I want to build things, not "launch startups". If someone asks me about a minimal thing of what I build, I want to be able to speak for hours about it, in detail. I want to completely understand it. I'm an engineer, not an enterpreneur.
This whole concept of Software 3.0 takes away all the craft from the thing. It's souless.
- "How did you do it?"
- "Dunno, just prompted it LOL."
Sounds very dumb to me. Even if you make loads of money off of it.
That's why I also believe it will not be a "gateway drug to software development". That's just a profound misconception of what makes good software developers tick.
They are now trying to sell the idea of control. You can "put it in a leash". It's pathetic. I don't want control, I want to understand it. Internalize it.
One thing that never changed in software development is that _you get the payoff_ for the hard work. You solve the mystery. You figure out how it works, by yourself.
Anyone that looked a little close to AI knows that it doesn't work that way. It's a black box thing. You will never fully get the knowledge payoff.
I'm sure he's a great guy, but let's face it: He's there speaking those things because he made some popular videos in the past and they needed to renew their PR strategy.
Speaking of PR strategy...
> [...] augments [...]
Iron Man does not buy his metal suit at Costco. He builds it, in a cave, with a bunch of scraps. That's the magic of building things.
> I really don't think people understand how great things could be.
That's not the issue. I think it could be great, but they're being greedy and underestimating their best audience.
Instead, they're focusing on complete beginners, in the hopes that those beginners will generate enough monkey-bashing to train a model that can churn good quality "software 1.0" (which is the real deal, so far irreplaceable). I believe that's a mistake.
The danger I see is related to psychological effects caused by humans using LLMs on other humans. And I don't think that's a scenario anyone is giving much attention to, and it's not that bad (it's bad, but not world end bad).
I totally think we should all build it. To be trained from scratch on cheap commodity hardware, so that a lot of people can _really_ learn it and quickly be literate on it. The only true way of democratizing it. If it's not that way, it's a scam.
> imagine that the inputs for the car are on the bottom, and they're going through the software stack to produce the steering and acceleration
> imagine inspecting them, and it's got an autonomy slider
> imagine works as like this binary array of a different situation, of like what works and doesn't work
--
Software 3.0 is imaginary. All in your head.
I'm kidding, of course. He's hyping because he needs to.
Let's imagine together:
Imagine it can be proven to be safe.
Imagine it being reliable.
Imagine I can pre-train on my own cheap commodity hardware.
Imagine no one using it for war.