our team has broadly switched over for 90% of all code writing. all small changes, all minor updates, and all exploratory work is done via AI 100%. When we get to production deployed code, its up and down (mostly up) that AI can write solid, working code, but the more complex the task, the more important measure is who prompts the AI.

Detailed, longwinded prompts that really restrict and direct the coding task precisely seems to allow nearly no human coding to be done. But that requires our best software architects to sit down for a couple hours and really work out a precise prompt, which involves having the knowledge and skills to not just code the project end to end, but also to precisely determine what you want coded at the outset. no throwing pasta at the wall to see if it sticks.

Our junior folks struggle with this because they don't normally have a clear vision of exactly what they want coded and the final architecture until they are halfway through the task. we are obviously seeing this with efficiency as well (tokens/task completed). But they are learning quite a bit quicker.

You don't know how to argue, or debate, or even answer comments, do you? Mindless passion is still mindless.

Try rebutting what I said. Can you do that for me? I'd appreciate it.

Corals have been regenerating themselves for several hundred million years. They don't need human help.

Corals have been around for several hundred million years. They survived the comet which killed off the dinosaurs. They survived ice ages and glaciations, the most recent being a 400-500 foot sea level rise just 10-15,000 years ago. They routinely bleach themselves while shifting populations of the critters which give them color.

We puny humans are no threat to corals.

Let me be perfectly clear about this: I am insulting you. I am calling you out as either being such a plonk that you keep old copies of People magazine around just in case ... or you are such a plonk that you google and select the answer you want.

Either way, you are a plonk. Your memory is reliable and truthful, mine is full of lies.

Yah, right, like I keep sources of everything I remember from 30 years ago. Uh huh. You of course, being perfect, do keep such sources, instead of just googling and reporting the results which confirm your own bias.

Lots of inventions were unasked-for until they were invented.

No we have not. That's another cherry picked date comparison. Corals have been bleaching and repopulating themselves for several hundred million years.

That's not how it was reported at the time, and I have no reason to trust People magazine.

If you were an anti-alarmist, you'd be crowing this shows sea levels dropping.

For another indication of how sloppy sea level rise claims are, the alarmists published a list of sea level changes along the US Atlantic coast, and funny thing, they differed considerably, as if the ocean were rising more in some places than others. The alternative explanation of sinking land levels was pooh poohed as climate denialism. But another funny thing: California's central valley was once reported as having sunk 22 feet since the gold rush days 150 years earlier, due to pumping out so much underground water. Gosh, could the same thing be happening along the Atlantic coast?

They made those loans because the government promised to bail them out if the loans soured, and the government said there would be consequences for not making enough subprime loans.

Oh yes it did, starting back in the Clinton era. I forget what they called it, other than subprime lending. Banks were specifically told the government (taxpayers) would back their risky loans, and if they did not cooperate, there would be consequences.

The claims were "extinction" and "disappearance" by now, not "lower from some cherry picked date". People don't resort to shenanigans like that when they have truth on their side. You, sir, act as if you do not have truth on your side.

There was a world record high temperature reported in Algeria a few years back. Turns out the weather station was situated at an airport, on or close to the tarmac where jet airplanes shot their hot exhaust at the area.

There are standards for weather stations, such as fresh white paint, size and shape of the containing box, louvers, situated with grass around it, no artificial heat sources nearby, etc etc etc. Something like 90-95% of Britain's weather stations violate those standards, some so badly that they are rated as only being within 5 degrees of correct. Britain was also reporting record high temperatures for weather stations that haven't existed for decades; they average other weather stations within 50 miles to create fake weather station data.

These same patterns show up in the US and other countries. The reported "record high temperatures" are nothing of the sort.

Again: people don't lie like this when they have truth on their side. They not only don't need to, they know that lies ruin their reputations. These alarmists don't seem to mind being caught in such egregious lies. Apparently they don't mind having shit reputations.

Your statistics are meaningless without providing dates. Anyone can cherry pick any starting date they want to show any trend they want. Al Gore and other alarmists specifically claimed "extinct" and "disappear", not "trending". Your strawman is another sign of a liar who doesn't believe his own propaganda.

Your stats on coastal flooding are not backed up by reality. An awful lot of people are moving to Florida. Obama still has that sea level mansion.

Perhaps you don't understand that "move heaven and earth" means not accepting the status quo on taking 30 years to build nuclear power, when it didn't used to take so long. Perhaps you don't understand the alarmists' claim of a tipping point and existential risk