Soul of a New Machine was practically my anthem when I was young upstart. Also loved House, which I found many years later. Though I am on the computer side, I recognized myself in both stories. ("The screwdriver is used up" is from Hackers by Steven Levy about early computer days at MIT.)

Pardon me, but isn't code review before merge to production normal practice? If senior engineers aren't reviewing, then I would say that the problem is not the use of AI tools...

Let us just clarify: LLM tools i(ncluding ChatGPT) do not.produce "answers" - they ptoduce "responses"!

Oh wait, that's Kashi...

So rather than distribute compute to us locally, where we can use it as we wish, pay once, and even buy it second hand, we're going to shift users to cloud services where use is restricted to specific apps (games, LLM APIs), users pay forever (different rates for different apps), and those jerks justify their resource hungry over-built data centers!

Yes to version control with LLM tools! FYI, Aider already has it integrated. In fact, use version control for everything you do on the computer. (Then backup your repo, need I say it?)

"This validates the 'do more with less' strategy..." I would say, "supports," not "validates." I use LLM tools every day to support my code development. It is not so easy to ensure good enginering while using an LLM based tool. While I feel that I am faster with the tools, I doubt it is really possible to produce quality output wrangling 5 sessions on 5 pieces of system code at a time.

"Microchimeric cells should trigger rejection but do not. Higher-than-typical concentrations have been found in people with autoimmune conditions..." Well, then, that could be evidence that they DO trigger rejection, just not at a 100% rate. I really wish writers would be more careful about their wording.

"The vacuum of space also means that contaminants can't sneak in." Not true. The vacuum just means they aren't floating around suspended by an atmosphere. Contaminants can still move around; they will simply move balistically, like tiny rocks that got kicked or thrown. They can "sneak in" if they are moving in the right direction.

Good points! Besides, the article points out "one week" of AI and "38.5 hours" of human work.. In my book, that is one week of a person sitting and using a tool. The peraon is responsible here, and did that person practise good engineering? If the goal was to boot first time, then yes. If the goal was to satisfy significant reliability and manufacturability requirements along with form and function... probably not, I imagine.

.. if i search for blue diode lasers?? what app will it make? blue-ray mastering? thin film gold micromaching? this seems rediculous. what if I search the form and structure of fossilized diatoms? What app does it make for that? schedule your pool maintenance visits? this is just as useless as targeted advertising...

The point is, whatever truth there may be behind that statement, the author 1) did not jusyify it (when he could have), and 2) used vagur wording that evokes emotional connotations (though he knows very well how to be precise).

"Ruby, you mightâ(TM)ve guessed, is dynamically typed. Python and JavaScript are too, but over the years, those communities have developed sophisticated tools to make them behave more responsibly." Make? Them (..who)? Behave? Responsibly? The heck is this guy saying there, with neither example nor description? Attacking his target audience savagely while excusing his (larger) favored readership without explanation, in vague language... Classic flamebait. I think this author knows what his goal is, and makes it clear.

your point resonates with AI as a research discipline, and many of its outcomes. but here we have an LLM/GPT based product being marketed as "AI", or even as "an AI", which is different than talking about AI as a research area.

it's not an AI, it's an LLM being marketed as an AI. on the other hand, if it /were/ an actual AI, it could simply be /convinced/ to spy, steal and damage!