And not once have I ever felt that these so-called intersections were anything other than contrived.

Of course we can interface with music from a mathematical perspective, but that doesn't mean that we should or that there's anything particularly illuminating to gleen from doing so.

Beyond the very basic math (honestly even that's perhaps too strong a word -- just because something is expressed in numbers doesn't make it _math_) of time signatures and some harmonic concepts up to maybe some of Slonimsky's work, doing so is IMO a fool's errand that exists only to fill space on a TEDx stage.

Obviously there are tons of tools and systems building up around LLMs, and I don't intend to minimize that, but at the end of the day, an LLM is more analogous to a tool such as an IDE than a programming language. And I've never seen a job posting that dictated one must have X number of years in Y IDE; if they exist, they're rare, and it's hardly a massive hill to climb.

Sure, there's a continuum with regards to the difficulty of picking up a tool, e.g. learning a new editor is probably easier than learning, say, git. But learning git still has nothing on learning a whole tech stack.

I was very against LLM-assisted programming, but over time my position has softened, and Claude Code has become a regular part of my workflow. I've begun expanding out into the ancilary tools that interact with LLMs, and it's...not at all difficult to pick up. It's nothing like, say, learning iOS development. It's more like learning how to configure Neovim.

In fact, isn't this precisely one of the primary value propositions of LLMs -- that non-technical people can pick up these tools with ease and start doing technical work that they don't understand? If non-technical folks can pick up Claude Code, why would it be even _kind_ of difficult for a developer to?

So, I'm with the post author here: what is there to get left behind _from_?

I know everyone thinks they're going to just kill it, but I don't see it. Apple's move under Tim Cook has been to exhaust supplies (see: filling the Intel Mac Pro chassis with air and not updating the CPU), letting people predict its death (see: 2013 -> 2019 Mac Pro silence), and then redesigning it into something people want while utilizing it as an opportunity to segment specs across their SKUs.

The Studio will remain the high-powered creator machine, whereas the Mac Pro will be retooled into an AI beast.

In my own work, this often looks like writing the quick and dirty version (alpha), then polishing it (beta), then rewrite it from scratch with all the knowledge you gained along the way.

The trick is to not get caught up on the beta. It's all too tempting to chase perfection too early.

Give me some life and color and personality, damn it.

https://x.com/lillybilly299/status/1865133434839990601

The amount of people who apparently just want the end result and don't care about the process at all has really surprised me. And it makes me unfathomably sad, because (extremely long story short) a lot of my growth in life can be summed up as "learning to love the process" -- staying present, caring about the details, enjoying the journey, etc. I'm convinced that all that is essential to truly loving one's own life, and it hurts and scares me to both know just how common the opposite mindset is and to feel pressured to let go of such a huge part of my identity and dare-I-say soul just to remain "competitive."

Get in touch if you'd like to chat more about this stuff (my email is in my profile).

It's shocking how quickly my family normalized consuming obvious AI slop short-form videos, one after the other, for hours. It's horrifying.