The fact that you think you incrementally lose but are a net winner indicates to me you're illinformed.
As someone with years of experience in this industry, only a fraction of a percent of gamblers actually meet this defination. But they all think they're net winners and write off losses as "incremental"
We will be worse off for it. People just are losing the ability to read well. We are regressing as a species because of billionaire's thinking machines. A few companies are evolving while the rest of us become dependent.
Your intelligence and competencey are going to be 1:1 correlated to the quality and quantity of tokens a billionaire gives you access too (local, sure, they control the hardware markets as well).
Keep excercising your writing and reading muscles because it will definatley set you apart from the captive masses in the future.
I havent used an openAI product since GPT 3.5 or Anthropic since 4.5 or 4.6. Everyone around me using these SOTA models doesnt really get anything done. It seems like they just feel like they are productive, a psuedo productivity.
I write some code, spec a lot, and use fast models to fill in the middle. I outpreform everyone around me. Im not convinced these autonomous "swarms" or /goal are all that useful.
I notice the people using them become dumber by the month (spend tons) and the quality of their work declining (they're also losing their jobs in some cases).
And obviously the point of calling them rouge agents to offload the liability onto the agent. The number one economic value of agents will be offloading corporate liability. That's what they want to sell to enterprise, an algorithmic scapegoat.
Seeing benefits for myself and team for sure, so I disagree there, but a related thing seems to be true: with the rapid shifting of failure modes, building systems and competence around mitigating the weaknesses of current SOTA models seems to be very short term investments. It's unclear if being a 'good AI user' is a skill that will have any merit at all, very soon
As a counterexample, a few days ago, an agent we use in our company took around a day to perform an operation that it would have taken a skilled engineer probably a couple of weeks full time.
Having said that, I'm aware that "Tools being ineffective != tools decreasing people's cognitive capacity", and that the latter is a real danger.
Esp. for "great to have but currently no time"-features this is completely wrong - e.g. we are using a Data Rendering component which was 100% vibe coded and is around 6000 LOC, nobody would have sat down to build this "just because its nice to have", with Claude it was just 30 min to get a production ready version that is now used by all users of the system.
(Esp. since its a lot of repeating code, like usual in data rendering components: Window/Scaling/Databar/Panning/etc.)
And this is just a superficial simple example; I could go on with more how we hadnt had to employ people because Claude/20 USD saved us so much hours.
If you think you're replacing people with $20 claude code subscriptions, I can't take you seriously. Also.. There are many many fullt featured data "rendering" libraries in existence, not sure why you needed an llm to provide 6k LOC for this.
For the thousandth time, not everything in software is toy webdev slop SaaS.
I don't know that we're in the singularity, but we are certainly past the point where LLMs can only write spaghetti code. LLMs can write complex systems, when properly lead by software engineers. They can produce code faster, and at a higher quality, than purely human endeavors.
The higher quality part is the part people are missing. You can write much more robust code using LLMs because you can employ more comprehensive testing strategies. People are using LLMs to find hundreds of vulnerabilities in popular software. Imagine how much more secure software can be when LLMs because integrated into the process of writing, testing, and penetration testing code.
You can also program by hand professionally. There's a reason why the handmade, luxery items are more valuable and desirable than the heavily manufactured counterpart.
1. Because they're genuinely better quality. Usually.
2. There's a human connection (way more important than people think. I.e commodity fetishism)
3. Less people can do it.
-- all of these properties will apply to software in the near future. The person that can hand code the thing an llm does poorly, or because an llm cant be trusted will be extremely valuable, especially as this category of people begins to shrink, as peoppe atrophy their skills with llms.
The rest of y'all are excited about handing over the value of your labor to some billionaires thinking machine because that same billionaire has convinced you that you're going to be able to create your own startup or something stupid.
Nah, you're going to become a (underpaid/poor) conveyor belt operator making mass manufactured slop. Some smart ones will become the swiss watchmakers of software. Rare and in demand.
Even with web projects, the issues of LLM coding tendencies and its lack of product 'taste' or whatever you want to call it are apparent. Janky UX, poor information transmission, bloated modules... it's just easier to sell web-based AI output because it's visual and interactive, and we are easily impressed by bright colours smooth animations.
I won't argue that the web is more 'capturable' by LLMs, though. It was maybe slightly out of reach by a large cohort of developers who wouldn't have considered themselves "UI people" (or who scoffed at it for various reasons), but now is well within vibe-territory.
Of course they are, but the quote "LLMs can produce any algorithm, any tech stack, any concept in seconds, minutes, or hours" is more true there than in other domains. "Any concept" is the most laughable.
Hence why the Anthropic employee is telling you to not use it and just aimlessly throw tokens at a wall. It'll eventually get you there, sure, and consume more tokens. This sounds absurd, but trust that Anthropic (and any large company) is hyper aware of how customer behavior impacts their revenue, and they certainly will try to steer you into behavior that increases revenue.
Also this is a way less removed process that I want nothing to do with. The more removed I am from the process the more I hate my job, get burned out and genuinely wish that Anthropic never existed.
Even if it could "just know" or infer my intent. It wouldnt be desirable.
Edit: Oh yeah its Boris, hes one or the most disengenous shovel sellers on earth right now.
So you think telling a model once to "do not write code, just plan" vs having an enum that causes that same text to be added to each message will somehow waste tokens and will surely make anthropic much better off..
I mean if you want it to plan something without writing code first you literally just need to ask it to plan out the implementation first it's not exactly a difficult concept
The Anthropic employee literally told you plan mode is a "we're still planning!!!" at the end of the prompt. Plan mode is useless because you can literally type "dont write code yet" and get the same effect, not because you should never plan in general.
Sure and I should also have been more specific, I don't always use "plan mode" I often just do planning without explicitly activating it just via prompting, point being that the robot doesn't work for me without some time spent planning out what to do.
Yeah its part corruption and the weaponized taboo of second guessing election results.
I'm convinced that even if there were large scale concerns about the legitimacy elections in the USA, they would quitely be puy to rest because God forbid we ever reckon with the fact yhat the USA might not be a perfect democracy, cant taint the image.
Anyone looking to tamper with elections now knows they can just equivalate anyone who challenges them with Jan 6ers types.
Tbf, democracy in this country is fundamentally broken when you have 4 companies that control the media and have a ton of control over how people see the world.
As someone with years of experience in this industry, only a fraction of a percent of gamblers actually meet this defination. But they all think they're net winners and write off losses as "incremental"