You can have your IT department configure an MCP for the org, and your regular non-technical users click a button and login with their account the service. Then they get all the tool calls authenticated as themselves.
The AI probably can figure out. However, Claude Code and other tools are built to support MCP. This means MCP is probably more reliable than using REST API + llms.txt.
In practice, you would use an already written implementation, maintained by somebody else. An option that is often ignored by LLM (copy-paste galore).
For example, imagine if textual-serve author would reimplement xterm.js What effect it would make on quality.
LLMs increase technical debt rapidly. It is unclear whether they can deal with the mess they create. But we'll know soon (no need to wait years, to get immovable mess).
The positive side of LLMs is that they confirm experimentally the usefulness of many software engineering practices (testing,docs, adrs, design, formal specs etc)
Almost everything you see on the topic is propaganda. Alternative views are suppressed (though I’m surprised on the relative diversity I’m seeing in this thread)
“Either or” is too extreme. Both can be true at the same time even if at different levels of abstraction eg a table and atoms it consists of may exist at the same time. Depending on the task different levels of abstraction may be useful. It is ridiculous to claim that a table doesn’t exist just because we can prove it is made of atoms (or strings excitation—doesn’t matter here)
On the other hand, "consciousness" concept might be as much useful for modeling thinking as “the four elements” for describing anatomy (not useful at all)—and we create better models eventually.
Agreed. Clojure gets this with Mali and Spec. That said, types are such a productivity boost over time that I think they should only be discarded for very good reasons.
That's the wrong metric, however. Thousands of small pet repos are unlikely to have more code than a single Chromium repo (mostly LGPL), Linux, Qt, etc.
I didn’t say it wasn’t factually correct. I assumed it was mostly correct, perhaps a bit sensationalist for comedic purposes. I found it quite funny actually. My answer above was just that it was not actually written by the Elsevier company like that user seems to have thought.
I realize that. I'm just saying that "reject the government" is a radical choice. It's not something the average first world citizen is going to think about. US government has been eroding the freedom of americans for nearly a century now. American citizens have a bigger arsenal than many actual countries out there. And what do they do with all of those weapons? Literally nothing.
Only those who are willing to die have the power to truly change the world. Those who don't want to die are dominated by those who do. The average citizen of a civilized society has a lot to lose. They don't want to die over nothing. They want to get even richer and enjoy an even better life. It's the people who have nothing to lose and everything to gain who are radicalized.
reply