It reminds me of Clay Christensen’s book How to Measure Your Life. In one of his talks, he talked about how companies get killed because they optimized for the wrong/short-term metrics. What we are seeing with AI could be a supercharged flavor of Innovator’s Dilemma, where organizations optimize a pre-existing set of success metrics while missing the bigger picture because some previous assumptions no longer hold.
I really like the article. It’s not trying to sell fear (which does sell); it doesn’t paint the leaderships as clueless. Nobody knows what is going to happen in the future. The article might be wrong on a few things. But it doesn’t matter. It points out a few assumptions that people might be missing and that is great.
Is the non-trivial amount of time significantly less than you trying to ramp up yourself?
I am still hesitant using AI for solving problems for me. Either it hallucinates and misleads me. Or it does a great job and I worry that my ability of reasoning through complex problems with rigor will degenerate. When my ability of solving complex problems degenerated, patience diminished, attention span destroyed, I will become so reliant on a service that other entities own to perform in my daily life. Genuine question - are people comfortable with this?
> I’m not totally sure if this is a GOOD idea to add to the c++ standard
What are the downsides? Naively, it seems like a good idea to both provide a coroutine spec (for power users) and a default task type & default executor.
I am not a native speaker and I joke about my typos and grammar mistakes being the evidence that none of my code or post is AI generated.
Sorry about the typos. I just fixed all the ones I can find. Hope it's better now.
Neat. It certainly makes oncall and maintenance easier! It is likely more resource efficient by e.g. minimizing idle compute, maximizing cache hit rate, etc.