> prompting very small tasks after you have made the initial design, something along the lines of "Create a database migration that adds column [x], not null", "add a field to the this form that will accept string value, validate it on the backend against this format, and save it to column [x]". So basically, writing code in plain English.
Are you presenting this as the option that allows you to have better understanding (smaller tasks, closer to the changes), or the option with which you don't have understanding (because you're still getting assistance, not solving every problem on your own and not typing the code out yourself)? I genuinely can't tell from your post, people can and do take both of these positions.
> I will lose the ability to think about code and understand code
If you lose it (whatever "it" is), it's because you don't use it. If you don't use it but you're still getting your job done, is that really a loss?
> GPT seems to be designed more as a tool. If you want your agent to do what you say without questions and without having its own ideas and agendas you’ll likely prefer it.
Lately ChatGPT expresses a lot of opinions and it pretends to be a human more than it used to - e.g. "this is one the most <> that _I've seen_" or "people tell me that <>". It uses language which sounds like it's referring to its experience outside of the session that we're having - I really don't appreciate it.
We've always had bugs. Good chance that it's largely confirmation bias - you're familiar with how software development has changed in the past 6 months, and especially if you don't like it, any time you see a bug or a problem, you'll attribute it to that.
Realistically, no, this is 10 years too late. The two language problem is way overstated, Python has massive adoption and is only getting better over time.
I don't understand the people who have the patience to listen to Zitron. It's all one-tone takes with no place for nuance, you kind of know what he's going to say and the fact the mixes genuine criticism with bad faith arguments doesn't help.
The Johns Hopkins studies have been administering high doses for 20+ years now. The difference is that they use synthesized psilocybin instead of mushrooms (which makes the dosing more consistent since potency can vary a lot across strains and individual mushrooms).
> This case documents transient multidomain functional improvement in advanced Alzheimer’s disease following psilocybin administration. The findings do not imply disease reversal but suggest that residual functional capacity may persist in late-stage neurodegeneration and may become transiently accessible under specific neuromodulatory conditions.
Very interesting nonetheless.
> One month after the initial session, the patient remained continent and functionally improved compared with baseline. A second supervised psilocybin session using 3 g was subsequently performed and was associated with greater verbal expressivity, improved facial mimicry, spontaneous humor, emotionally valenced autobiographical imagery, and increased agility while walking.
> The patient spontaneously stated: “It is pleasant to come here.
Which is very short sighted. You or anyone close to you might not be replaced but it should be clear that you don't want to live in a society with 20% unemployment.
So true. One of the smartest animals being treated in the worst possible way. You can't even justify it with some nutritional or health argument - there's nothing essential in pork that humans can't get from other sources. It's cruelty and torture that's happening out of habit, out of people being stubborn and not wanting to go without a taste they're familiar with.
No, the current state of things isn't stable enough to last a long time. I don't know what the future will look like but it can't be this, and it's not going to be rolling the clock back 5 years either.
> Finished episodes buzzing with ideas and forgot everything within 48 hours.
Write them down?
For me, podcasts are for entertainment and exposure to ideas, not for learning that needs to retained. Otherwise it becomes yet another thing that you ruin the enjoyment of by trying to squeeze out the max value from it.
But if you are getting interesting ideas, writing them down to process later seems like a very obvious thing to do.
Not quite - English might be the interface but knowing English isn't enough to understand what's happening, what to ask for, how to verify and guide the output.
Do you really think your line helps? It seems like very basic stuff that's already built into it.
I don't use Claude/agents files - I can point each session to the readme/docs which summarize the project, it's linters/checkers/scripts, how to run tests etc. It's shared humans/bots documentation. The rest seems too session-specific to codify.
I'm not saying these files are never necessary, they seem to fit well in some projects and some people's workflows (at least for the current models, newer models will likely make them obsolete) but yours honestly seems completely redundant - you're prompting a 2026 coding assistant as if you're talking to a 2023 version of ChatGPT.
Are you presenting this as the option that allows you to have better understanding (smaller tasks, closer to the changes), or the option with which you don't have understanding (because you're still getting assistance, not solving every problem on your own and not typing the code out yourself)? I genuinely can't tell from your post, people can and do take both of these positions.
> I will lose the ability to think about code and understand code
If you lose it (whatever "it" is), it's because you don't use it. If you don't use it but you're still getting your job done, is that really a loss?