> Couldn’t a Lindy enthusiast have gone “umm but isn’t Java too new and shouldn’t we just stick to C which is well trodden and understood??”
I think people often misrepresent history because they view it with the benefit of hindsight. People who chose to use Java didn't do it to embrace a revolutionary idea, they were embracing an evolutionary one. It seemed like a natural optimization step, rather than a clean slate.
Most Jave devs were proficient C devs who found the idea of a platform independent C quite appealing.
That's the Lindy effect. C (the essence of it) survives in Java and right up to JS/python/go.
In contrast consider Pascal, Fotran, Perl, COBOL, (and dare I say ... Lisp ?)
I'm honestly surprised at all the people here commenting that superpowers didn't work out for them.
For me personally, it was a game changer when I first began using it and now it simply is as much a part of my workflow as any say, using git (yeah it has its warts but way way more value).
Also, the latest (version 6) is noticebly token efficient as claimed.
Did the people who found it underwhelming not try starting with the brainstorming skill first?
The real joke here is how close these quips are to the reality of modern day financial markets. Specifically, lending and hedging, are time entangled and value within the markets exist in superposition.
24K is presumably the number that got caught. It isn't out of the realm of possibility that there indeed are (/ were over time), 5x accounts that managed to bypass the checks anthropic had.
I'm almost certain what the OP meant was if the commands were run synchronously (ie: from 2 different shells or as `mv a b &; mv c d`) yes there is a possibility that a and d exist (eg: On a busy system where neither of the 2 commands can be immediately scheduled and eventually the second one ends up being scheduled before the first)
Or to go a level deeper, if you have 2 occurrences of rename(2) from the stdlibc ...
rename('a', 'b');
rename('c', 'd');
...and the compiler decides on out of order execution or optimizing by scheduling on different cpus, you can get a and d existing at the same time.
The reason it won't happen in the example you posted is the shell ensures the atomicity (by not forking the second mv until the wait() on the first returns)
> This suggests that as companies transition to more AI code writing with human supervision, humans may not possess the necessary skills to validate and debug AI-written code if their skill formation was inhibited by using AI in the first place.
I'm reminded of "Kernighan's lever" :
> Everyone knows that debugging is twice as hard as writing a program in the first place. So if you're as clever as you can be when you write it, how will you ever debug it?
AI is writing code in the cleverest way possible which then introduces cognitive load for anyone who hasn't encountered these patterns previously. Although, one might say that AI would also assist in the debugging, you run the risk of adding further complexity in the process of 'fixing' the bugs and before you know it you have a big stinking ball of mud.
The linked trends suggest a revival of the term though.
> The people who do the "*nix" cargo cult thing have never seen a SunOS machine and don't even know what a HPUX is.
The meaning of words evolve over time though. Text is still broken into lines by "carriage return/line feeds" and is written on "hard disk" split up in "sectors".,. Over time people using these would not have seen a typewriter or even know what a platter is but may still use it to communicate effectively.
I claim that the new code, music or documents have not added anything significant/noteworthy/impactful to society except for the self-perpetuating lie that it would, all the while regurgitating, at high speeds, what was stolen.
And all at significant opportunity cost (in terms of computing and investment)
If it was as life altering as they claim where's that novel work of art (in your examples..of code, music or literature) that truly could not have been produced without GenAI and fundamentally changed the art form ?
Surely, with all that ^increased productivity^ we'd have seen the impact equivalent of linux, apache, nginx, git, redis, sqlite, ... Etc being released every couple of weeks instead of yet another VSCode clone./s
Can't speak for Rob Pile but my guess would be, yeah, it might seem hypocritical but it's a combination of seeing the slow decay of the open culture they once imagined culminating into this absolute shirking of responsibility while simultaneously exploiting labour, by those claiming to represent the culture, alongwith the retrospective tinge of guilt for having enabled it, that drrove this rant.
Furthermore, w.r.t the points you raised - it's a matter of scale and utility. Compared to everything that has come before, GenAI is spectacularly inefficient in terms of utility per unit of compute (however you might want to define these). There hasn't been a tangible nett good for society that has come from it and I doubt there would be. The egarness and will to throw money and resources at this surpasses the crypto mania which was just as worthless.
Even if you consider Rob a hypocrite , he isn't alone in his frustration and anger at the degradation of the promise of Open Culture.
Buddhism in India grew in opposition to the Hindu caste system instead of spiritual change of thought. The current Indian government is loudly Hindu nationalist and prefers to minimise or even dismiss the diversity of Indian religious practices as well as pretend that the caste system is no longer present.
They and their supporters downplay Buddhist followers by pretending that the lived experiences of these Buddhist (on in general the non-hindu) don't exist.