All these studies suggest loneliness makes you unhappy, however I feel happiest most when lonely and doing my thing and not with people. With people I just feel frustrated or weird, because I think so different than the others.
I know the difference, but the studies I’ve heard of seemed to rather focus on the benefits of social circles, not analyzing 'loneliness' in itself. However I haven’t fully digged into all the evidence, but I hope you guy’s are right!
I don't believe the evidence that this is based on, but if it is true I have a theory that sometimes applies to me. Your sweet, dumb friends have so many dumb problems that are fairly easy to solve that you run yourself ragged trying to solve all of them, and your success attracts more requests. Friends can start to seem like unpaid work unless you're playing dumb.
First of all that could be a causality ≠ correlation, but more importantly. Even if it might be the biggest predictor, it might not be the biggest lever.
Still interesting train of thought that I might need, but the article is exaggerating the evidence and not adding the right disclaimers.
I’m thinking that since 2015. Like BMW C1 just with doors on the side and a bit more security. This would approx allow 3-4x as many travellers on a given route compared to traditional cars.
I think for small projects you need to scale the coders mental model, which afaik works in the fastest time, when you let ai do the exploration and planning, but coder needs to write the code itself and then ai verifies. That generates the best of world codes and the coder at least has written the code. It’s scalable.
In projects that are so big that no single coder or no small group of coders is sufficient to grasp I don’t have personal experience, but my guess would be that they are just a cluster of other small projects.
I don’t want to be a hater, but somehow i still keep throwing vacuum roboters away and prefer the manual machine. It somehow always ends up worrying me more than helping. Crashing, charging putting away, putting things away for it to work (peeping). There are a lot of small things that come to these things that have evolved over the last 100 of years.
When i think about humanoids and household. I have so much particular ways of how I want my household to be done. I find it really hard to believe you can make it act that way. I struggled to teach humans how I want it. So I ended up doing everything myself again.
I’m seeing a lot of people that having that train of thought. I think that is a fallacy. I can understand that some LLM execution can be faster, but definitely not all. Agents need to explore, grep and get back up to speed to get context, if you have a good mental model, you can do changes or adaptions in <7s with a bunch of shortcuts or commands.
One could argue to find the <7s commands in your head takes you more mental power than to just wish it in to the LLM and whilst its running you can wish something else in another session, but I’m thinking that the cost of context is more important than the actual execution time for your task. Every extra task gets more expensive. It’s not a ressource where you have a limit, right from the 2nd task the cognitive load increases.
Therefore I’m thinking one task that can be done in one context window without switching is worth a load in these days of constant distraction.
I get your point but I do prefer delegating almost all of the things to the LLM.
A lot of times human commands are prone to errors / edge cases as well. Example a simple git pull command usually would take < 7 seconds, but then LLM can take care of resolving merge conflicts etc as well.
A simple git push is usually instant but that comes with an overload of some un intended changes being pushed, which LLMs take care of removing themselves.
When LLM is doing its thing, we can spend the same time in writing the next prompt.
> A simple git push is usually instant but that comes with an overload of some un intended changes being pushed, which LLMs take care of removing themselves.
In my experience it can often be the opposite - AI would commit a lot of slop comments and sometimes unnecessary stuff, whereas if you can review things in GitKraken or another program with diffs, things are closer to what you want. Writing commit messages and PR descriptions (maybe change summaries, the intro less so) is easily outsourced to the LLMs though.
I don’t know but to me it seems a bunch of people should learn proper typing. There is no way in world that AI is faster in solving/writing problems than you are when you can maneuver your idea/vim properly and have proper domain knowledge and mental model of your codebase. I think it’s genuinely 10x as fast. Just on execution and then if you write it you keep mental model, decide details and you don’t lose context.
Like honestly I’m losing my mind, when people claim I haven’t written code in a year. You had the wrong job your whole life and whilst you think you are so frontier now by using agenst your market value is actually decreasing.
Imagine a painter saying, I’m so happy I don’t have to paint anymore.
Or a tennis player. I’m so happay that I don’t have to play tennis anymore.
Obviously I'm just one guy, but I maintain what I said w/ typing happily at 120+wpm. I think I could break 150 if I switched to colemak or dvorak, which I've been considering.
I don't think my job was ever to type fast, nor do I make any claim that I'm ontologically better than someone writing code by hand - but for what I need to do, I'm way faster now.
You might think he's an AI shill, but I was pretty compelled by simonw's post and idea - "your job is to deliver code that works" [1]. I think I can deliver more code that I can prove to work, faster now. The productivity is nice, but as I've said on other parts of the thread, it's also just fun to spend more time thinking, less time hitting the semicolon on my keyboard?
I’m using NEO layout with all the coding keys on layer 3. I’m using both pinkys to jump into layer 3. I can therefore code a lot on home row. I use intellij with two two stroke keybinds (f.e. => Alt + E -> M => Extract Method) and vim motions in editor. I use ai next edit and autocomplete inside editor as I’m right on the loop.
Most changes I need to do are few lines of codes or big architectural changes. I’m at 40k lines of code after 24 months of working that’s 1.5k lines per month and 50 lines a day. If you can write 50 lines a day would you let AI write those or write them yourself.
I challenge anyone to show me a project with a good codebase where the actual loc output is so high that a human couldn’t write it in one hour a day.
I’m not working for a company so my job is to deliver a platform that works for users not to get a paycheck.
Coding for other people is like playing tennis for other people. You're signed as a tennis player to win. If a robot could play for you and win more games for you, you might consider using it. Now, I'm not saying AI tools let you "win," but I am saying a lot of people don't code "for the love of the game;" they code to keep the lights on.
Also the jury's out on if they're losing market value. We have yet to see which way the wind blows, but I personally think the genie might be out of the bottle on this one.
Full disclosure: I'm personally working up the courage to quit, take a fat paycut (maybe) and do something bucholic with the rest of my working life. I don't find much enjoyment in the tech landscape anymore (I'm 37).
> I don’t know but to me it seems a bunch of people should learn proper typing
There is no way your hands can produce code faster than a machine.
Even before AI, I used a custom code generator for years. It generated about 90% of the code needed for large business applications in seconds, including support for multiple protocols, database adapters (Oracle, SQLite, in-memory, etc.), and programming languages such as C++, TypeScript, and Java.
Writing the same amount of code by hand would have taken even the fastest developer months. The machine did it in seconds, and it did it consistently and bug free.
Sorry but you are just wrong. Perhaps if you are working on tiny problems in very small projects. Beyond that AI is simply many times faster regardless of how fast you type.
It’s exactly the opposite. On small projects I can use heavily because maintanability doesn’t matter on big projects you’ll end up in a deadlock. That’s why we have so many dead projects. People end up with 10x the needed LOCs and changes get incredible slow and tedious.
If i want to have a script that does sth trivial I’m happy to let AI do it, but if I’m building a house that doesnt break hell no.
reply