To also add an important context to the drop in Claude code users reported for meta - this elides that we are absolutely still using the Anthropic models full steam ahead, but are moving towards internal interfaces and harnesses.

So I would question if that 50% drop in CC users is more of an interface change than anything else.

I for one have stopped explicitly using codex or CC entirely. But the interfaces I am using still use those harnesses under the hood. I wonder how that is counted.

This is not at all how it works on macOS, which is what is being discussed in the original post. There are a million different things that require per-app explicit opt-in permissions. This is a case of user error.

And of course there is a lot of ambiguity and unknown here. But this guy I don’t think has the capacity to deal with that kind of subtlety.

You’re hiding behind implications because your actual argument doesn’t withstand the slightest scrutiny.

You have yet to respond to either of the points I made. Zero intellectual conviction or courage!

Because I would be more than happy to go head to head with you on academic and professional pedigree and credentials.

I notice you also ignore my comment that you seem to be replying to and instead post your response here. But did you have any answer to the question I asked?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49776482

> These models are now operating[2] at the level of the top human mathematicians in many parts of the subject and we must assume there is a significant chance of them developing superhuman abilities within a similarly short timeframe.

https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1-xOkPeHmDEdRigT2YcP2...

Instead of desperately clinging to excuses and rationalizations, why don’t you just get used to the fact that these tools are insanely useful for demanding intellectual work, and that is an opinion held by many of the smartest people alive?

I’m a super skeptical guy. I was late to the ChatGPT party because it sounded silly. I didn’t even try it for a long time. As soon as I started giving it a chance, my attitudes started changing very quickly.

That’s why it’s so hard for me to understand people like the author or give them the benefit of the doubt. If I could see it as just some guy, why couldn’t they?

> These models are now operating at the level of the top human mathematicians in many parts of the subject and we must assume there is a significant chance of them developing superhuman abilities within a similarly short timeframe.

https://docs.google.com/document/u/0/d/1N6ThWhupvmH0ofSnaxqn...

The humans who are using LLMs to make these groundbreaking advances pretty much unanimously disagree that they lack any intelligence.

Seems like we can just stop reading here right? The author seems to have made up their mind that this very open question is closed, or at least they are not really interested in the question at all. Not sure why I would continue reading a blog based on this premise.

Edit: oh I see, written in 2023. Well, I wonder if the author has updated their attitude towards this question? Indeed that would be the most interesting thing to know.

Jobs are full of things we don’t like or don’t want to do. I don’t understand this fixation on leetcode as unacceptable because some people feel it’s not related to the work? So is being likeable!

I’m not sure I follow. There are dozens of zero day, full RCE/privilege escalation linux vulnerabilities that have been found and fixed due to the use of LLMs. Some of which existed for decades. Unclear how that doesn’t make us safer than before.