I agree. Questions like this often seem to come from people who don’t *want* to use AI, or perhaps are afraid of it for whatever reason, and they’re looking for reasons that they shouldn’t use it.

It was Andrej Karpathy, one of the world’s top AI engineers.

Description of the term: https://x.com/karpathy/status/...

About him: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

I’ve stopped arguing with people about it (mostly haha) for this reason. They’re either going to have to figure it soon enough without our help, or as you say be left behind.

This matches how I use it. I’ll add a few other points:

4. Writing the first core version of a service or UI. I’ll typically use close to 100% of those generated lines, and then continue building with LLM assistance where it makes sense. It makes a big difference to development velocity.
5. Finding bugs. If some bug isn’t obvious to me, provide the code to an LLM and describe the problem. Its success rate is high.
6. Working with tech I’m not particularly familiar with (an extension of your #3, i.e. learning)
7. Writing documentation.
8. Reverse engineering existing code, i.e. describe some code to me so I don’t have to dig through it in detail.
9. Writing unit tests.

What do you object to, her support for equality or her opposition to genocide? Or is it that a woman stated an opinion?

So, the functional equivalent of reasoning?

Are you saying that ChatGPT, Claude, Deepseek etc. “make heavy use of external tools” to write code? Because they all write pretty good code, up to a certain size of program. Certainly far better than the average human, who can’t code at all; or the average software developer, who isn’t really very good.

I always use a VPN when looking at the sky.

the NSA (in their role of protecting the nation's data infrastructure, not their role of spying on everyone -- two very different organizations within the NSA)

Or so the NSA would have you believe...

I don't have mod points right now, so thank you for taking the time to write a sensible comment on a very fraught topic. :)

An irrevocable patent pledge is intended to be precisely that; it's a legal document that is written to carry weight regardless of changes of ownership or management. Whether it will stand in court when tested remains to be seen, but that problem applies also to free content and open source licenses and other legal tools for sharing of information and ideas. KA can be expected to at least do one thing, which is to use the best available legal tools to create a broader framework of reuse consistent with its mission. It should reach out to experts, such as Creative Commons, to determine which tools to use, rather than relying on a weak implementation drafted by Twitter.

KA can also reject the idea of patents entirely. It has enough goodwill globally that any patent lawsuit against it, aside perhaps from highly protected areas such as video codecs, would likely to be suicidal for the entity bringing it, and a fundraising boon for KA.

Although Blackboard has filed patent lawsuits against competitors (and was briefly boycotted for it), it at least has issued an irrevocable patent pledge not to sue open source projects. I suspect ignorance, not foul play, on the part of Khan Academy is the cause.

Ironically, nonprofit Khan Academy's Twitter pledge is less permissive than that of the corporate behemoth, since it reserves the right to sue anyone, for any reason, provided company and "inventor" agree. Not sure OIN is a good fit for its needs given its close tie to usage of patents within "Linux systems". Something like CC's model patent license or a simple, broad pledge never to use patents offensively against anyone may be a better fit.

KA's policy error here is likely the result of swimming in the Silicon Valley ideological soup, where Twitter's pledge is considered remarkable. KA has never been an especially awesome organization when it comes to open source citizenry. For example, it uses the "non-commercial use" restriction for its materials, which is widely rejected within open source and free culture circles like Wikimedia, Linux, etc. Hopefully this will change over time as the organization becomes more aware of the policy discussions around these issues, since a lot of its work is otherwise excellent and world-changing.

As the summary states, Khan follows Twitter's patent pledge. This is a good first step as far as it goes, but it still explicitly allows for offensive litigation if the "inventor" agrees. That's not sufficient. At the very minimum, Khan should adopt a clear, irrevocable policy never to enforce patents against open source projects, like many Patent Commons participants. Ideally it should partner with Creative Commons to work out an even stronger patent license, consistent with its mission. CC has previously developed model patent licenses and I'm sure they'd be happy to help.

If the Khan Academy user who originally posted in Slashdot in response is reading this -- please bring these resources to the attention of management.

Videos/podcasts and similar formats are definitely not for every setting, but they do allow you to get to know a person a bit better than a simple transcript does. In a video, you can see a person's facial expressions, you can hear emphasis, and you may be able to make more of an emotional connection. For a podcast, you can listen in the background, during your commute, etc. Each format has its advantages/disadvantages.

I agree a transcript would be awesome though; sorry that I've not gotten around to that yet (I do these in my spare time and suggested to Roblimo that he might want to run a shorter version). If you want to help, I've set up an Amara import here. In general, Passionate Voices is a community project (the videos are under CC-0, i.e. free to reuse), and help is always welcome, including with doing itnerviews.

A few days ago, Sumana released this video, Pipeline, a critique of the tech industry's treatment of women. It's relevant to the overall discussion re: hospitality and worth watching (the main point being, "getting women into tech" doesn't really solve any problems if the actual experience in the industry is a terrible one).