I want to believe formal methods can help, not because one doesn't have to think about it, but because the time freed from writing code can be spent on thinking on systems, architecture and proofs.

I'm sure almost no family have an upper limit on book time.

Thus aiming for screens the replace books is a bad aim.

When you get a fatter check because your code break, the incentives are not in favor of good code.

If your tooling can pull a dependency from the internet, it could certainly check if more recent version from a vendored one is available.

Steve Jobs

Now, what are doers in the age of LLM is another question.

> We should forget about small efficiencies, say about 97% of the time: premature optimization is the root of all evil. Yet we should not pass up our opportunities in that critical 3%.

But once you have a home, enough to raise your family and save for later, when is enough enough?

And is the work fun? Fulfilling?

Money is a mean to an end.

Sure you can aim to earn enough to get FIRE asap. In my case, I aim for FIRE in the next 40y while maxing my fun in the meantime :)

Good enough can be good enough and then aim for fun/interesting/challenging/fulfilling work instead of a fatter check.

Think about dating apps, pictures could be fake, and now words exchanged can be fake too.

You thought you were arguing with a gentle and smart colleague by chat and mails, too bad, when you meet then at a conference or at a restaurant you find them very unpleasant.

For me, navigating with shortcuts feels like I can keep my inner monologue, it is part of it, maybe because I can spell it?

Dunno, but reaching for the mouse and navigating around breaks that, even if it can be more convenient for some actions.

When it comes to fundamentals, I think it's still worth the investment.

To paraphrase, "months of prompting can save weeks of learning".

But isn't the corrections of those errors that are valuable to society and get us a job?

People can tell they found a bug or give a description about what they want from a software, yet it requires skills to fix the bugs and to build software. Though LLMs can speedup the process, expert human judgment is still required.

Whereas a junior might be reluctant at first, but if they are smart they will learn and get better.

So maybe LLM are better than not-so-smart people, but you usually try to avoid hiring those people in the first place.

Back in the day, it was much less concentrated and less dangerous than what you can get today.

It's like reading, for better learning and understanding, it is advised that you think and question the text before reading it, and then again after just skimming it.

Whereas if you ask first for the answer, you are less prepared for the topic, is harder to form a different opinion.

It's my perception.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46685527

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

I think handling sensitive data should be done by professional. A lawyer handles contracts, a doctor handles health issue and a programmer handles data manipulation through programs. This doesn't remove risk of errors completely, but it reduces it significantly.

In my home, it's me who's impacted if I screw up a fix in my plumbing, but I won't try to do it at work or in my child's school.

I don't care if my doctor vibe codes an app to manipulate their holidays pictures, I care if they do it to manipulate my health or personal data.