> It's a Wolfenstein-3D-style DDA (a.k.a. Digital Differential Analyzer) raycaster written entirely in x86-64 assembly (Intel syntax) that runs at a locked 60 FPS. And there is not a single line of C anywhere in the source. Sounds amazing. Right?
Not trying to be overly critical, but that sounds more like extra credit homework.
"Runs Wolf3D at 60fps" isn't an impressive claim nowadays either way. It feels like a very bizarre statement, which is probably because an LLM wrote everything here.
I wonder if his interview loop was actually as good as he thinks it was?
I broadly agree with this post, but the tone of it reads very dated like 2010s Buzzfeed trying and failing to assert dominance i.e. "I will gatekeep your gatekeeping!"
I'm surprised there wasn't more soapboxing about how "allowing" recipes to modernize is a principled matter of social justice.
> The difference is where the responsibility starts and where it ends.
I think you're missing the point. The post is agreeing with you about using the right tool for the job.
When there's a responsibility to fully understand, demonstrate, and discuss the code at length with various stakeholders, using an LLM can get in the way. There's nobody stopping you from hammering a screw. It's just... cringe.
You're describing a coding sweatshop. What is the point of any discussion at all then? If the "boss" can't carve out enough time, that's their own problem. Letting that stress propagate to the team is plain bad leadership.
I know you might think some of these candidates don't have other much better choices to find work, but they absolutely do.
You'll find it hard to pin down what you mean by "everything" otherwise you wouldn't have said that. Nobody uses the internet for everything.
Local models are highly likely to dominate in the long run as "good enough" inevitably becomes trivially cheap. This is a very different pattern of incentives and adoption compared to the internet.
I think it's more similar to the advent of personal computers. They had a brief surge and then turned into something else (smartphones, cloud, etc.) for all but a few niche cases. AI is not changing the consumer landscape. It's getting absorbed into existing platforms where there's a clear use case and benefit. It's just another expected software feature. This is far from the first time people have rejected a "personal assistant" concept and they'll just keep rejecting it.
It seems fair to leave the definition of "everything" to a reasonable person's interpretation. It's obvious that the internet is beyond ubiquitous in modern life.
I agree that where models run will will change over time, probably they'll run everywhere, but it's still the same kind of AI we are talking about.
Just about every app has a "help" button, but do you really use it? What about captions on a video or any number of other accessibility features? They're in everything, but not used for everything.
It makes perfect sense that they exist and were way overdue for an update, but they're just extra blades on the multitool. Perhaps in some designs they become more integral, but that is expected and invisible.
Yes "everything", but that's not even close to sufficient to become a huge breakthrough like the internet.
They prefer to work harder and not smarter. Forever hill climbing to nowhere.
I've never worked on a complicated codebase that started out that way until the rest of the business concerns and office politics came into effect. People may not like it, but the bureaucracy is far and away more valuable than the core functionality.
Mature codebases are years of people thinking of all the possible gotchas while solving their acute pain points. This is not fluff, but the living and breathing part of it. Without that code, it's just a machine barely doing stuff in the most obtuse ways possible that nobody wants to pay for.
I would argue that they're putting LLMs to work on that finer detail stuff, but AI is still far too dumb. No, what they're doing is playing with their skinner box.
I think culture moves a lot faster than you believe.
The broader discussion about AI and model capabilities died a couple of years ago precisely because it's so underwhelming now. People did adapt. Startups stopped hiring just to get to MVP. Coding sweatshops had huge layoffs and stopped overhiring. The corporate world got better tools for collaborations and meetings. Accessibility tools are still bad, but improving. I would argue that the a11y topic is still very ripe to be the next big thing as it continues to converge with better UI/UX instead of being an afterthought.
The layperson and tech professional alike otherwise agreed that this is a vehicle for blame game, grift, disinformation, etc. This is where all the pushback is and the topic at hand. People aren't dumb. The only people worried about "AI" are the ones who bet too big on it.
The comparison is pretty accurate though. The moment anyone dared to stray from the bootstrap defaults is when the whole thing would go to shit.
Every steaming pile said less about the development effort and so much more about the project management. This same boneheaded top-down approach is why AI isn't working for anyone without being willing to pour as much effort into babysitting as just writing the damn code yourself.
Old adages continue to ring true and as loud as ever. There's no such thing as a free lunch.
Coffee shops aren't usually a "scene" like a bar can be.
Bartenders are often the only adult in the room acting like one. When was the last time you saw fighting, crying, fainting, hit and runs, etc. on the regular at a Starbucks? Bars can be like this in even the nicest neighborhoods.
Have you ever worked at a bar or been a regular at one?
Too much or too little security will discourage customers from staying or coming back. The bartender is running the whole circus. It's nothing like serving coffee.
Not trying to be overly critical, but that sounds more like extra credit homework.
reply