Ok, but the survey is whether people think it's bad. If something negatively impacts you, won't you describe it as 'bad' if you are asked about it?

LLM usage is hardly a demanding talent in and of itself. Being able to judge and make the use/salvage/discard choice when the LLM presents the material it does is more about coding and less about 'talented with LLMs'. Anyone good at coding can add LLM without a huge challenge, so you don't *need* to find someone with 'LLM' experience and lack of it doesn't make you unemployable.

The whole damn point of LLM is, to the extent that it works, it's easy. Just the hiccup is that 'to the extent it works'.

Well, note that it says 'big' and 'compared to other technological breakthroughs'.

So even if they see small, or corresponding with hiring, or even big but they think it can be correlated with macroeconomic conditions that would have prevailed even without AI, they can kind of wave it away.

About the only thing they can say is that it hasn't been so extreme as to completely eliminate whole categories of the workforce. The data is too noisy in general, and as companies claim to layoff thanks to AI, it's hard to know when they actually mean it or if that's a rationale to mitigate worries that investors might have. Investors love layoffs generally, but there's always a bit of a worry as to what the layoffs might mean in terms of the future, and AI is a nice bandaid to make investors think 'all upside'

Well, not TX. If Houston had been picked for this one shuttle in the first place, then his statement would be right.

I think it's a waste to move now, but Houston would have made more sense. On top of the NASA significance, it's also more geographically fair. If NY lost theirs, they still have one within a 3 hour train ride. Meanwhile Houston currently is a lot further away, a couple of days of driving or train.

That was only one of the concerns, also that it'd get an admission fee and that there's a high risk of damage is also listed.

But why should we ignore cost because there's some alternate universe with a private party that would cover the cost instead? It's a pointless waste of money.

Probably didn't help that in the craziness of post-pandemic recovery a fair number of software developers managed to swing 100% raises when the flood of covid recovery cash went into play...

No, you don't need to absolutely break your lifestyle in unhealthy ways to become a great developer. Yes you need a bit more grounded experience than what universities offer, but that doesn't mean absurd lifestyle choices.

I remember back in the day "real developers" bragging about how they needed Jolt Cola and because they drank so much Jolt, you *know* they must be good... I had hoped we had gotten over that mindset..

I think a part of it is that many of those programming hires never really made any sense in the first place.

A great chunk of the programming hires were done with no good idea on how to actually utilize those people. It was more performative for the sake of investors and clients than a good use of peoples' time. So you end up with horrible bureaucracies of developers that in aggregate never got anywhere real, but to some extent that's ok because they didn't have any real idea in the first place and they can still brag about their headcount to the people that will give them money.

Now the performative thing to do is say AI over and over again. Bad news for the humans, but probably neutral for many of these companies that weren't really doing that much useful stuff with the people anyway.

To the extent things have substantially improved, it's been about convenient access to the models and better prompt stuffing to have a better shot. The models themselves are pretty underwhelming, particularly given how much had been put into trying to make them better.

The end really is that it takes me less time to get LLM generated content because I don't have to manually feed it as much of the stuff anymore, but the suggestions are still pretty garbage once I get there.

LLMs are good at generating a few lines of code sometimes, but you have to watch it like a hawk. The automatic prompt stuffing has been pretty good in reducing the effort to get to that result, which would have otherwise been more trouble than it's worth.

It can more effectively tear through material you'd find in tutorials and courses, but it's far less useful for real coding problems.

I thought I had a vibe coding scenario last week that it could do but it botched it horribly. I did use it's mess of a suggestion as some reference material to guide my reading of docs as I went about lately doing it by hand (though still using LLM code completion and tiny little prompts)

the IDE never gets tired reminding you of the missing semicolon, the image AI never gets tired of highlighting relevant parts of a... colon?

Think this translates to a lot of the 'AI should replace them' positions people think about.

I'm a "software developer". There are certainly some code-heavy times, but there are days where I don't 'code' at all, and days like today where I've only messed with around 6 lines of code. A minority of my job is taken up with tasks that are even hypothetically in the discussion for AI replacement. It just so happens the LLMs tend to suck at most of my niche as well, but even if it were spot on for prose-to-code it still would only reduce a smaller fraction of my job than an outsider would guess....

Note that I refer to Windows Mobile, before Windows Phone 7. I consider Windows Phone 7 their first vaguely credible attempt at a mobile centric UI, and then Windows 8 the consequence of trying to throw desktop/laptop under the bus for the sake of trying to popularize their take on mobile UI. Admittedly, I was never interested in bothering to give Windows Phone 7+ a chance, but some others I knew at least made me think it was a credibly usable multi-touch UI for handhelds.

If there was a possible strategy for Microsoft to get into the mobile game, this would have been it.

Their first pass failed to really optimize for mobile at all, so you had mobile devices with clunky interfaces.

Then when they finally saw that a more targeted UI for mobile was needed, they went the other way, screwing up desktop by trying to make it look like their vision of a mobile OS, all while having the phones still unable to use monitors so there wasn't really any 'synergy' between the platforms despite throwing the desktop experience under the bus.

Now I've seen samsung and motorola phones drive desktops, but good luck which ones actually support displayport alt-mode on the usb-c.... However not *too* much of a loss because they both have just utterly shitty window managers with no options to swap it out for anything vaguely more capable despite a plethora of options in the space.

I think Android has at least got *some* of the message with respect to applications, carrying over from the ChromeOS support for linux applications, however it was sad that even as a pure linux person who uses desktop linux without a hint of Windows, I actually thought using Linux under ChromeOS was even worse than WSL.

Now if by some miracle, I can have an Android phone with displayport that will let me run Plasma desktop in a normal way, they can take my money so fast. Of course, realistically speaking, they'll have like 3 or 4 people excited for that and wonder why they wasted money pandering to us..

While it may certainly reduce any sympathy, 'losing money' is still an apt term.

If I intercepted one of your paychecks, I think you'd fairly say that you 'lost money', despite having, presumably, some savings.

Now if you are a billionaire bemoaning losing a few thousand, I'm not going to be terribly moved by your plight, but I would still permit the phrase 'lost money'.

But the phrasing should be about losing money, not "losing" cars.