For the sake of argument let's assume we have a common goal: produce a software product that does its job and is maintainable (emphasis on the latter).
Now given that LLMs are known to not produce 100% correct code you should review every single line. Now the production rate of LLMs is so high that it becomes very hard to really read and understand every line of the output. While at the same time you are gradually losing the ability to understand everything because you stopped actively coding. And at the same time there are others in your team who aren't that diligent adding more to the crufty code base.
I think differences in the business determine whether the maintenance/understanding aspect is important. If developing an MVP for a pitch or testing markets then any negatives aren't much of a consideration.. if working in a mature competitive or highly regulated domain then yeah, it's important
"Kubernetes backed by S3-compatible object storage for WAL archiving — giving you 11 nines of durability on your backups .. " - that might be the case with AWS S3 but maybe not with Minio or even Ceph when you need to operate it yourself.
Anyway that interview question is so stupid it hurts. I would never expect just a simple answer to an interview question and mark it off as "done". It's much more valuable to get into a dialogue and see how the candidate is approaching things.
You also don't seem to like quotes very much. You have used them properly when you were referring to the token "cause". However you did not when you were referring to "its" and "it's" which made your contribution much harder to read.
Turns out googling for "8½ window system" gives no results (although Google's KI has this to say 'Based on the search results, "8½" refers to the
Windows 8.1 update, which was released in 2013 to address critical user feedback regarding the original Windows 8')
Is it? I mean in the end it is a political decision. We are used to infinite progress, infinite growth and infinite rationalization. But for what good? People have not become more free to pursuit their generic interests in Marx' sense but there's just more concentration in the hand of the capital while unemployment is growing. Weren't we better of to have less rationalization and have more meaningful work for people?
"Meaningful work" for work's sake, why? I have no desire to work in a farm or a factory when I can work from the peace of my own home without breaking my back. Not to mention the work that other people do too, like doctors and scientists, which directly positively impact my own life. If they were to say, let's not continue progressing, then that's not a world I'd want to live in.
It depends on what we define as progress. At times nuclear power was considered progress while it's no longer now (at least to that extent). Why couldn't we consider a society with less technology as progressive? Learning that less reliance on technology makes us more resilient as individuals and as a society. Obviously there are areas where we didn't want to downscale such as medical care. But there's a lot of technological progress that does not contribute much value to society in general but to concentrate wealth in the hand of a few people.
EDIT: also so-called "breaking your back" has the same effect as going to the gym. Sure I am aware that there are really back-breaking jobs and they should be helped by machines. But there's no rule to say that the helping machines need to to all of the work. A moderate amount of physical work is just beneficial to everyone.
This is a rose tinted glasses take. I guarantee if you took anyone from the past they'd want to live our lives today, and that's not to even say anything of being in a developing country today with lack of access to adequate supplies and medicine.
> also so-called "breaking your back" has the same effect as going to the gym
I can tell you've never worked a manual labor job in your life. The workload definitely does not have the same workload as just "going to the gym."
Let me first comment that this is just another publicity stunt and that there will be no useful humanoids in BMW factories in the near future. Then I will read TFA and get back here.
So, nothing to see here. From what I understand the robots are doing pick and place. In the video the robot also gets passed a part from a human worker. So nothing here makes any sense and the tasks could solved with conventional robotics. I guess it is good that the robot can be moved but for this you don't need a two-legged humanoid balancing.
Oh, "you are absolutely right". It was written in Modula-2. I got it mixed up.
But related languages anyway. :-)
Edit:
Yes, I prefer the monochrome display and version too!
Still using my monochrome SM124 monitor with Steinberg Cubase 3.1. It is a work horse. Only my eyes getting worse. Not the screen!! :-D
Now given that LLMs are known to not produce 100% correct code you should review every single line. Now the production rate of LLMs is so high that it becomes very hard to really read and understand every line of the output. While at the same time you are gradually losing the ability to understand everything because you stopped actively coding. And at the same time there are others in your team who aren't that diligent adding more to the crufty code base.
What is this if not a recipe for disaster?
reply