It gave me the numbers for the various trials. I don't have them handy and I didn't run them manually - so the AI could totally have made it all up. I did not keep the numbers so I have nothing to share.

Sure - it's just a hypothesis.

I do not recall the details! But I did watch as the damn AI did repeat wall clock and sample tests to see where the time was going and try 2-4 different approaches and clocked each one in detail. I felt embarrassed because I *could* do all that and certainly had done it in the past - but it would have taken me a *long* time to set up each tests and analyze the results and try over and over and track the results for each.
As you imply - none of this is particularly tricky - it's mostly just labor intensive and time consuming. And those are both things that AI has no trouble with.

Related - when I tell an agent to optimize for performance - especially if the request is well targeted - it does an *amazing* job. Doing performance work is so well defined and described that it can follow the patterns and do all the checks and get it really right. To do a good job it's really repetitive and there are often a lot of angles to check and .. it just does it really well.

This is like Trump promising $5K if republicans win the midterms. It's just a PR stunt.

Imagine trying to reason out the tax implications of something like this. The privacy implications. Everything.

Elon: "I really wanted to, but lawyers wouldn't let me!"

No way to see that coming.

I predict it could cost as much as $150 Billion!

Do I hear $200B? We're making shit up - go large!

Personally, on this matter, I defer to Phil Mason, Ph.D., who is a chemist specializing in nuclear chemistry. He put a video up on his thunderf00t channel when this thing came out in the news explaining why it's bullshit.

My day job is a (saas) app that's about 20 years old and has been worked on continuously by a team that has varied in size from about 5 to now about 15. It is complicated and connects to several external services. There are parts of the app that are too hairy for AI to reason about. But we have found, recently, that AI is surprisingly good at explaining how some rather complicated (but well written) parts of the app work.
The 2-3 really hairy parts of the app are written in an arbitrarily complicated way that I would never have used and long to rewrite - but they work. Nobody on the team is happy with it - and there is no corporate memory of anyone being happy working with these parts.
We have exceptional test coverage (>95% by lines), so it's just a matter of time before we decide to lay out an AI agent team to rewrite some of the horrible stuff in a way that is much more palatable to both human and agent. This is not something I would have suggested as possible 4-6 months ago.

I'm not sure how to answer that question. My flip answer is "the usual way." But nothing about software is the usual anymore.

100% of the code that .. makes up this project is code that I did not write. But I absolutely told AI what I wanted and in many cases *how* I wanted it. And any code that had "interesting" design elements is code that I reviewed and in some cases told AI to change. Where interesting refers to meaningful architectural decisions.

At this point it is a very light project - somewhat less that 10K lines of code. It is in its minimal viable product phase - and I imagine it will grow to be more than 15 or even 20K LOC. Eventually becoming projects on 3 distinct platforms and becoming substantially larger.

All of which is ridiculous. Fewer than 200 prompts so far, I'm sure. Maybe fewer than 100.

I've got a black swan for ya!
I just shipped software that AI wrote [practically] entirely that I would not have shipped otherwise. I don't think I'm the only one.

Those diamond batteries were bullshit. The problem is that as the carbon-14 decays, the structure stops being diamond, because it's no longer made of all carbon. After even a decade or two, the diamond structure will be practically gone and the remaining carbon will impure as balls and in mostly graphite form. Once the structure is damaged enough, it will no longer hold itself together. I suppose you could encase the diamond in something like resin but part of the point of using diamond was the electrical properties (diamond is a good insulator of electricity which makes for good capacitors, the effects of which were being used in the device in part to make it work.). Also, while carbon-14 is screamingly radioactive; it's way, way less so than the currently used tritium. This means you'd a ton more of it to get the same wattage output, although it's longer half-life would mean that it could, assuming it maintained it's structure, last longer than the tritium betavoltaics. But to get it to maintain it's structure long-term would require using proportionally less carbon-14 and more carbon-12 and carbon-13. This means you lose one of the advantages of tritium - size.

Pfft. Morons. It is *super easy* to make predictions.

Accurate ones, however...

Yes, because users understand those kinds of choices.

Too soon!

Yes, they can. Like 20 years ago, when CmdrTaco was still running this site, they implemented Unicode support. But then a few weeks later they disabled it because they couldn't figure out how to stop the text direction markers from breaking the site. You could post a comment with a right-to-left direction and reverse all the text that came after, including the next comments, unless you remembered to change it back before the end of the comment. They never did re-enable Unicode, which is quite ridiculous. Everyone else figured this out 20 years ago or more.

Way more than cheaper rides.
* App to summon
* Automatic driver mapping to pickup
* Predictable arrival for pickup
* Predictable arrival for drop off
* No BS routing and you knew the cost before pickup/dropoff.

Back in the day I called for cabs ahead of time and had them fail to show up 25% of the time. I've never lived in a dangerous area, so that wasn't it. They just were not reliable or predictable. Uber saw a huge opening for a service and they took it. They also saw a huge opportunity for destroying the existing market solution in an anti-competitive and illegal way and took that, too - banking on the notion that government would not act fast enough to stop them. And they were right.

And because cars are a certain size. Making it half the size for just one person would be nearly as expensive and would be worse for taxi'ing 2 people (which are still a reasonable number of fares).