I agree that someone may misunderstand their phrasing though

Specifications accurate enough to describe the exact behaviors are basically equivalent to code, also in terms of length, so you basically just change language (and current LLM tech is not on course to be able to handle such big specifications)

Higher level specifications (the ones that make sense) leave some details and assumption to the implementation, so you can not safely ignore the implementation itself and you cannot recreate it easily (each LLM build could change the details and the little assumptions)

So yeah, while I agree that documentation and specifications are more and more important in the AI world, I don't see the path to the conclusions you are drawing

If you setup your skeleton in a way it is familiar to you, reviewing new features afterwards is easier.

If you let the LLM start with the skeleton, they may use different patterns and in the long run it's harder to keep track of it.

Isn't this the point of the whole conversation we are having here?

Laws on copyright were not created for current AI usage on open source project replication.

They need to change, because if they are perfectly enforced by the letter, they result in actions that are clearly against the intent of the law itself.

The underlying problem is that the world changes too fast for the laws so be fair immediately

You start having problems when an heavy compilation is required, e.g. Android / iOS builds

Are you suggesting that they should ignore the needs of the vast majority of their users?

I mean, of course they do, it would be worse otherwise

Gemini is the only real competitor to OpenAI in the consumer space: they already have the consumer eyes on their products and they have the financials to operate at a loss for years.

They are well positioned to fight for the market

How bad it is if put of 200+ conversations, a couple of those are not exported correctly? Not much honestly. If I verify some of those and they are ok, I would see no reason to keep verifying all of them.

The difference comes in confidence that the solution works and can be maintained in the future, but in terms of purely making the decisions and applying the changes an LLM is faster when it has all the required infos available

I have a pixel device, and by default I have the weather on both lock screen and home screen. Every morning I receive a notification with the expected weather for the day, and it keeps suggesting me to enable the weather preview right after the morning alarm.

Garmin smartwatch? Same

Android car / Apple car? Same

MacOS has the weather as one of the most prominent widgets available, and I believe windows to be the same.

Do I really need to have weather info constantly available to me?

Instead you find it placed on your smartphone homescreen, on the smartwatch, on the home dashboard, on a notification you receive every morning, on your car screen, on your computer, ... I don't need to see it constantly.

Personally I believe it is something that it is easy to integrate and that users don't perceive as useless, but 99% of the time doesn't add any value

The conversation was moving between two possibilities only: either collect bug bounties or sell on the black market. I believe most (again: most, not all) security researchers collecting bug bounties right now would not start selling on the black market in case bounties disappeared. They would change their focus to something else to sustain themselves

I like to believe there are also ethics involved in most cases

It feels like shooting a fly with a bazooka

In the way that Swagger / OpenAPI is for API endpoints, but most of the "skills" you need for your agents are not based on API endpoints

It seems like the best tradeoff between information density and understandability actually comes from the deep latin roots of the language

I agree with your belief, other languages have either lower density (e.g. German) or lower understandability (e.g. English)

This tells more about your code quality that about copilot, and I'm not a fan of copilot

You reduce development effort by a third, it is ok to debate whether a company so big should invest into a better product anyway but it is pretty clear why they are doing this