I don't know of any required credential to write software or be a programmer.

When I think about credentials, I think about doctors and lawyers. In both cases, I'm going to demand that the people I work with are credentialed, and there is no way that I'm going to change that.

Can you give a specific example of something that requires a credential today that you would like to see relaxed?

I love this. I've been circling this idea for a while and you put into words what I've struggled to describe.

> "A commercially successful team communication app built around the concept of channels, like in IRC." > Without already knowing Slack, that's not decodable.

I would like to suggest that implicit shared context matters here. Or rather, humans tend to assume more shared context than LLM's actually have, and that misleads us when it comes assessing the aforementioned decoder.

But I think it also suggests that there is a system that could be built with strong constraints and saliency that could really explode the compression ratio of vibe coding.

The quality of life of a human being is directly related to the amount of free energy (i.e. thermodynamic free energy, not free as in no cost) they have access to. Life must be able to generate more energy than it needs, even tiny bacteria. As humans developed, we found more ways to access and utilize free energy.

There is a phrase: Energy return on investment (or EROI). You can map the development of humanity pretty cleanly to an increasing EROI over the entire course of our history.

Fossil Carbon allowed us to explode our EROI and gave us access to never before seen amounts of free energy. Unless we find ways to maintain that EROI, our quality of life will necessarily diminish.

Obviously we need to cut our use of fossil carbon. And if we don't, we're simply going to run out, and then we'll be stuck anyway. But we also don't have anything with a comparable EROI to replace it with.

This is the root problem we're facing. If we had working fusion, it would be a whole lot easier to decarbonize.

I think treating every human with equal dignity goes beyond politics. While the specific context here was political, but that is only the context, not the principle.

Still there is no excuse for how terrible the electronics are in Jeep / Dodge (I'm assuming all Chrysler) vehicles. And it's been that way for decades.

That is a very small part of operating. How about keeping it update and running? Data backed up?

Your first step is "It's a group of scientists and their work was reviewed, so they are probably all dishonest."

Even that is an unreasonable step. It is very possible for a single person to deceive their peers.

Deductive reasoning like this works so much better for Sherlock Holmes, in fiction. In reality, deductive reasoning tends to re-enforce your biases and ignore the vast possibility space of alternatives.

You also make throw away assertions line "That's why so many claims are only found to not replicate years or decades after they were published." What is "so many claims?" The majority? 10%? 0.5%?

I totally agree with you that the nuances of the situation are very important to consider, and the things you mention are possibilities, but you are too eager to reject things if you think "that specific example should undermine your belief quite significantly if you're a rational person." You made lots of assumptions in these statements and I think a rational person with humility would not make those assumptions so quickly.

Having a hard and fast rule that can always be applied about this is impossible. We're just too interconnected and interdependent, and there are too many unknowns.

That doesn't mean we can just ignore it and not think about it. We owe it to each other to still do our best, even if it's not going to be perfect.

If a clothing company is profitable because they use slave labor, that is not good profit.

If an oil company is profitable because they do not address the environmental impact they have, that is not good profit.

If an insurance company is profitable because they refuse required treatments for their customers, that is not good profit.

You have a very simplistic view of profit that is not based in actual history. We have centuries of seeing this exact thing happen over and over again. Just because something is profitable does not make it good. Only someone obsessed with theory while ignoring the practice could think otherwise.