I never said I don't care about the coding itself, or the underlying quality of my systems. I can care about more than one thing, while still identifying goals that I have for how I spend my time.
One thing I've learned from responding to emergencies is that you can't just yell "help" at a crowd, you have to pick out someone specific and say "You, dial 911."
We had someone collapse on campus and have a seizure. An entire group of people stood around this person as they wet themselves, nobody doing anything but watching. I picked out specific people from the group to help, told them what to do, and told everyone else to back away. There was even some guy who got pissed at me for telling him to leave the area, but he's exactly the kind of person you want out of the way.
Lesson here, be specific, be aggressive, and take charge when it's needed, because it's very unlikely that a bystander will do anything but watch.
This is dishonest. Your quip was to imply that I'm reducing what is otherwise a fun activity to an automation, on the basis of a purity test.
> Some people merely enjoy programming more than engineering.
And I haven't said otherwise, so I'm not sure what point youre trying to make. My initial goal was to provide my own viewpoint on how to enjoy the process while taking advantage of modern tools, not to tell people they shouldn't enjoy programming more than engineering.
This is just a purity test disguised in high minded rhetoric. Defining "quality" in practice is both impractical and a matter of opinion. Building something first, and making it better later, is it's own form of quality.
If solving jigsaw puzzles with claude will enable the creation of tools that help the people I want to help (students with disabilities), then I would use it for that, without feeling any guilt at all for doing so.
Why should I regret that? Why should I care about your purity tests?
This isn't a response I expect from people who are here for a productive discussion. I'm sorry that you are sick of hearing this, but I'm not responsible for making sure you only read what you find worthy of your own personal brand of respect. Instead of attacking someone for simply offering their point of view, in what appears to be a quasi-gatekeeping effort, maybe you should look inward and discover what is making you this upset toward a complete stranger.
__I cannot take away the joy you have for programming simply by stating what drives me.__
I got into programming to just build stuff, the coding is just a means to an end, try not to think too hard about the how and think more about the why and what
Let's remember, they didn't politely ask OP. It was assumed.
Affirmative consent means that consent is not assumed, meaning no one need "just answer politely no".. you must ask, and receive a yes, for affirmative consent. Not saying "no", politely or otherwise, doesn't constitute consent.
It's entirely about consent, and has nothing to do with being a Luddite.
Which means you were already "smoking" in an environment where you need to ask permission first.. this isn't a street corner we're talking about. Stop trying to muddy the water please.
> then you don't really get to complain, "What nerve! To smoke in front of me!"
I do if you're smoking in a place where you need affirmative consent BEFORE lighting up. Please tell me you understand this.
OP's problem seems to be that there is an assumption that they are okay with being recorded, which is their very first argument in this article. What's more, with the attitude you apparently have, we should expect more incidents such as this:
This whole "it makes the flow of the appointment much better" argument is one that I assume you'll use to justify this default position of recording others without clear consent. Clear consent, mind you, is receiving a "yes".. as opposed to saying "they didn't say no".
Consent doesn't happen just because someone didn't say no.
> If someone asked me not to, I'd turn it off
Case in point.. you've admitted to recording before receiving affirmative consent.
well, all the same, I think we should verify these claims .. I think part of the pushback to this is that it might make a group of people look dishonest if we can in fact detect subvocalization in people who have made this claim, but it's entirely possible that you are experiencing both and not realizing it. A bifurcation of sorts? In any event, we should support/expect further testing.
> I'm not sure what you think all these people have to gain from tricking you.
Your very first response is attacking me, not an argument I've made.
> Weird that you go right to assuming everyone who doesn't agree with you is defensive.
Your second response is also attacking me, not an argument I've made.
> I think you need to recalibrate your outrage sensors.
I'm not outraged at all.
> You said a thing doesn't exist.
I'm assuming by "thing" you mean "people with no inner monologue", and I have not claimed they don't exist, I made a statement concerning my disbelief. There is a difference.
> I pointed out that the thing does, in fact, exist.
Your claim that you experience this should be verified before we accept it as a scientific fact. If that were not the case, telepathy would be considered a fact.
These responses from you have made me even more suspicious of the veracity of your claims. Again, not outraged, just wish to verify what is true.
A person who is honest about their experiences, and has reported those as fact, should welcome verification.. you've clearly decided against that.
Animals do in fact "string words together", e.g. parrots. You're also misidentifying what "language" is. Language in this context is not just the ability to string word together. Consider a musician, when they learn to play an instrument, they are learning the language of that instrument. Notes are tokens, ensembles are sentences and paragraphs. I'm afraid you're experiencing conformational bias, because every piece of evidence presented to you has been dismissed with things like "stringing together words is not synonymous with intelligence, since my cat can't do that".
Agentic systems use LLMs, and they are absolutely able to follow diverse and intricate analogies. I use them frequently to hunt down notoriously difficult to find memory leaks, in codebases too large for a human to read in a single sitting. They are able to not only follow those intricate paths, they're able to discover solutions and apply those solutions. I use these systems quite a bit, and it's nothing like you've described.
You're moving the goalpost. If the definition of intelligence is based on ability to "go build a church", then we've ruled out the vast majority of the animal kingdom from being labeled "intelligent". If you cannot be consistent in your definition of "intelligence", then you cannot have a reliable litmus test for it.