More truth here than you probably think... Trump was a democrat once, a big Clinton backer. Then the caliph decided he could do better than his wise vizier (He couldn't).

There's the party of letting the rich do as they please, then there's the party of attempting to protect the rich from their own worst excesses. Obama was quite explicit about it, telling them "I'm the one standing between you and the pitchforks".

At least in the current climate, some actually meaningful changes might be necessary to protect the likes of Musk, Bezos and Ellison from their own stupidity.

You all speak as if this isn't down to the whims of the wig clowns.

Good, cause I didn't hear that.

They've already burned millions on lost races. The silver lining to patronage politics is that everything bet on the loser is lost.

Light travels faster than sound. This is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.........

You guys do know that there's a process in motion right now to make this debate meaningless and redefine "planet" again? As it stands, the current definition of planet you're arguing over doesn't include any "exoplants". It's actually weird, solar-system centric definition that clearly has no future. They're looking to define clearing its own orbit as 10^23 kg.

No actual disagreement with what you're saying there, but a few things about your example. A. You were dealing with at least one competent engineer and B. you're talking about mechanical engineering. We both agree that you need to hammer out the details with the client, but many clients looking for software to be developed are not engineers and frequently not even all that technical plus the ease of rolling out a mockup or prototype is generally a lot easier in a pure software environment. So sometimes hammering out the details can involve a mockup as a version of the specification for them to pore over. Especially for UI and workflow elements. Beyond that, sometimes dealing directly with the engineers whose requirement it is can be a bit of a luxury. Often you're dealing with one or more layers of middlemen. Worst cases can include your salespeople working out the requirement with their salespeople. If you lose the battle to have at least a constructive conversation over their heads, you're generally stuck with the sure and certain knowledge that there's some fundamental misunderstanding in the middle.

So, that's really the comparison I'm making here. In the traditional paradigm, you ideally have competent engineers/developers or even technically inclined end users who can work everything out. This new paradigm threatens to have the "developer" become the one who has no idea about what has been asked for, what it would really be used for, how to ask the right questions to improve the requirements documents, etc. They just become a middleman who feeds that into the AI.

You will not replace us!!!

But with a little stretching of English grammar, we might replace us.

Nonononono. Build prosperity. Build progress. Build civilization. Build job... Uh, timeout on that one.

Please don't look too closely or ask what any of it means in practice, because we can't have you standing in the way of prosperity and progress.

Anyone who has enough development experience and dealt with the client facing side of it knows that the client never has a clue about the requirements. An important part of the job is, in polite terms, telling them how stupid their original set of requirements is and hammering out with them exactly what they actually need (that or just ignoring them, intuiting all of that, then just making the specific changes they want after you hand them a prototype). Basically, what we seem to be talking about here is turning the developers/engineers into the clueless clients who have no idea what the requirements should actually be anyway, and using the AI as a developer that just takes the requirements at face value.

I would argue that, while you shouldn't expect someone to know a particular architectures assembly code by heart, or anything like that, if they can't - given a reference for a simple pseudo assemnbly - create a basic program they probably should be screened out.

Quite right. The logic the manager from the article is presenting is incomprehensible. They're arguing what? That you don't need coding problems in interviews because an AI can do them instead. Classically, they have been stock problems that are pretty much just mild variations of standard stuff from textbooks. So if you don't need to bother with them now because AI can do them, then you never should have needed to bother with them because the problems had already been done before, thousands of times, and written down. What does this guy think, that the coding problems in interviews are vital new developments in computer science or something? Now, some companies do actually present those as problems just to see how the interviewee approaches them, and there are also some stories about unethical companies that have used long-form interviews as a way to get programming piecework done for free by suckers, but that's not what's being discussed here. The point is that we're talking about a basic way to make sure that interviewees actually understand the concepts themselves, not asking for the interviewee to demonstrate that they can accomplish some amazing task that no-one else on Earth could perform.

It seems you need to both learn to read and to understand the nuances of the issue you're discussing. You certainly need to stop committing the fallacy of proof by assertion.

Try using sentences that encompass complete concepts. I can't tell what you're talking about.

How is that a lie? I have literally spoken to multiple people who insisted that they had been through being sprayed with pepper spray, or other less lethal weapons who eventually admitted that they got the inert versions or special safety circumstances like wearing padding, etc. In this discussion, someone mentioned training where they were exposed to tear gas, if I recall correctly. They themselves pointed out that it was a weakened version for training. In that case, they weren't using their experience to belittle people who have been through the actual experience, but I've encountered plenty who do. One of my favorites for that kind of attitude is people claiming that torture isn't a problem because special forces guys go through things like waterboarding in training. My usual argument about that is that it's like saying that rape isn't bad because some people have consensual sex. But another important point there is that the experience is a controlled one conducted by friendlies and with a predefined start and end point rather than days, months, weeks, years, or even decades of unpredictable assaults conducted by torturers who don't really care if the victim dies. There's obviously a very big difference in the watered down training experience both in substance and in stakes, but some people still want to play pretend that they're somehow equivalent.