This "symbiosis" (for lack of better word) of human with AI seems to be an emergent value proposition of AI. In the process of doing stuff with AI, producing artefacts like code diffs, we are continuously able to decide how strong the mental map is of the current stage of the production process.

I could probably have worded this better but I'm sure it's something others have noticed... this choice we are able to make of how high fidelity our own understanding needs to be of the current working problem, and how that choice never really existed prior to AI.

Well this is the central bet of AI coding isn't it? We, the humans-in-the-loop, get better at knowing ahead of time which patterns AI will handle better than others, all the while the models actually get better.

The argument that Starship is somehow an experimental/unproven technology that might fail to materialise was absurd but plausible sounding before flight 1, there were many new technologies simultaneously being deployed to a single launch system in one go.

But after 3 tower catches of the booster demonstrating centimetres of guided precision of the entire stack, this is becoming a tired argument.

I know the author is not making that case at all here, but it seems like one the core reasons to undervalue SpaceX is that Starship might not work out, and this all sounds exactly like how reusability might not work out for the Falcon 9 from 10 years ago.

I don’t know why I get annoyed when LLM’s and their output are casually referred to as “he/she”, particularly by non-techies, but I do. There’s something about personifying an LLM that seems incorrect. Perhaps it’s a fear being stoked that increasingly, people might actually be thinking of LLM’s as living beings.