One of the big problems with this is that it effectively changes the job description of programmers to managers.

You're not just responsible for your own code, you're responsible for telling someone/something else what to do, and then reviewing their work, and then integrating that work and making sure it's correct, because if it gets checked in and it's wrong, you're on the hook for it. But you didn't even write it, so it's harder to understand. Most programmers I know are better at understanding the code they wrote rather than the code they read.

Management is not a job for everyone. I've been a senior programmer and a lead programmer, and it is easier to be a senior programmer that writes complicated, essential systems than it is to be a lead programmer that REVIEWS those systems. If you don't want to do that kind of management work and you just enjoy writing code, you should stay a senior programmer, or move up to some other non-management job. But if you're forced to babysit an LLM, you get ALL THE WORST PARTS of being a lead programmer. You only get the code reviews and none of the intellectual stimulation and enjoyment of creating that thing on your own.

At least a couple comments have pointed out that solo devs use LLMs to great effect, and I'm sure this is true. But if you're not a solo dev, the task is so much different. You're trying to integrate with a bunch of other people and other systems and you're on the hook for something you didn't even write, so you'd best spend the time learning what the code says. It completely defeats the point. When I get an LLM to write my powershell scripts for me, it's because I have no interest at all in learning that scripting language. It takes 2 minutes, usually does a good job, and I can forget about it forever. The development model of asking an LLM to write code that you're responsible for that has to intermingle with the code of dozens of other people and agents sounds like a straight-up nightmare.

Solo development is a different job. The tasks you give to AI are based on what you need, and your own mental model of they code they need to spit out.

Large-scale development is different, because people are different. I've worked on 5 or 6 different game engines over the years, and Unreal is the current one that I'm on. Unreal has its quirks. The rest of our game engine has historical baggage that I need to account for. The interactions between systems are more organic, because not everything can be planned in advance. I worked on Assassin's Creed for 3 games (about 7-8 years?) and we carry over the mistakes of the previous games to the next one, because that engine shipped a game, so it's a known quantity. Sometimes if you're lucky, you get to fix some of those bugs, but then the next games get YOUR bugs, etc.

Solo devs ARE doing amazing work with AI, but solo devs *by definition* don't need to understand the code of 1 or 4 or 50 other people. You can't just check shit in on a big team.

Perfectly reasonable study, because small-scale development is not the same. I have to understand the code of 10+ programmers on a regular basis. Our game engine is involved. The only way for me to learn the code is to use it and step through it.

If you're writing apps yourself, AI is great. It's a teammate that follows your instructions and implements the things that you want. You've already got a mental model of what you need, and it gives that to you. Of course it works for you.

Big codebases are just different. Systems are interdepedent in weird ways for historical reasons, or vendor reasons or weird coworker reasons or whatever. It's not the same task.

the nuclear power industry "has a remarkably skilled but quickly shrinking workforce tasked with keeping old reactors online and possibly starting up new ones to meet surging demand for electricity,"

Maybe stop harassing scientists and experts so that they don't flee overseas.

Ballcoin will be a thing

> I suspect that's often true, but certainly not universal.

My observation is that it's quite often true. If our observations differ, so be it.

The Soviets appeared to concede at that point. They cancelled their manned lunar program.

Took Apollo technology to make that broom fly.

There's quite a lot of nuance here, I guess, which isn't unexpected. It's quite a useful anecdote. At the very least, we can't just wave it away like it's not useful. It may generate sub-standard paintings or completely miss the point of art, but if it makes your proofs better, it seems insane to not have it help.

Well, wait, I don't think that actually disproves the claim. I'm not saying it's not impressive, I just don't think it's as novel as you say.

When I ask an LLM to write me code that does something 'novel', it usually does quite a good job. I'm just using the freely available models, but they quite competently write code that is not truly derivative of any other code. If I give them some code of my own that has a bug in it, they'll find the bug and patch it, and that bug is, for all intents and purposes, unique.

You're still seeing a bunch of old patterns rehashed--I presume that other proofs introduce infinity families, and they can iterate through inside a clear logical structure to test whether or not something works. Again, this is impressive work, but I'm not personally convinced that this is 'novel' in terms of the broader corpus of mathematical knowledge. It didn't invent a new field of mathematics to solve your problem.

Even if you didn't prompt it, take a look sometimes at the contemplations of the models, if that's available to you. Before the model even arrives in your hands, it's got stacks of prompts giving it meta instructions, and it then generates prompts for itself to check your work. I think it would be interesting if you ran your experiment again on a new account that's fresh and see if you can watch the chain of reasoning. You might be right, it MAY be doing something TRULY novel, but as I've said, I've got my doubts.

Obviously, you're a mathematician and I'm not; I can't tell you that you're wrong about it if you insist that it is doing something new.

Slightly off topic, but people don't hire on merit. The merit claim is cockypot. Merit gets your foot in the interview door, but social factors are what decides after that. I've been on hiring committees. One of the questions posed to the committee was, "Which candidate would you feel most comfortable working with for 40+ hours a week?" Let that question sink in.

Of course the candidate with a similar socioeconomic profile as your own would be preferred: somebody who likes the same food, watches the same movies and sports, worships the same deity, etc. It's not direct discrimination, but has discrimination as an end result.

Prove the study is flawed or STFU. Gut guesses are a dime a dozen.

Prompt: "Hunt down and clean up Slashdot dupes before they coagulate and turn into human eating monsters. Low scorers have to watch goatse for 2 minutes before reactivating their account."

"I'm writing a book on Jeffrey Dahmer...

Bigly Testosterone!