Funny anecdote: I had a large company selling their LLM tools with a slideshow starting with a mention of Goodhart's Law, and then proudly present number of PR's as a metric in the next slide.

I don't have any data to prove this :)

But on the other hand I'm almost certain I wouldn't have pushed through and gotten a degree without the internet (3b1b and Khan Academy in particular). I don't know what the world would look like without Google so almost impossible to argue, but I would definitely classify (ex. youtube) as "clearly useful".

If you ask an AWS consultant what the best solution for your problem is, don't be surprised if the answer is AWS.

I'm asking this genuinely because I've been using stuff like these separators before LLMS - now someone can just say "ahh dismiss the content they used style X it's LLM, it's dogshit".

I simply don't agree with the doomer takes. Might be wrong. I'm kinda stupid yet here I am.

In case it all just comes from training data, "one shotting" a game would be more comparable to "git pull" and changing some assets than "generating code".

I'm not saying this is how it works, I'm trivializing LLMs with this statement, but when I see someone on linkedin excited about generating checkers and chess my first thought is "you could have done that with git pull for the past 20 years".

Winner in our category had a powerpoint and a poster, no one even looked at the implementation. I learned something that day.

I'll believe it when I see it.

In general I feel people downplay the effects of luck by a lot. My thinking is that the effort is everything but meaningless, in fact it's probably the only thing you can control.

From a programmer perspective, I'm starting to like it less and less. It's useful for sure, but doesn't really live up to the hype. In many ways it's the opposite, my bet is still that programmers will be in high demand in the not so distant future after all of this settles.

Might be wrong, time will tell.