And don't forget that physical loneliness, that is, actually being alone, eliminates one major feedback source that something could be wrong with your health, or a source of immediate aid if e.g. you go into cardiac arrest.
Maybe the researcher above touches on these things, but more generally, there should be a standardized probability and statistics exam for ALL aspiring scientific researchers, and a high score should be the minimum cutoff. The influence that a statistically flawed study can have over our collective futures is too dangerous.
The main premise of this article is that SPA frameworks are primarily about transitions. This is yet another passionate argument built on a false foundation.
The overarching problem is that signal:noise ratio in contemporary discussions of AI is absurdly low. This is thanks in large part to a media complex whose primary goal seems to be the pumping of AI investments and stocks, and the associated cacophony of mendacious exaggerations. If only we could have a reasonable discussion without the "contributions" of the non-technical and/or salespeople...
Those wealthy enough to invest or speculate in real estate incur a write-down they can likely afford - as Warren Buffett once said, don’t swim naked. The person of average or below-average means gets a chance at a standard life.
None of these things introduced the risk of directly breaking your codebase without very close oversight. If LLMs can surpass that hurdle, then we’ll all be having a different conversation.
Let’s not conflate LLM’s with AI. LLM’s are a kind of AI that can be a software engineer’s assistant, at best. But the degree of hype is undermining belief in AI among many professionals who the hypesters claim are going to be replaced. No, this iteration is not going to replace doctors or engineers. But the degree to which the hype train wants to do so is alarming.