You're right, but I also use codex at work to create Chrome extensions from scratch that automate processes.

I see the limitations and have encoutered them trying to develop more complex programs for work.

It's great for creating chrome extensions or scripts that help me tremendously at work. It's still not good enough to let me, a complete beginner, create an app for work that would replace a service my boss pays 100€ a month for. (For now at least, I haven't given up).

I'm also trying to develop a Deltarune like game on Godot using Codex, to see how far the tools currently go, I don't intend to publish o montetize it of course it's just a passion project among friends.

One year ago trying to use AI to setup Plex completely wrecked my mini-PC and I had to reset it, now it does everything by itself and I just supervise.

I wouldn't bet against it is all I'm saying.

You're assuming the person using the AI already knows how to code.

I don't. I basically don't even know how to use Linux beyond installing it. And yet I now have Codex running on an always-on laptop, with access to my Plex server, that I use whenever something goes wrong.

When there's a problem, I just tell Codex "this isn't working" or "I can't find this thing I expected to be there." It goes and inspects the system, figures out what's wrong, changes whatever needs changing, tests it, and fixes the issue. Then later I check Plex and the thing I was looking for is just there.

I'm obviously still the one telling it what I want and checking the result, but I'm not bouncing code between five different models until something happens to work. Most of the time I don't even know what code or commands would need to be written in the first place.

For me, that's actually the biggest thing LLMs are doing: they're reducing the friction I've always had between what I wanted to do with technology and what I was actually capable of doing myself. A lot of projects or fixes that previously would have required me to learn a bunch of coding first are now things I can at least attempt immediately.

So "you could have just done it yourself faster" doesn't really apply to me. I couldn't have done it myself faster. In many cases I probably couldn't have done it myself at all without first spending a ridiculous amount of time learning the underlying stuff.

And I'm not here trying to advocate for ChatGPT or convince anyone that AI coding is amazing. I just had to reply because what you're describing is so completely different from my experience using Codex this past month.

Reply drafted by Chatgpt by the way, hope that doesn't make anyone mad, I still took the time to proofread it and make it mine.

A calculator lets people get useful results without understanding how arithmetic is implemented internally. That doesn’t make calculators bad; it means the required expertise depends on the stakes. I wouldn’t want someone designing a bridge who doesn’t understand engineering. But I also wouldn’t tell someone calculating a grocery discount to learn numerical methods first. That’s how I see AI coding: if I can make a small tool that solves my problem, test it, and verify it works, “you don’t understand the implementation deeply enough” isn’t automatically an argument against the tool. Otherwise you can make the same argument against basically every abstraction in computing.

I see your argument and I think there’s value in the concern. AI absolutely can let people build things they don’t understand, and that can become a problem when the stakes are high.

Where I disagree is treating that as a reason to oppose the abstraction itself. I think you’re focusing entirely on what gets lost when the barrier to entry drops, while ignoring what becomes possible for people who previously couldn’t participate at all.

It's literally not a corpse, it's a brain-dead person / body.

You started this debate with Steve by using sensationalizing language, and I'm here to provide definitions and lay this discussion to rest:

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/...

https://www.oxfordlearnersdictionaries.com/...

We can all agree that what they've done is horrible, there's no need to distort language to make a point.

A corpse can not carry a pregnancy, a brain-dead body apparently can if assisted.

I'll see myself out.

Sorry could you elaborate?

Shrooms and most if not all psychedelics are non addictive, and you develop a tolerance fast enough that habitual use isn't feasible.

I'm curious to hear about what you've seen.

I didn't say he'd be grand and I don't have a story to tell.

I just found the original statement about psychedelics curious since all the mainstream ones aren't even considered addictive.

I don't suggest people take psychedelics, because it can be dangerous, obviously.

But saying you would never take psychedelics because you're afraid of getting addicted seems weird since it's literally the least dangerous thing about them (them as in LSD, Psilocybin, DMT).

Good for him for staying away from drugs, hopefully he meant alcohol as well!