https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=Z3qRXDGApNU

Government involvement almost always just makes the problem worse, not better. There is a place for control in some areas (medical, military applications, etc), but I think broad-sweeping regulation would do far more damage than good.

I'm sorry, but if I'm doing the hiring, the person who isn't willing to come on site to do an interview will be one of the first people off the list to hire (I mean, unless it is a remote job, and the person is nowhere near the employer, obvious exceptions would apply).

In-person interviewing can be extremely valuable. Will it filter out every bad candidate? No, some people excel at faking it. However it can be a big help in finding a good candidate.

bad analogy. It can be very painful to accept the truth, but doing so is always a good thing. Staring directly into the sun can cause permanent damage to your eyes -- not a good thing.

[Decline]

While I agree that for some people games with a time limit are not fun, I don't think the challenges and difficulty should be classified as "purposeless" and "dumb". For many the challenge/difficulty IS the fun part, and they serve a genuine purpose. If you don't like that, then play a different game, but that doesn't mean the game you don't like is useless.

Those two things have absolutely nothing to do with one another. Something being easy to implement is completely unrelated to whether forcing its implementation is overreach.

That's an awfully wide swath you are cutting there. I can't think of a single tech person that I've worked closely with in the last 20 years that I would describe as "riding the same wave of exploiting the average person through economies of scale". The majority of tech workers do not work for FAANG, or anything close to it.

Apache still runs about 23-28% of websites (with some measurements suggesting it is pretty close to equal with nginx). PHP is still in use by 70-80% of websites (numbers vary depending on where you look).

You make it sound like both pieces of tech are irrelevant. Nothing could be further from the truth.

some quick googled examples (like I said other sites' numbers vary, but you get the general idea):

https://www.wappalyzer.com/technologies/web-servers/ https://kinsta.com/php-market-share/

If you are having an LLM generate the assembly language for you, that is not even remotely close to writing the assembly language yourself.

I don't find it exciting even in the slightest. I can think of nothing more boring and unsatisfying than having an LLM generate all of your code for you.

I mean, I understand why some think this could be exciting from a "I can get something done fast because the LLM generates it for me" standpoint -- because their excitement stems from something getting done at all instead of just sitting in the pool of ideas forever. However, you will never know the code generated by an LLM like you know the code you wrote yourself. Also you will never gain the same satisfaction of finishing a project where the code was written by an LLM that you gain from finishing a project where you wrote the code yourself.

If you are a person that doesn't care about coding or doesn't like to code at all, I could totally see why you'd find this exciting - to you it's all about avoiding work you don't care for or want to do yourself anyway. Also, a high percentage of people who do love coding have zero interest in writing assembly language, so if they were required to write some for a project, I could also see them being happy with having an LLM generate that part of the project for them.

However, I think for people who genuinely love to write code, the situation is the opposite of what you said -- it is far more sad than it is exciting. In fact, for many of them it has already reached the point of depressing for many reasons. I don't think it is primarily because the LLMs have gotten significantly better at generating code (which they have). I think some of the bigger reasons are that so many people who now pay people to produce code have:

1) got a very short-sighted and "rose-colored-glasses" view of what LLM-produced code will do for their company.

    and

In the long run I think most (if not close to all) of those businesses are going to be sorry if they over-indulge in replacing human-produced code with LLM-produced code. I think the ones who lean too heavy on the LLM side are going to eventually collapse into a heap of unmanagable dumpster-fire code that they can't understand nor maintain. A whole new world of incidental complexity will consume every project, and in the long run it will just eat them alive (figuratively speaking, of course :-D ).

The artform only dies if you let it. Even if your employer is so idiotically myopic as to forbid you to ever write your own code, you can still continue the art on your own time. I for one don't care how "good enough" any AI-lableled technology gets at writing code. I will continue to hone my craft until the day I either die, become too unwell to do it, or some other creative endeavor consumes all of my personal time.

Here I was hoping that somehow IBM had decided to open source it. That would have been fun. But I don't think that will ever happen.

IMHO, It's a better time than ever to develop a new IDE. Just make one that cares deeply about performance (i.e loads instantly, and always has a snappy response). Make features easy to control. Allow me to turn on only the things I care about and to shut the rest off.

I can't even remember the last time I was impressed by the speed of an IDE, though we have more computing power now than ever. I'd love to see someone new come in and wipe the floor with all of the current contenders.