There's no gate being kept here. It's just someone talking about something they are passionate about and then expressing their opinion about current technology. They're not stopping anyone from also loving the computer. If anything, I could see someone reading this and being MORE excited to get into computing.

This is very obviously not what the person you responded to was saying. It's so far off that it's hard to believe you are even arguing in good faith anymore...

Hmm people say this all the time in these discussions but idk if I buy that it's really a "user issue". It's really, really not hard to "use" agentic ai. It literally involves instructing an llm to do things in natural language. Anyone who knows how to code and speak a language can do this. As you yourself seem to believe, even people who don't know how to code can do this. I just don't think it's possible that THAT many people are having an issue typing some words to instruct an llm to write some code. Maybe the issue is more the type of software you are working on vs the type of software that other people are working on. I don't know, I just don't think "skill issue" is really a valid argument here...

Edit: for the record, I think what Opus can produce is extremely impressive. But I still am not really close to letting write 100% of code I write. And I think that is true for a lot of people, not just me. It still generates (sometimes obvious) bugs. Until that stops, the statement "coding is solved" is objectively false, which (I think?) is largely the point of the video.

I hadn't heard this before. Doesn't that kind of defeat the entire purpose of using the app?

Believe it or not, some people actually do enjoy their jobs and work they do.

> I get that you might have a 'UBI/alternative general welfare is impossible' up your sleeve, but you've written this like it's somehow unfathomable that not forcing everybody to work just to survive would be a good thing.

UBI absolutely is unfathomable here (US). The USG won't even give people health care. People go bankrupt to afford life saving care on a regular basis. Or just die... Even if those cases are a minority, just the fact that it happens says a lot. So I do think it is unfathomable that UBI would be implemented here. I don't think that's unreasonable to say.

This is essentially what a handful of c-suite execs have been telling the world for the past 2-3 years is it not?

Out of curiosity, why would you love to be wrong about that? What possible outcome could you see being a net positive for society if the vast majority of knowledge workers (and ultimately, as robotics progress, most workers in general) are replaced by AI?