I have learned that whenever anything is "X if Y" it means it is really weak at X and "if Y" is just a workaround. This has saved me a lot of grief in life by identifying my personal emotional attachment to things.
This is like putting lipstick on a pig. Give me an AI written README or tests but actually thoughtful codebase over human written readme but aislop code any day of the month
And often -- without using code _openly_ or in thinking -- it is wrong because it is just a "guesstimate" at best due to the nature of how LLMs generate tokens.
I feel like I am having a fever dream. How is an LLM that is trained on endless examples of Python, a well defined language as well, going to generate worst code than some random JSON interface?
In the world of AI hype, everything is to be learned again and we are going to see many many breakthroughs like this. You can see this shift already in the tone of conversation in HN for example.
The basics of computer engineering is now novel approaches. We are discovering why programming languages exist, starting with a worst version of Cobal running on a very expensive and probabilistic VM.
We will shoehorn every square, rectangular, and all forms of peg through the AI hole.
The qualifier tells you exactly what you're overlooking. self-interest, aside for some narrow exceptions, is often in conflict with collective interest. 1 Million to me is always better than a 1 Million split with everyone.
If you attempt to join a zoom call from anything but Chrome, you will get a prompt telling that "You need to be on Android 10 and Chrome 91 or higher".
Remember when they created "COBOL" so that everyone could write programs? This is just round two.
If you think it is different, just think of how many people write books professionally, or even publish online.
Once the noise settles down a bit and boardroom shakes off their delusions as you can see in rehiring in Ford and Zuck who was very bull on AI remark about "not being it". It will be just the same, but different.