Maybe.

And then win the contracts to do this and have sufficient bankroll that they can be successfully sued and recover damages if they screw up?

No.

Someone like accenture might eat their lunch though

This is the first thing that occurred to me. The people above suggesting a cobol to python or go update confuse the heck out of me. Why not just convert to vanilla jacascript at that point? Bizarre

You usually want a language that provides compile-time check and you already use and know.

Yeah, I've been saying for years that LLMs are a technology that basically unlock three major new technologies:

1. Automatic shaping of online community discussions (social media, bots, etc)

2. Automatic datamining, manipulating and reacting to all digitally communicated conversations (think dropping calls or MITM manipulation of conversations between organizers of a rival poltical party in swing districts proir to an election, etc. CointelPro as a service)

3. Giving users a new UI (speech) with which they can communicate with computer applications

save it from the ai bubble collapse?

MacOs is extraordinarily opinionated about how everything should work and frequently attempt to predict your workflow.

Linux/Windows (historically) were straightforawrd, each tool did exactly what it said it would do, and it was up to you to learn how to use the tools available.

On linux/windows, if a button was "capture image", it would just capture the image on the screen. On a mac a "capture image" button could do anything from displaying the image on the screen, to saving it in a photos folder, to saving and syncing it to an iCloud account. Whatever the apple PM decided the most common use case was, and god help you if you want to do something different.

If you've been in the mac ecosystem for a while, you've grown used to this and don't notice any longer. You may even occasionally express happiness when a function does something unexpected and helpful!

If you're coming from anywhere else, its unbelievably painful.

I’d frame it slightly differently.

With Linux/Windows you’re supplied with a toolbox and from that toolbox you’re expected to cobble together a workflow that works for you and maintain it.

I spent a significant amount of time trying to learn Tasks inside of Outlook and come up with a system that would make it remotely useful. I failed repeatedly. They eventually bought Wunderlist and replaced it with that, which still has some rough edges (last I tried) due to the legacy Outlook Tasks integration.

Apple, more often than not, is looking to identify a problem and give an opinionated solution on how to handle it. If you’re ok with their solution, great, problem solved. If you’re not, you end up either fighting with the Apple tools or finding a 3rd party toolbox style app that lets you cobble together a workflow. I found just going with the opinionated solution removes a lot of needless stress from my life. There are some places I do go 3rd party, but I reevaluate often to ask if I really need these things and if they’re worth the trouble.

It ends up being a question of what my goals are with the computer. Am I looking to work on the operating system and apps to tune them to exactly what I want, or am I just looking for the system to fade into the background so I can do other things. When I was younger, I found tweaking and playing with everything to be a bit of a hobby. These days, I just want to do what I need to get done and move on with my life.

Ai hype is predicated on the popular idea that it can easily automate someone else's job, because that job they know nothing about is easy, but my job is safe from ai because it is so nuanced.

I don't think this describes all or most AI hype, but it definitely describes Marc Andreessen when he said VCs would be the last ones automated.

If calculators were invented today, they’d only be sold with a monthly subscription

If it did, would it change its usefulness in terms of the value it outputs? (through agreed, if I had to pay money it would increase the cost, and so the tradeoff)

> For example, in a situation where you can strongly benefit from the Napoleon technique, and all the potential negative outcomes are minor and unlikely to occur, you will almost always want to implement this technique. Conversely, in a situation where there is even a moderate likelihood that this technique will lead to serious negative outcomes, you will likely want to avoid using it, even if it has some potential positive outcomes.

I swear, AI is decreasing everyone's reading and writing abilities.

Well written language conveys maximum information (or emotional impact, or etc) with minimum verbosity. AI is incentivized to do the exact opposite, and results in slop like the above.

The quoted paragraph above takes 71 words to say "You should do this technique if the positive potential outcomes outweigh the negative ones," which is such a banal thought as to have been a waste of the reader's time, the writer's time, and the electricity it took to run an AI to generate those sentences.

The text was first linked on HN during September 2020. ChatGPT became public access in November 2022.

The paragraph you criticized was part of the original text: https://web.archive.org/web/20200909104647/https://effectivi...

So: Yes, it could have been more concise. Nope, we humans can write much too long text for the sake of writing text, which some of us can do better than others (e.g., better than me), and we can do that with no artificial assistance or substitute - we do it just fine using our own (in)ability ;-)

It is everywhere, but SF really brings it to another level. Its wild.