Pandas is also in no way safer than pip. Because pandas is a library and pip is a package manager and that comparison makes no sense lmao. It sounds like you maybe don't really get or use typescript and don't even really use like basic mypy style types in python (or don't get the difference between what a zod/pydantic validator does vs what a mypy/typescript type system does - zod is also only on the boundary). Which is OK but but there's a difference between not getting why a stack is useful or not having experience with it versus confidently and comically declaring that nobody else understands types either while seeming not understanding what any of the parts here do

The exception was when people were taking orgo or a diagram heavy class. For that semester not everyone would have a tablet and some people would have pens and pencils. Or writing classes that still required a handwritten essay for the final exam

The main thing to keep in mind is that all the stuff that involves analogies between software and biology is almost universally a bullshit oversimplification that you can safely ignore. It's just that software is so profitable and there's so much vc money in it that there's a ton of pressure to be like "oh we can program biology like we program computers." We can't - we invented computers but didn't invent biology. Biology is the end result of 4 billion years of unchecked entropy - it's a chaos system, non deterministic in the wildest ways, impossibly complicated, and yet something we are getting astonishingly good at understanding and engineering.

Basically, all the biologists that started companies that were like "we can program biology like we can program computers" are bankrupt now.

On the other hand, the computer scientists that respected the nature of biology and pushed the limits of computing to develop Alphafold - giant models trained on the full complexity of biological data - finally created computer systems that could handle biological systems like protein folding at an extraordinary level of capability. They won a nobel.

It's not a human intelligence - it's a totally different thing, so why would the same test that you use to evaluate human abilities apply here?

Also more directly the "all sorts of other things" we want llms to be good at often involve writing code/spatial reasoning/world understanding which creating an svg of a pelican riding a bicycle very very directly evaluates so it's not even that surprising?