If I'm running software written by an LLM, even if I was the one who prompted the LLM, I would still want my OS to treat it as if written by a stranger.

I know he's not necessarily talking about relaxing security models here, but he's not being very specific about his vision otherwise.

  > Spending upwards of 75% of my time directly or indirectly dealing with AI every day...

Before Scratch I think the two biggest barriers in my childhood programming experiments were 1) Remembering all the different syntax and function names, and 2) Being bored by the basic CLI programs that all tutorials started with. Scratch helped with both of those. It had a palette with all possible commands available to you, it was impossible to make syntax errors, and it was visually-oriented so I could dive right into making games. Lowering those barriers helped me learn how to structure code in a fun way, so when I did eventually go back to the "real" languages I felt much less lost.

I also remember really loving the social features, getting comments on my work, and collaborating with people.

I'd love to see more experimentation in this area, there's definitely potential for a more modernized educational language that builds on these ideas.

And if he was describing LLMs as "just another tool", I wouldn't be complaining either.

(emphasis mine)

> A Large Language Model (LLM) is like a small zip file that contains all human knowledge.

> In a strange but real way the resulting tiny file contains all the information that is on the internet and in our libraries.

> Likewise, the LLM could recognize the face of almost any person, and it could generate any possible human face,

All writings? All of human knowledge in general? Any person??

The example he gives for writing is Shakespeare, which might be one of the most overrepresented writers in the entire training dataset. So yes, of course LLMs can replicate his writings with high accuracy. That doesn't mean that the same applies to literally all of human writings and knowledge.

> We've never had a system to integrate everything we know and everything we can imagine.

Yeah, we still don't.

At first I thought he was just being intentionally hyperbolic for effect, but the rest of the article is even worse. From the closing paragraph:

> We’ll soon depend on this oracle to such an extent that we’ll wonder how we lived without it.

No! AI is not an oracle! That is honestly an extremely dangerous way to think about this technology.

This is the type of baseless hype that OpenAI and Anthropic have been exploiting for years, and I really wish it would stop.