It’s not a particularly helpful paradigm for solving predicaments without excess violence and suffering, but the model makes sense insofar as it’s consistent

Your statement, as written, ignores that much wealth, power, privilege is inherited from ill-gotten gains like savage conquest, slavery, oppression, corruption, etc. and most great wealth is held by people who had extreme advantages from those endowments being born into those circumstances.

In most cases, it’s very hard to argue that society “owes them” anything.

I would say that debt would be much more appropriate for people like Nikola Tesla who wanted his inventions shared with the world at no cost, or the inventors of insulin who sold the patent for $1 to benefit the common good. Not for the telecom and pharma CEOs who become billionaires by extracting the maximum value from exploiting others’ ingenuity!

When roads are built for the common good, it’s only when government acts on behalf of the working class to compel taxpayers to fund it; it must coerce the billionaires to contribute under the implicit threat of force.

I’d love to believe that humans become generally more collectivist when they amass great wealth - and much credit to those who do - but they are much too few and far between for us to rely this as a society

Learning programming syntax at the same time made it frustrating to learn that math symbols were less strictly defined and less universal, that it was best to write proofs/derivations/etc in plain English in many cases instead of the neat symbols

For a decent portion of any given day, nearly every table at every establishment is occupied with people chatting, not browsing nor texting. The local parks are filled with people of all ages playing. Couldn’t help but laugh in disbelief initially

Standing in our driveways chatting, lending tools or supplies to one another, what used to be very standard suburban life.

It was amazing that we had become so disconnected in only 5 years after smartphones became nearly ubiquitous in that part of the world

If the only tangible, marketable value of graduating from a prestigious school was the raw knowledge and skill, I would agree with you. But it’s not.

Having worked with people who clearly got preferential treatment in hiring based on their school’s prestige, over more capable applicants from lower-tier schools, I absolutely lose respect for staff at universities who turn a blind eye to cheating.

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47214645

Here and on AI tech subreddits (ones that aren’t specifically about local or FOSS) seem to have this dynamic, to the degree I’ve suspected astroturfing.

So it’s refreshing to see maybe that’s just a coincidence or confirmation bias on my end.

Given that this is a common technique and not a novel invention, it’s probably present in the training set.

The “surely” reads like it’s referring to the presence of that information in the training set. But your response casts it as saying “surely the AI has not invented something on its own”.

The original question stands IMO, the burden of proof is on whoever is asserting that the AI has invented something on its own, with or without training data that surely already mentions this approach

If the only point being made by “all coders are replaced” is that humans aren’t manually typing the code from their keyboard anymore, I don’t think there’s much interesting to argue there, typing the code was never the hard part.

If the person who is liable for the system behavior cannot read/write code (as “all coders have been replaced”), does Anthropic et al become responsible for damages to end users for systems its tools/models build? I assume not.

How do you reconcile this? We have tools that help engineers design and build bridges, but I still wouldn’t want to drive on an “autonomously-generated bridge may contain errors. Use at own risk” because all human structural engineering experts have been replaced.

After asking this question many times in similar threads, I’ve received no substantial response except that “something” will probably resolve this, maybe AI will figure it out

It’s possible they’re not a capitalist and just extremely sympathetic to Apple and/or Google specifically, but that seems more of a stretch than what that commenter (to whom you’re replying) has inferred IMO

To temper my comment, the resistance I faced as the new guy brought in to modernize is natural for these engineers who knew their tools and systems well, in their defense. Eventually they warmed up from full pushback to friendly banter “Mr. Linux and command line over here” and accepted that running my little scripts helped address the confusion/frustration of Visual Studio disagreeing with Jenkins/GitHub Actions automations and runtime behavior in Kubernetes.

There are legions of developers for whom Visual Studio on Windows is the only place they have ever been comfortable. And upgrading between versions of .NET is a point-click exercise between the various UIs (Visual Studio Installer, “Get New Components or Features”, and the NuGet package manager)

The advent of .NET Core happened to coincide with initiatives to adapt:

* toward the cloud and away from IIS and Windows Server

* toward Git and away from TFS

* toward remote CI/CD and away from “drag my files into inetpub”

* toward SPAs and away from ASP.NET XAML programming (Blazor notwithstanding)

* toward a broader toolkit where the familiarity with OSS and open specs is advantageous, and away from Visual Studio as the center of the universe (though it still arguably reigns supreme in its class of IDEs)

Coming from the Linux/Docker world before going deep in .NET, I was both resented and leaned on heavily for these teams’ transitions. Most of my teammates had never read the contents of their .csproj or .sln files, or run a build command from a terminal and read its log output. They were annoyed by my requests to do so when helping them troubleshoot; some just rejected the idea outright (“there’s no need to look at VS internals here”, “we shouldn’t need to run DOS commands in today’s world, VS should hable this!”)

I can definitely sympathize with developers who were sold on what seemed like a promise that deep VS/IIS/etc knowledge would be the rock-solid foundation for business software for the rest of their careers. During the uprooting process, other promises like “netstandard2.0 will be forever for your core libraries and all future .NET runtimes!” end up with asterisks the following year.

I am 100% in agreement that .NET dev team is doing an amazing job, but it’s precisely because of their continued shakeups when they see major opportunities to improve it from the ground up, and probably the same reason that others feel wary of it