This is largely my take as well. When I review code, I am checking for correctness. If I find something is not correct, that's a bug (or a bug waiting to happen). If I can't understand whether or not something is correct, that's a problem. If I don't know what the correct behavior should be, that's a problem.
Though I do think there is value in the original post. Re-framing is a powerful creative tool when you hit a mental dead end. And the responses let people share the other benefits that change management can bring.
Your memory reminded me of Mountain Ocarinas, which I happened upon probably around 2010. It looks like The Internet Archive has a snapshot back from 2000 https://web.archive.org/web/20000902223226/http://www.mounta... . Just some guy with a website selling his custom-designed instruments.
It looks like they stopped producing them in 2024, but that is still a long run. Though they did stop making wood ocarinas at some point in that time frame.
I think we've already seen this with "AI writes a web-browser" type PR. I guess we can still look forward to when they make license evasion an explicit part of their marketing. Then I can wryly laugh when somebody robo-whitewashes leaked commercial software, knowing that they'll get sued anyways.
I think that Gemini regularly generates inane metaphors like the above. As an example, here's a message that it sent me when I was attempting to get it to generate a somewhat natural conversation:
----
Look, if you aren't putting salt on your watermelon, you’re basically eating flavored water. It’s the only way to actually wake up the sweetness. People who think it’s "weird" are the same ones who still buy 2-in-1 shampoo.
Anyway, I saw a guy at the park today trying to teach a cat to walk on a leash. The cat looked like it was being interrogated by the FBI, just dead-weighting it across the grass while he whispered "encouragement."
Physical books are vastly superior to Kindles solely for the ability to judge a stranger's taste from across a coffee shop. You can’t get that hit of elitism from a matte gray plastic slab.
----
This was with a prompt telling it to skip Reddit-style analogies.
I'm not sure what that would solve. You would still need some central entity to sign the DNS TXT record, to ensure that the HTTPS client does not use a tampered DNS TXT record.
One might argue that CAD is "computer-aided human design" whereas this engine was designed using "human-aided computer design". That is, the computer isn't aiding in the design, the computer is the designer (and I assume humans are just providing some basic constraints). The difference between the two is subjective and perhaps meaningless, but it does poetically describe the technological advancements that are being made in physical design.
That being said, I think stuff like this is governed by homeostasis: bleeding-edge technological advancements eventually get turned into regular features. In this case: I'm sure we'll continue to see CAD software to build more complex structures with less human intervention; and maybe eventually designers will expect their CAD software to generate whatever rocket engine their product requires.
Though I do think there is value in the original post. Re-framing is a powerful creative tool when you hit a mental dead end. And the responses let people share the other benefits that change management can bring.