The things mentioned in the post aren’t code. That’s why code isn’t the hard part. Writing the algorithm to x y or z isn’t the hard part. Knowing that the algorithm is needed, it’s beneficial, there’s no alternative and the optimization isn’t in vein, that’s the hard part.
Structure, design patterns, software architecture, systems engineering, optimization (not of the LoC but the system), data accessibility (in structure as in implementation like indexes etc)... those are the hard ones that require engineers to design and implement properly.
And that’s only going to be more as it’s not the 20 medior SWEs that throw together a full stack application in two days but the untangling of AI slop as the architecture wasn’t built for hundreds of concurrent users
We’ll face a bigger problem sooner rather than later, which is population collapse. Youth don’t procreate amy more. Birth numbers are at an all time low. We see the issue arise in rats and the experiment is all too relevant for the current age of social media and fearmongering (John B. Calhoun’s rodent “utopia” experiment). All these “Grand Challenge” problems seem trivial to that.
Furthermore:
Why is 1 here when 2 is present. Again, solar is usually not relevant when we want power when it’s dark… even theoretical it wouldn’t work. We’d need a high capacity dirt cheap storage, and even then we can’t keep it till winter when there’s no sun to go around and effectively supply
3. Irrelevant when there’s population collapse. And even then, why would we want this instead of reforestation and low depth water protection from fishing and environmental issues.
5. How is this even a problem. Unless we got corrupt(ed/able) governments (read: lobbies) that allow exemptions in every law designed to protect the environment (also, settlements are a twisted way to fill governments pockets instead of rooting out evil)
7/8/9 the inverse effects are even worse health, as everything is fixable. 9 would incur even more social isolation, more so than the internet did
10 seems to be the first that’s actually reasonable
Same for 11
For 12 see 9
13 yes but that’s something that a self learner would already be able to do. AI is at a level that we can manage
Speak facts. Don't hide behind morality this, care that, environment and virtue signalling... Tell me, what is the factual things Grok model does wrong and is factual incorrect?
It convinced u/highmastdon to go out and be an elon musk dick rider. It also convinced them that "hid[ing] behind morality" is somehow a bad thing, which shows everyone the quality of person they are.
1. intelligence to token-use ratio is much better than the frontier models
2. hallucination rate is MUCH lower than OpenAI, Google and Deepseek models
3. the cost for output tokens is much lower than Anthropic models while near same intelligence and task completion
4. task completion time and success is on par with Opus 4.8 Max, but 3.5x less time used
Especially 2. you're probably more willing to allow OpenAI to bankrupt your morality, than face the facts of the model itself
Overall, Grok models are more factual and less politically influenced than OpenAI ones.
Still to this day I don't understand how people manage to do software development on a Windows PC. I started with my first secondhand MacBook which was one before the unibody, and then upgraded to unibody and never have left ever. The only reason I was forced to use Windows was for clients that didn't have support for MacOS or Linux. The only thing I need Windows for is rootkit enabled games... which pains me, otherwise I'd have Linux on my desktop
I had the feeling that Cerebras only supports smaller modes. Maybe something to do with their hardware arch? I never dove into it. I wanted to use Kimi K2 fast for coding and Groq was the only fast provider at the time
The nice thing is that adding this to the basic prompt that cursor uses will advance all those users and directly do away with this problem only to discover the next one. However, all these little things add up to a very powerful prompt where the LLM will make it only easier for anyone to build real stuff that on the surface looks very good
Don't underestimate the amount of knowledge you don't have to perfect things. I remember building scheduling software in PHP in high school, because I just fixed problem after problem, and I was not limited by any form of knowledge. If I'd have to do it again, I'd be perfecting the architecture, refactoring everything every other week...
There’s a real double-edged sword to this whole “becoming a ‘better’ software engineer” thing. I remember just hacking stuff together when I was younger with not a care for whether I was doing it right or not. I just wanted to make it work.
I miss that feeling. It doesn’t come around as often now, but I still feel like I move fastest when I can shut off the part of my brain that’s been trained on years of online discourse about right and wrong ways to do things, and just… do them.
> I move fastest when I can shut off the part of my brain that’s been trained on
While at it: the fastest way to move is free fall. If you fall at will and from a reasonable height, it's called a jump, and indeed gets you there fast. Otherwise it's called a crash, and it usually results in your limping the rest of the way.
So the approach of just hacking things together works great for small things, and the worse, the larger the scale grows.
The laptop in question, for instance, was definitely not just hacked together without any planning, even though the project seems to have fortunately escaped analysis paralysis.
Structure, design patterns, software architecture, systems engineering, optimization (not of the LoC but the system), data accessibility (in structure as in implementation like indexes etc)... those are the hard ones that require engineers to design and implement properly.
And that’s only going to be more as it’s not the 20 medior SWEs that throw together a full stack application in two days but the untangling of AI slop as the architecture wasn’t built for hundreds of concurrent users