Still, I don’t think you can have a normal human experience devoting a significant portion of your life to work and a coffin.

It seems like any low paying job that lets them get back home every evening would be better than this.

> AI is this new (but really old) idea that shallowness is sufficient.

That’s not the whole story and certainly not the core concern, which is more about developers who already have deep experience, using AI to multiply their output.

There’s no consensus on whether AI-assisted coding is a revolution or smoke and mirrors. However, if it turns out to be truly revolutionary, do you think there’s anyone better than you to do the prompting? Could your boss do the work you do now? Or the CEO of your company? You seem to be positioned better than most.

You get to decide which car you buy every X years. When the time comes, you pick one of the brands from the group you consider notable. Established brands do a lot of things to stay within that group. This one worked - we talk about it.

It seems unintuitive today because people living in cities and towns don’t usually see sunrises and sunsets from where they live. If you had a way to easily reference the sunrise and sunset points against known horizon, it’d be very easy to tell.

Also because today we have accurate clocks and most of us don't depend on seasons for anything. Farmers care about when to plant, and a few gardeners pay attention, but for most of us nothing changes in life. (I'm carefully not counting the traditional vacations that most of us have around this time - though that is important to us and historically related, we could move the date and it wouldn't affect anything else).

That’s most definitely not the same thing, as „improving a codebase” is an open ended task with no reliable metrics the agent could work against.

So it still took four days after they were contacted by "someone from Executive Relations"? Well, that's disappointing.

The author did mention though that they were unable to log out of iCloud, as that requires to be logged in to iCloud. That would prevent reuse of the device with a different account.

1.7x does not look that bad? If "AI code" is a broad classification that includes people using bad tools, or not being very skilful operators of said tools, then we can expect this number to meaningfully improve over time.

Tell that to your customers. And tell them how much longer the bugs generated by AI will take to fix by humans. Or tell them that you'll never fix the bugs because you're too busy vibe coding new ones.

I'm not saying bugs aren't a problem. I'm saying that if an emerging, fast improving tech is only slightly behind a human coder now, it seems conceivable that we're not that far off when they reach parity.

Exactly. I'm sure assembly language programmers from the 1980s could easily write code that ran 2x faster than the code produced by compilers of the time, but compilers only got better and eventually assembly language programming became a rare job, and humans can rarely outperform compilers on whole program compilation.

Assembly experts still write code that runs faster than code produced by compilers. Being slower is predictable and solved with better hardware, or just waiting. This is fine for most so we switched to easier or portable languages. Output of the program remains the same.

Impact of having 1.7x more bugs is difficult to assess and is not solved that easily. Comparison would work if that was about optimisations: code that is 1.7x slower / memory hungry.

> Assembly experts still write code that runs faster than code produced by compilers.

They sometimes can, but this is no longer a guaranteed outcome. Supercompilation optimizers can often put manual assembly to shame.

> Impact of having 1.7x more bugs is difficult to assess and is not solved that easily.

Time will tell. Arguably the number of bugs produced by AI 2 years ago was much higher than 1.7x. In 2 more years it might only be 1.2x bugs. In 4 years time it might be barely measurable. The trend over the next couple of years will judge whether this is a viable way forward.

Auto-assign bug tickets to AI agents which work to fix the bugs, get AI code reviewed, make adjustments, send to human for sanity checking, deploy via CI.

I think a lot of parenting decisions like this are just made in line with the rest of the society. If you let your 9 year old roam the park by themselves, you run a rather small risk of injuries, death, kidnapping etc. But you run a pretty big risk of them being the only lone 9 year old at the park.

That. Our oldest was out by himself all the time when he was smaller. Then it got to be less and less.

Because it was just him. His friends couldn't go anywhere unless a parent went with them.

There's no unsupervised time, and then we're all confused when 18 year olds can't cope with life.