I am a bit (ok very) worried AI will most likely kill language diversity in programming. I also don't see it settling on a more optimal solution it will probably just use the most available languages out there and be very hard to push out of that rut. And it's not limited to languages I expect knowledge ruts all over the place and due to humans and AI choosing the path of least resistance I don't see an active way to fight this.
N=1 anecdote, but I've actually found I'm more likely to use different languages now that I'm using LLMs because I don't have to think about the different syntax as much.
For example I've been on the lookout for a better language than bash to use for shell scripting, but didn't like the options I was familiar with for various reasons (go, python, js, swift, etc). I did some research and Nim seemed to fit my needs perfectly. I was able to quickly convert some scripts I had to Nim using an LLM, where in the past I wouldn't have bothered to get used to a whole new language just for a few scripts.
Or right now I'm working on a personal full stack project and chose Go for the backend services, TypeScript/React for the frontend, and also have one service in Python because the library I need is easier to use there than in Go. Normally it would be a frustrating to context switch languages, but with LLMs I'm thinking more about the architecture and logic than specific syntax so it's been pretty frictionless.
I've generally always been one to want to use the best language/stack/platform for the job, so I'm probably biased, but I think LLMs actually make it easier to use languages you're less familiar with as long as you understand fundamental programming concepts. I'm hoping they end up promoting the usage or uptake of some of the less popular languages like Nim due to the lower learning curve needed to get useful output from them.
I think that providing a large corpus of example programs for training will become practically mandatory for any new language or framework in the future. At least that way you can help “jump-start” LLMs before it gets adopted widely enough for organic training material to emerge.
When you say leap ahead do you mean leap forward of their current position or lead ahead of competitors in the world?
I would agree many countries are making progress but I would contend they are mostly closing the gap. I don't see countries advancing far above the pack while being extremely corrupt that hinders their ability to progress beyond the rest of the advanced nations.
I've been wondering, Stallman was driven to create free software after an incident trying to get the code for firmware on his office printer. I'm wondering if today, would he have just reverse engineered it with AI?
Edit: I'm also thinking of what he did rewriting all of Symbolics code for LISP machines
Stallman rarely cared about the rights of the writer, even reading the GPL makes it clear that it's all about the rights of the user.
In a world without copyright, code obfuscation, or compliers, where everything ran interpreted as it was written and nobody could do anything to you if you modified it, Stallman would be perfectly content.
Just understand that you are one of the player groups that Blizzard targets and they found that a significant if not plurality of their player groups were solo players. This is why they've actively changed the product to try to keep that player base subbed between expansion. By their account it seems to work.
I do think Blizzard is big enough they can maintain multiple experiences. One thing that is challenging is a vocal group of players really feel like they need to do everything in the game. It's compulsory (some game design choice did also force that at times). This leads to them not enjoying the content not designed for them. Blizzard has a challenging line to solve.
Classic was the right move, I do agree with your idea of someone making a similar game with the original principles. It probably can't be Blizzard anymore, their have a 0-1M user problem. Anything they make has to cater to everyone or they get flak. So a smaller outfit needs to do it. Challenging in this funding environment.
That's not really the comparable here, you need to find a person with vested interest in the outcome of the student loan forgiveness program.* Someone that was working within the agency responsible for the program and actively was in the discussions where the legality was discussed. Then made a scheme to financially get rewarded. Not only that used his son as a way to create the illusion of separation.
* And not just a borrower that wouldn't be anywhere similar to this level of conflict.
Just like then we were naive about folks not abusing these things to the point of making everyone need to block them to oblivion. I think we are relearning these lessons 30 years later.
This blog post really doesn't make it sound any better there is no clear refusal to participate in the questionable uses Anthropic was against. Merely must be legal and must be tested.
This feels like IBM in the 1930s selling tabulating machines to the Germans and downplaying their knowledge of their use. They seem to want us to naively believe they won't use it for exactly what the military has always wanted, autonomous weapons and mass surveillance. Further more there are much more mundane use they might make of the technology that is perfectly legal yet morally in gray areas.
Basically now all those projects are screwed and need to restart with another provider. I'm sure that's not going to be a massive PITA and delay for all involved.
That's argument is a bit rough given manufacturing is one of the areas seeing the most automation progress and success. One of the main reason it's not more successful is labor costs can be lower than automation that wouldn't be true if we wanted to replace the income of white collar workers in the US.
If we end up in a place where AI and automation take over then yeah I think we start looking at alternative income sources and economic system. Just like star trek predicted we would do after WW3.
reply