What are you talking about? Since the 1800s people have been shipping vaccines to "most of the world"
Everyone could afford to "eat healthy" and get exercise if governments and social planners put in a modicum of effort. Unfortunately they aren't directly incentives to do so.
Framing either of these things as a wealth issue ignores both how wealthy even the poorest in the world are and the systems responsible for the problem. For everything else there's health insurance, yet another horribly mismanaged system.
It sounds like you’re navigating a really difficult and emotionally draining situation—and I respect the restraint and clarity in how you’re approaching it.
Use the tool when it makes sense or when someone shows you how to use it more effectively. This is exactly like the calculator "ruining people's ability to do arithmetic" when the vast majority of the population has been innumerate for hundreds of thousands of years up til the IR where suddenly dead white european nobility are cool.
There is nothing fun nor interesting about long division as well as software development.
If LLMs don't work for your usecase (yet) then of course you have to stick with the old method, but the "I could have written this script myself, I can feel my brain getting slower" spiel is dreadfully boring.
there is a lot to be said for adding complexity you dont understand and then trying to work around it, despite not grasping it.
comparing it to no longer doing the long division portion of a math problem isnt a great 1 to 1 here. long division would be a great metaphor if the user is TRULY only using llms for auto complete of tasks that add 0 complexity to the overall project. if you use it to implement something and dont fully grasp it, you are just creating a weird gap in your overall understanding of the code base.
maybe we are in full agreement and the brunt of your argument is just that if it doesnt fit ur current usecase then dont use it.
i dont think i agree with the conclusion of the article that it is making the non coding population dumber, but i also AGREE that we should not create these gaps in knowledge within our own codebase by just trusting ai, its certainly NOT a calculator and is wrong a lot and regardless if it IS right, that gap is a gap for the coder, and thats an issue.
The reason we have any environmental regulations at all was from mass death and disease caused by technology. Far more people died due to the agricultural revolution then will ever die due to climate change in the next few decades in the worst predictions.
The Black Death alone was 25-50 million people in 7 years
I think it is a huge stretch to believe that patterns which appear in one set of algorithms (simple non-AGI algorithms) will also appear in another set (AGI algorithms).
Unless there is some physical reason for the behavior I wouldn't make any strong claims. The specificity of algorithms is why AGI is hard in the first place cause at the end of the day you have a single operation running on a single data structure (helps when it's a few TB).
I think the pattern holds even as you increase the intelligence that a machine does not by nature of being able to mimic intelligence come with the same framework of understanding what is requested of it.
Everyone could afford to "eat healthy" and get exercise if governments and social planners put in a modicum of effort. Unfortunately they aren't directly incentives to do so.
Framing either of these things as a wealth issue ignores both how wealthy even the poorest in the world are and the systems responsible for the problem. For everything else there's health insurance, yet another horribly mismanaged system.
reply