It works well for me. I wouldn't have said that about 3 or 4 months ago but now it does work. How well it works seems to be highly project-dependant, my friends have much more trouble to get usable things out of LLMs.
The projects I work on are relatively small, two frontend with about 30k loc and a middleware with about 50k loc.
All project were started with no llms and were pretty clean.
I use Augment and Intent with Opus 4.6
The main challenge is to avoid over engineering. It's honestly pretty hard to rein it in and get simple code, most of the time I let it do its thing and then tell it to remove some section, simplify that etc.
So I still have to tell it how to do stuff, and not just what to do.
But overall it has surpassed what I thought it would be able to do, like calling external services by itself to get the shape of the data for example.
Another win was making a mermaid chart of the whole arborescence of the projects, with special annotations on a specific type of components. Something that would be highly repetitive and a bit frustrating was done quickly with a very short prompt.
Code refactoring is also much easier for some tasks, like separating a service into multiple services depending on a certain criteria, usually by domain. When it's easy to describe but the work requires a lot of edits, LLMs usually do better than I would do manually.
team size is 2, and I have been a frontend developer for about 12 years.
I've used Ableton for about 12 years before making the switch to bitwig, it's the best thing I've ever done.
There are very, very few Ableton features that I miss. The only thing I can think of is the automations rescaling I wish Bitwig would implement, otherwise it's vastly superior to Ableton in any other way. Especially the bounce/audio editing workflow, this thing makes me 2 to 3 times faster than when using Ableton (no hyperbole)
The subject of the thread is "Will my code be regurgitated if I put it on Github ? Should I avoid putting my code on Github if I don't want it copied?"
The legality aspect that you are injecting into the discussion is irrelevant
The "people all look the same" part is absolutely ridiculous. The overwhelming majority of people I pass by in the streets look nothing like these people (in fact, I can't even remember the last time I saw someone who looked like that in real life)
The rest of the article isn't much better in my opinion: it cites only anecdotal evidence, and it says nothing about the past state of affairs despite the title of the article being about "the age of" something.
I don't personally see a major problem with your reasoning (sorry to not teach you anything new). Consciousness could be very well due to a process we don't know about yet, and disrupting this process would indeed consistently lead to a lapse in conscious experience.
The only thing is, we wouldn't know just yet if there are other ways for matter to organize itself as a conscious being. Best we can do for now is to learn about the type of consciousness that we animals on earth experience.
You're turning the burden of proof on itself. The authors claim that humans are only algorithms, it's their job to prove it before mounting an argument based on it.
The authors make the claim that "You are just an algorithm implemented on biological hardware."
This claim needs to be substantiated before anything that follows can be taken seriously.
Another underlying assumption needs to be proven: that our conscious experience is only due to computation and nothing else.
What if the answer "yes, I am conscious" was computed by hand instead of using a computer, (even if the answer takes years and billions of people to compute it) would you still accept that the language model is sentient ?
In a strict sense, vaccine do not cause mutations. Vaccines will help strains that have mutated by removing competition, but that's very different from molnupiravir which actually induces mutations.
We shouldn't say that ChatGPT 'said' something either, but it's an easy shorthand. Likewise, saying chatgpt lied is much shorter and to the point than saying it "generated an output in which the narrator insists that something false is true".
So in this regard the model is definitely not working as designed.