It is more like an ability to recognize the word when it is used in context.
I got ~1/3 that is very generous estimate even for "recall" case (recognize), and it obviously false for the "generate" case (using in speech) where I guess my vocabulary is likely ~1/90 of all English words.
It is how these agencies operate. They mask malevolent activity behind good front (“think of the children“, “age verification“ -> censorship/total surveillance. Medical aid -> overthrowing governments).
Conventional commits (especially with git emojis) show at a glance the blast radius of the change (eg whether it breaks the product itself or just some internal dev tools). Emojis help immensely when looking at dozens of commits at a time.
In practice, you would use an already written implementation, maintained by somebody else. An option that is often ignored by LLM (copy-paste galore).
For example, imagine if textual-serve author would reimplement xterm.js What effect it would make on quality.
LLMs increase technical debt rapidly. It is unclear whether they can deal with the mess they create. But we'll know soon (no need to wait years, to get immovable mess).
The positive side of LLMs is that they confirm experimentally the usefulness of many software engineering practices (testing,docs, adrs, design, formal specs etc)
Almost everything you see on the topic is propaganda. Alternative views are suppressed (though I’m surprised on the relative diversity I’m seeing in this thread)
“Either or” is too extreme. Both can be true at the same time even if at different levels of abstraction eg a table and atoms it consists of may exist at the same time. Depending on the task different levels of abstraction may be useful. It is ridiculous to claim that a table doesn’t exist just because we can prove it is made of atoms (or strings excitation—doesn’t matter here)
On the other hand, "consciousness" concept might be as much useful for modeling thinking as “the four elements” for describing anatomy (not useful at all)—and we create better models eventually.
is the only part i.e., we perceive what brain predicts no more no less. Optical illusions demonstrate it well.
Sometimes that prediction (our perception) correlates with the light reaching the retina. But it is a mistake to think that we can perceive it directly. For example, we do not see the black hole in our field of vision where there are no receptors (due to our eyes construction).
Another example that makes the point clearer: there are no "wetness" receptors at all but we perceive wetness just fine.