What differentiates this practice from the natural science is its study of subjective phenomena, as opposed to objective physicalities.

https://firekasina.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/11/the-fire-k...

    You must learn to sit perfectly still with every muscle tense for long periods.

    Various things will happen to you while you are practising these positions; they must be carefully analysed and described.

    Note down the duration of practice; the severity of the pain (if any) which accompanies it, the degree of rigidity attained, and any other pertinent matters.

    When you have progressed up to the point that a saucer filled to the brim with water and poised upon the head does not spill one drop during a whole hour,
    and when you can no longer perceive the slightest tremor in any muscle; when, in short, you are perfectly steady and easy, you will be admitted for examination;
    and, should you pass, you will be instructed in more complex and difficult practices.

Nobody's taken me up on this offer yet. [0]

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46325469

Use my abstract factory factories and inversion of control containers. With Haskell your entire solution is just a 20-line mapreduce in a monad transformer stack over IO. In J, it's 20 characters.

I don't see how AI differs. Rather, the last study of significance found that devs were gaslighting themselves into believing they were more productive, when the data actually bore the opposite conclusion [0].

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44522772

I may want to communicate further information about the inhabitants or values of a particular type, without introducing extraneous or superfluous types:

    -- given a path to a PEM encoded PKCS#8 formatted RSA private key and a
    -- JWT Claims Set (RFC 7519) represented as a strict ByteString,
    -- return a strict ByteString representing a base64 encoded RSA256-signed JWS.
    generateJWT :: FilePath -> B.ByteString -> IO (Maybe B.ByteString)
    generateJWT fp claims = (fmap unJwt <$>) . (maybe (return Nothing) (fmap eitherToMaybe . encodeClaims) =<<)
                                             $ fromPKCS8 fp
      where eitherToMaybe = preview _Right
            encodeClaims  = (flip $ rsaEncode RS256) claims

Aye, perhaps prompting is the be-all-end-all skill, after all: the ability to distill out an idea into its most concentrated, compressed essence, so it can be diluted, expanded, and reworded ad infinitum by the LLMs.

brb while I search for the word prompt that generated the universe...

I would hazard that you are underestimating the impact of these rhetorical tactics, but I've not the energy to aggressively litigate and cite this point further.

This is the core rhetorical tactic of the progressive left in a nutshell. Linguistic superposition, equivocation, Schrodinger's definition - whatever you want to call it, it's the ability to have your cake and eat it too by simply changing your definitions, or even someone else's, post hoc.

Let us take a moment to be reminded of the English Socialism of Orwell and doublespeak.

    reply with one-line haskell source code ONLY: implement the function projectPair :: (Field1 s s a a, Field2 s s b b) => Lens s s (a, b) (a, b)

    lens (\s -> (s^._1, s^._2)) (\s (a,b) -> s & _1 .~ a & _2 .~ b)

I suppose LLMs are good for this and other extremely constrained forms of boilerplate production. I consider it an incremental improvement over go codegen. Everything else I still tend to hand-write, because I don't consider source code production the bottleneck of software development.

Technical topics demand a technical treatment, not 30-second junk food bites of video infotainment that then imbue the ignorant audiences with the semblance or false feeling of understanding, when they actually possess none. This is why we have so many fucking idiots dilating everywhere on topics they haven't a clue on - they probably saw a fucking YouTube video and now consider themselves in possession of a graduate degree in the subject.

Rather than try to widely distribute and disseminate knowledge, it would be far more prescient to capitalize on what will soon be a massive information asymmetry and widening intellectual inequality between the reads and the read-nots, accelerated by the production of machine generated, misinformative slop at scale.