triMichael
Look at programming. What's happening there is we are having agents produce 10-100x the code to where people give up on reading it and just hit OK. Look at math. Plenty of people there want to learn from the LLMs and all these crazy new math proofs. But those are the people who will probably be out of a job soon because the money in math is in producing proofs, and that's now an LLM-exclusive job.
I think LLMs are weird in that the first order effects are those of an incredible and amazing tool that anyone can learn things from, but the second order effects are going to be the exact opposite - people giving up on bothering with ideas. Even at my job, which is one of the few that has not gone crazy with AI, anytime I ask anyone a question, all I hear is "have you asked Claude?". There's no communication anymore, no pushback, no struggle. I worry that one day we'll look around and realize we've built an entirely separate second civilization of machines and robots that acts more like a neighboring country than a tool we can use to build humanity up.
-Just my rambling thoughts, not refined by an AI.
Put these two together and you would think that they would mean that any NP hard problem can be solved in sub-exponential time. But this isn't necessarily true because changing the NP hard problem into 3SAT can increase the number of variables, which can theoretically negate the sub-exponential time.
Meanwhile, superdeterminism is the idea that you can still have realism and locality by claiming that Bell's Inequality experiments are invalid because the universe could somehow "know" you are performing a Bell's Inequality experiment and rig it to get the "wrong" answer. Superdeterminism is equivalent to saying that we can't prove smoking causes lung cancer, because the universe might rig any science experiments to make it look like smoking causes cancer. Anytime you ask why the universe would do that or how you can prove anything in such a universe, they shrug their shoulders. It's a completely BS idea that got traction because specific people pushed it and others don't understand quantum physics enough to know how unserious of an idea it is.
Everything aligns perfectly with matter that only interacts with gravity. This means it is invisible and nearly intangible. "That sounds crazy, nothing like that should ever exist" you might say. Except it already does - neutrinos. We just don't think neutrinos quite fit the bill.
Imagine if scientists were trying to identify some sort of sea monster, where cameras have gotten minor glimpses here and there. They aren't sure whether it is a giant squid, or octopus, or whale, or whatever and there's a lot of debate around it. And some non-scientist comes along and says "that's obviously a band-aid, we all know that animals can't exist in the ocean, so maybe you are wrong about what the ocean even is."
The problem here is two-fold. First, the non-scientist is misunderstanding the debate. The scientists actually have a pretty good idea of what's going on, they just lack the evidence to nail down the exact thing they are seeing. Meanwhile the non-scientist thinks that they are completely stumped and need an Einstein level change in direction in their thinking. Second, the non-scientist thinks that nothing acts like what the scientists are looking for. However, that's not true, the "weird" attributes aren't all that weird, they just aren't familiar to the non-scientist.
The irony is that while everyone thinks that dark matter is a band-aid solution and there's not much room for it to be, there is currently an idea that is likely to be a bandaid solution - dark energy. The main idea behind the acceleration of the expansion of the universe is that empty space contains energy, which we call dark energy. This makes logical sense and quantum physics agrees it does. However, any kind of actual measurement of the amount of energy per unit of space that we try just doesn't make sense. The theory doesn't align with our measurements to a vast degree (to where it's known as the worst prediction in the history of physics), and our measurements don't even align with each other. There is room here for a truly novel solution, such as varying amounts of energy per unit of space, or the cosmological principle being incorrect.
Now, I don't mean art as in pictures. Rather, I mean science is objectively correct or incorrect, while art is not. So things like does your code work is a science, and things like your design is an art. In regards to science, AI will do the same things as you, because there's only one "truth". However, in regards to art, it would never do the same things that you do.
One of my favorite games is Tunic. If the developer had tried to one-shot Tunic with an AI, it wouldn't have been Tunic. Maybe it would have been a good game, maybe it would have had a lot of similar ideas. But they wouldn't have been the exact same ideas. Tunic itself would have been forever lost.
So what am I trying to say? Find parts of programming where the path not taken matters. Then it doesn't matter if Claude could one-shot it, because it's one shot will be different than what you do.
Unfortunately, this doesn't fix all of programming. The more science-y parts of programming such as reverse engineering do get affected by AI. But to give you an idea, I'm building a programming language. I toyed with the idea of using LLMs. When I decided not to, I had a problem - my language had become too complex to do it without AI. So I sat down and scrapped the entire thing. Now I have a new programming language that's even better. If I had one shot it with Claude, I wouldn't have had this language. So in the end, doing it by hand mattered.
If they say anything about leaving two straight lines, then it fails. Just tried Gemini, and it failed.
This is an extremely common misconception that has spread all throughout the internet, and so it is baked into the training data. The real answer is that there are multiple ways to do which way double slit experiments, but Einstein's thought experiment proves it's impossible for any of them have an interference pattern, as that would violate Heisenburg's Uncertainty Principle.
Somehow, not leaving an interference pattern became twisted into leaving a specific pattern of two lines, which then falsely implies that quantum objects lose their quantum behavior in certain circumstances. The field of quantum physics becomes so much simpler to understand once you realize that all of this is hogwash.
The best reference I can find for where this myth started is a documentary about quantum physics that tries to connect it with mysticism. On the other hand, Wikipedia actually has it correct. In its "which way" section in the double slit experiment page, it correctly says "A well-known thought experiment predicts that if particle detectors are positioned at the slits, showing through which slit a photon goes, the interference pattern will disappear".
So one-shotting a game of Snake should be great (tons of training data, errors are easily caught because it's a small program). Similar with building a lot of web UI front end, or one-shotting a personal project. On the other hand, I haven't been convinced that it's good enough to maintain large codebases or assist with niche topics that are not very well documented.
The point of self-documenting code isn't to get rid of the documentation. Instead, it's to integrate it into the code. This fixes the two biggest problems with documentation. First, that the code will often be updated and documentation left behind, making it useless. And second, that English and code are intertwined in the same document, making you constantly switch mental contexts of how you are reading. So no, I don't consider developers who write documentation to be inferior. If anything, I value documentation even more, and the purpose of self-documenting code is to make the documentation better, not get rid of it.
With Claude, the documentation you make for Claude is just fine as it doesn't run into any of the above two problems. The documentation isn't being left behind, because you add to it instead of the code. And it's not intertwined with code, because you are just writing English for Claude, you are not writing code in-between.
We were using WPF, which is C# combined with XAML. I needed to call some async code. First, I tried to call it from synchronous code. That compiled correctly and seemed okay, but then I got vague crashes, and after doing research, I found everyone was like "don't ever call an async function from a sync function" for that exact reason. So instead, I had to change whatever called that to be async, and then whatever called that to be async, and so on. The solution I ended up having to go with was literally changing the code in over a hundred places. This is legacy code that I touch as little as possible, and instead of the one line fix that it felt like it should have been, async turned it into over a hundred small changes throughout the entire project.
I'm not saying there isn't a better approach. I'm pretty new to async/await code as I've been doing asynchronous code through threads my whole programming career. I don't think WPF is a good technology, so maybe some newer tech has solved it better. But what I can say is that this problem was not invented, it is a real problem and it caused a simple change to become a complicated one.
The first type of brainrot is what happens when you let other things think for you and your thoughts and opinions become not your own. AI is anti-thinking because you can let the machine think for you. Social media is anti-thinking because you can let other peoples' opinions think for you.
On the other hand, memes actually communicate ideas. For example, The Simpsons Ralph meme "I'm in danger" and the dog on fire "This is fine" memes both represent understanding being in a dangerous situation while doing nothing about it. Star Trek was actually way ahead of its time with the episode "Darmok and Jalad at Tanagra" which was about a culture that used memes as communication.
So what do you get when you combine brainrot ("anti-thinking") with memes? You get brainrot memes, which is the second type of brainrot. For example, 6-7. 6-7 doesn't communicate ideas. It doesn't mean anything. Instead, it communicates the opposite of an idea. So when someone says "6-7", they are embracing using language in an anti-thinking way. In this way, brainrot memes can be thought of more as an anti-meme. It's as contagious as an idea, but since it doesn't contain any information, it acts more like a virus. So brainrot memes are essentially mind-viruses that embrace the lack of thinking that comes with brainrot.
And even then, that can swap between the genres. Scifi often contains FTL tech, which from what we know is almost certainly impossible so it's actually more like fantastical magic. Meanwhile, fantasy can have hard rules for its magic, in which case it acts more like technology that we haven't discovered yet. I haven't read it yet myself, but I've heard of Wizard's Bane, where a programmer is transported to a magical land and becomes really powerful because he treats the magic system like a new programming language.
Other things I've noticed is that scifi tends to involve spaceships and is more mystery oriented, whereas fantasy tends to take place on the ground and is more hero's journey oriented. But even these aren't defining traits. Plenty of scifi books involve investigating alien planets and many contain the hero's journey (including the original Star Wars if you count that as scifi). Meanwhile plenty of fantasy books are on some sort of ship (Narnia - Voyage of the Dawn Treader) and many are more mystery oriented (Harry Potter for example).
Personally, I think a better line of division is hard vs soft. Was the world created first with actual rules and the characters molded to fit the world (Dune, Lord of the Rings)? Or were the characters created first and the rules are bent to create the story that is being desired to tell (Star Trek with its technobabble, Star Wars's prequels and sequels, the entire universe of Harry Potter)?
One clue is that these claims never detail on what this "detector" is. There are various types of detectors, and instead of showing a two band pattern they show a single slit interference pattern. By not giving specifics, the claim becomes much harder to disprove. This may not be malicious though, as the source of the faulty claim is likely the miscommunication of a thought experiment proposed by Einstein. Einstein proved by thought experiment that any detector couldn't show an interference pattern, which is easily twisted into the incorrect claim that it does show the two band pattern that people initially expected.
Even with all that, it's simply hard to refute. Like you said, it requires rigorous technical arguments, specifically as the faulty claim didn't specify what kind of detector they use. So the layperson has to choose between <some detector makes shape you'd expect> and <multiple complex existing detectors makes different shape>.
In the end, to a layperson, it wouldn't even seem to be all that important. And yet, almost all of the misunderstandings people have about quantum physics come from this one faulty claim. This claim makes it seem like some objects have quantum behavior, and some don't, and that you can change an object from quantum to non-quantum by detecting it. When in reality, all objects have quantum behavior, we just don't usually notice it.
She graduated with a computer science degree in January, and then her dad passed away. The estate was a mess so she ended up spending time figuring that out. Then, we found and fixed a medical issue that had been draining her energy. She's doing a lot better now, but as a result she has an 8 month gap on her resume. She also never took an internship so that she could finish a semester earlier with summer classes. So now she's absolutely screwed for phase 1.
She switched to phase 2 recently. She got a hit for software support. She got rejected, but the person was like "Why aren't you applying for programming jobs, since you like programming?" They set her up for an interview for an actual programming job, and said her lack of experience wasn't an issue because they had a lot of pull, and that they would offer her a test where she could prove herself. She spent the next several days preparing non-stop for the interview, only for the same guy to be angry at her for not having multiple significant projects on Github and refused to even give her the test.
After that we thought about continuing phase 2, but we both felt like it was just a waste of time, especially after the last experience. She's had previous experience tutoring and I've written some instructional books, so we've now just decided to ignore the job market and form an LLC related to teaching. She'd be a great programmer, and it's really stupid that no one wants to give her a chance, but at some point you just figure the job market is so irrational that we should be able to beat it by doing it ourselves.
IMO LLMs are actually pretty good at writing small scripts. First, it's much more common for a small script to be in the LLM's training data, and second, it's much easier to find and fix a bug. So the LLM actually does allow a non-programmer to write correct code with minimal effort (for some simple task), and then they are blown away thinking writing software is a solved problem. However, these kinds of people have no idea of the difference between a hundred line script where an error is easily found and isn't a big deal and a million line codebase where an error can be invisible and shut everything down.
Worst of all is when the two sides of tech-giants and non-programmers meet. These two sides may sound like opposites but they really aren't. In particular, there are plenty of non-programmers involved at the C-level and the HR levels of tech companies. These people are particularly vulnerable to being wowed by LLMs seemingly able to do complex tasks that in their minds are the same tasks their employees are doing. As a result, they stop hiring new people and tell their current people to "just use LLMs", leading to the current hiring crisis.
The first is that we could end up with a programming language that can accept natural language as its syntax. The best case scenario of this is that more people learn how to code as they don't need to learn strict specialized syntax to program. However, whenever this topic comes up it always turns out to be more of a pipe dream, because when you are programming you want precision, and to have precision you need strict specialized syntax. In other words, the advantages of not needing strict syntax are small unless you are not a programmer, and the disadvantages are massive as you might be misunderstood and end up with hard to fix bugs.
The second possibility is that we could end up with generation systems that can build small, well defined functions for us, similar to the problems that AlphaCode is already solving. The problem with this is verifying correctness. As mentioned before, the code that AlphaCode outputs is unreadable. As such, verifying correctness would likely take longer than building it yourself. As a result, anyone needing to use small, well defined functions would be better off using the existing solution of human built libraries. Because libraries are shared between so many programmers, it is much easier for bugs to be discovered and fixed.
So for my summary, all AlphaCode really is, is yet another attempt at a natural language type of compiler, which even if it succeeds wouldn't affect programmers much as languages being well defined is critical for making sure everything runs correctly.
I think the biggest thing that sparked the situation was the casters. While some people feel that they were not neutral due to some comments made, Blizzard themselves in their response did not mention those comments. As such, it appears that Blizzard fired casters for merely allowing controversial topics spoken, which makes it very unclear how Blizzard wants casters to handle similar situations. In other words, Blizzard fired people who were neutral-ish and who were stuck between a rock and a hard place instead of clarifying the situation. TLDR: If a situation is complicated and unclear, clarify instead of firing.
Schrodinger's cat was made to be a thought experiment to show how absurd some of the ideas about the quantum world are. We are unable to prove whether the cat does go into a superposition or does not. Personally, the ideas that superposition is tied to whether consciousness observes it doesn't make sense to me. After reading about some of the stranger experiments such as the quantum eraser experiment, I've gravitated towards information theory being the missing link. If that is true, then the astounding conclusion would be that the fabric of our universe is information!