Yes. But we're talking about children too - not just adult voters.
And the app collects every click, every face photo, all contacts, every keypress on external links, everything. The full social graph, shaping the trends of the younger generation.
Writing (parts of) an operating system, networking stack, interpreter, and text editor. It dispels all the magic.
Getting over the whole idea of beautiful or perfect code. Realizing that code is a medium of expression and that there is no single right way to do everything. Beginning to think of code as a clay-like medium rather than literary prose that needs to be beautiful like a cathedral.
Seeing how some of the most experienced and productive programmers do things in extremely simple straightforward ways, with no unnecessary cleverness, indirection, abstraction, or anything like that.
Seeing how linus torvalds is right. It's really all about the data structures. Once I understand the data structures and their relationships, I can understand any system. Dispelling the myth that some things are just "too complicated". Almost every problem or system I've ever come across can be reduced to a page of data structures.
Realizing the power of fast feedback loops. How just about any requirement or problem can be expressed as a test case. And that once you have the test case you can fix anything.
There is a lot of work where a human body + mind is cheaper and easier than automation and likely will be for the foreseeable future. We will need lots of human labor until you have embodied robots similarly adaptable to a human at <= $20/hr.
Automation puts downward pressure on wages/working conditions. But we must also consider globalization pushback and aging population pyramids that put upward pressure on wages.
It doesn't replace a skilled programmer. It just turns you into an editor and curator, multiplying productivity on some tasks by 10X+.
It will give incorrect code, but you can guide it toward a correct solution by asking it to fix the problem. Normally you don't even have to say exactly what is wrong.
For example, I got it to implement a basic bittorrent tracker server in Go in about 5 minutes. I didn't even have to point it to the RFC. I just said to consult the bittorrent RFC. It gave me back a server with /announce and /scrape endpoints. I then asked it to implement the functions using a struct for the requests. It correctly deserialized the URL-encoded sha1 info hashes from the /announce endpoint on the first try. I didn't even have to mention that detail.
It can also help you explore solutions. I asked it about algorithms to learn policies for 2-player zero sum games. It gave me a description of min-max, MCTS, reinforcement learning, deep neural networks. I then asked it to describe the pros/cons of each, which it did. I asked it to show an example of a reinforcement learning algorithm in python from scratch, which it did in about 10 seconds.
Exactly. The reason why it was able to do so is because the bt tracker server had already been built and it had been trained on the sources.
And that's the point: it won't work for most "new" stuff. But a lot of the code I write for work has been written before by someone else, so I can benefit from this. Looks to me as if this is essentially a form of swarm intelligence in the end.
This seems to me to be its strength, a multiplier to human intelligence. The way a smart phone is today, but more so. Once this matures, every human with access will be so much more capable than any single human in the 90s that they would seem beyond genius to us back then. Already someone with a phone in their pocket can stop to watch a couple instructional videos and accomplish tasks that would preciously involved training courses. That may seem trivial to those who didn't have to hunt through card catalogs and outdated encyclopedias for every scrap pf knowledge, but it is a huge deal.
That’s the thing of industrial revolutions. People believed it would kick humans out of the loop, when in fact it allows single persons to become entrepreneurs.
The other side effect is, we don’t use these performance gains to work less, but to produce more. Only, this time, ecologists are triggering the alarm because producing more means pulling resources from the Earth, so for the first time ever, we might see people working actually less.
For naturals, there is significant overlap in the training style that produces maximum strength gains and maximum size gains. Larger muscles are stronger muscles. Studies have shown very similar size gains between groups performing high weight sets and more moderate "hypertrophy" style sets, though training with higher weight maximizes strength gains. One thing not revealed in short term studies, but which I have observed[1], is that training for strength early on eventually produces better gains in size, since when you do shift to "higher rep" training, you will be able to use more weight -> bigger muscles. Regardless, I don't think it's all that important to stress over these details, and progressively overloading (increasing weight/reps) the compound movements (squats/deadlifts/bench press/overhead press) over time is far more important than rep schemes and intensity.
For steroid users, the equation changes some, as they benefit more from very high volume, high rep training that pumps the muscles full of blood. Natural lifters cannot recover quickly enough from this sort of training.
[1]standard disclaimer about taking this with a grain of salt as I'm just some internet stranger, but I do have > 10 years experience with this
regarding [1], you would have a hard time getting agreement from big names in evidence-based lifting circles. e.g. I'm fairly certain Israetel, Nuckols, Helms, and others have all disagreed, and I am less certain but believe others (James hoffman, James Krieger) have too
This is the norm for me. If I am awake, I almost always have music playing in my head, from pop songs to classical to little nondescript melodies. Sometimes this can be quite annoying.
You have to "gut check" the answers and know when to go deeper.
A lot of answers are low stakes, and it's OK to be a little wrong if it helps go in the right direction.