As I and several other people pointed out last time this was posted, "A is B," in natural language, does not imply "B is A." "Is" can denote any of many different shades of relationship weaker than logical identity.
This has very quickly become an uninteresting, and often even unconvincing critique. Especially on this site where it is levelled at essentially every blog post submitted.
Maybe true, maybe not. If it actually says something, which this one does, I just don't care. And I'm hardly an AI cheerleader
> As has been mentioned the goal was a port so they "could" eventually rewrite most of it to be idiomatic rust.
They may have said that, but quite clearly the value they actually get out of it is getting the headline "AI reimplements complex, broadly used software in 2 weeks, but makes it way better because it's rust now" in front of a million people's eyes, only 1% of whom will ever find out it was mostly fluff
When we're talking lab revenue, we're taking what companies are spending on AI.
The question is not whether companies are investing in AI, it's whether they're getting anything in return. Or, whether execs are just as anxious and confused about the story being sold as everyone else, taking the ludicrous amount of capital being put behind it as evidence that there's a "there" there, and hopping on the train out of pure FOMO and hedging, whether they're actually getting anything out of it at all.
I'm not sure what's different about my setup (just a Vaultwarden deployment hosted behind Tailscale, connected using the official Chrome extension and Android app), but I've never once encountered the long unlock delays due to sync attempts. It's always unlocked instantly. And the app is frequently unable to connect since I'm not always on the tablet.
The problem with these attempts always seems to be that you can see in dimensions 1-3, but never in dimension 4, so any movement or exploration along that axis is always just blind fumbling. The extra dimension is not equivalent to the others
The only answer would seem to be an extra axis of rotation, but (a) doesnt work well with existing input methods, and (b) would be even more of a brain-breaker
"Supply chain risk" is a specific designation that forbids companies that work with the DOD from working with that company. It would not be applied in your scenario.
If choosing the "wrong" model, or not wording your prompt in just the right way, is sufficient to not just degrade your output but make it actively misleading and worse than useless, then what does that say about the narrative that all this sort of work is about to be replaced?
I see a lot of the same (well thought out) pushback on here whenever these kinds of blind hype articles pop up.
But my biggest objection to this "engineering is over" take is one that I don't see much. Maybe this is just my Big Tech glasses, but I feel like for a large, mature product, if you break down the time and effort required to bring a change to production, the actual writing of code is like... ten, maybe twenty percent of it?
Sure, you can bring "agents" to bear on other parts of the process to some degree or another. But their value to the design and specification process, or to live experiment, analysis, and iteration, is just dramatically less than in the coding process (which is already overstated). And that's without even getting into communication and coordination across the company, which is typically the real limiting factor, and in which heavy LLM usage almost exclusively makes things worse.
Takes like this seem to just have a completely different understanding of what "software development" even means than I do, and I'm not sure how to reconcile it.
To be clear, I think these tools absolutely have a place, and I use them where appropriate and often get value out of them. They're part of the field for good, no question. But this take that it's a replacement for engineering, rather than an engineering power tool, consistently feels like it's coming from a perspective that has never worked on supporting a real product with real users.
Well, let's start by confronting and acknowledging the very strong case that we -- "we" here being the tech world in general, and the audience of this site -- bear a heavy burden of responsibility for it.
It could be argued that it was all inevitable given the development of the Internet: development of social media, the movement online of commerce and other activities that used to heavily involve "incidental" socialization, etc. And maybe it was. But "we" are still the ones who built it. So are "we" really the right ones to solve it, through the same old silicon valley playbook?
The usual thought process of trying to push local "community groups," hobby-based organizations etc is not bad, but I think it misses an important piece of the puzzle, which is that we've started a kind of death spiral, a positive feedback loop suppressing IRL interaction. People started to move online because it was easier, and more immediate than "IRL." But as more people, and a greater fraction of our social interaction moves online, "IRL" in turn becomes even more featureless. There are fewer community groups, fewer friends at the bar or the movies, fewer people open to spontaneous interaction. This, then, drives even more of culture online.
What use is trying to get "back out into the real world," when everyone else has left it too, while you were gone?
Pension funds hold $30 trillion, my guy. Even restricting to only defined -benefit funds it's 7T.