Anyway, my work process is as follows: I have the agent write the code, and describe it's purpose etc. via comments so another session can later pick it up easily without me having to explain everything again. That's what I commit. Sometimes I even look at the code :)

What else could I commit? At the current state of the art, I could commit the whole natural language session that lead to the code, instead of the code. When I later check this out in a fresh environment (without the artifacts the LLM putted out), I'd just load the most recent version of the conversation as an initial prompt. Or I could want to check out the conversation at a point two months ago and rebuild the program from there.

Would that produce a program with exactly the same behavior? I don't know. But if it doesn't, the essay's argument is not moot. Not yet ...

You can thank me later (in 20 years).

Well I think it's not ok without at least a fixed deadline for removal of MS365. People usually have work to do and learning new ways to get it done means extra work, and (almost) nobody takes upon extra work if they don't have to. So the new software will be largely ignored by default.

So any universe expanding within a black hole of ours has to exist with only the mass that fell into it? How would it produce black holes itself with so little mass?

This is not a simple y/n question. Computers have been superhuman at playing chess for decades now. Reading this article, I guess they are superhuman at understanding code now as well.

Does that mean some random human looking at my dirty laundry in the middle of my home, the most intimate place in existence for me? No thank you.