaments, but... for some reason we still don't consider him to be a chess grandmaster".

It would be much better for the gifted children to attend schools where their effort is visible since the beginning. That is, schools with other gifted children.

For example, in math, my kids didn't learn anything new during their first three years of the elementary school, because they already knew numbers and addition at kindergarten age. Yet they were forced to sit there for three years. It would have been better to give them a book to read, or a collection of interesting problems to solve.

Yeah, realizing that thoughtless machines are still more thankful that real human beings would make me depressed.