Feel free to waste your time sifting through a dozen wrong answers. Meanwhile the rest of us can get the answers, absorb the right information quickly then move on to solving more problems.
And you will have learned nothing in the process. Congratulations, you are now behind your peer who "wasted his time" but actually knows stuff which he can lean on in the future.
This is a wrong take. People learn plenty while using AI. it's how you use it that matters. Same issue happened years ago if you just copied stack overflow without understanding what you were doing.
Its no different now, just the level of effort required to get the code copy is lower.
Whenever I use AI I sit and read and understand every line before pushing. Its not hard. I learn more.
The trouble is we can strive to understand the physical circumstances we find ourselves in. Once we decide that the circumstances simply 'just are' because He Who Is, we no longer have an objective basis for discovering why things are as they are. There's no need, no purpose.
There's a balance to be calculated each time you're presented with the option. It's difficult to predict how much iteration the agent is going to require, how frustrating it might end up being, all the while you lose grip on the code being your own and your head-model of it, vs just going in and doing it and knowing exactly what's going on and simply asking it questions if any unknowns arise. Sometimes it's easier to just not even make the decision, so you disregard firing up the agent in a blink.
The first use case I found relevant and useful was the Supabase MCP server, allowing Cursor's agent to query my Supabase project. It meant no longer describing my database to Cursor, it could simply go and get the information it needed, as needed.
A lot of projects start as a "small python file", but over time will grow into large and complex beasts - as they need to handle edge cases and complexities and requirements. Extrapolating that "programming is dead" based on anecdotal experiences from a hobby weekend project is very silly, and that's the joke.
Serializing an entire repository and feeding it to an LLM, and having the LLM change the code in response to specific asks, then storing the results - is not a trivial thing to implement. Think about large repositories with very long files, or repositories with a complex structure, or polyglot repositories. Projects where code and data are mixed together. Then think about security, with things like prompt injection in the source files, etc. Handling hallucinations.
Building immunity via vaccines rather than naturally deprives the living virus a potential host to evolve in. It also means you don't have to contract the virus in order to build immunity, meaning the first time you get the virus, a vaccinated person's body would be more prepared, which means more people could more contract the disease at once, without collapsing the health system - allowing it to be safer at the community level to free up movement. I just think you misunderstood the reasoning, you weren't being "lied to".
No, they were telling/forcing people who already got covid that they needed the vaccine as well. I know this because it happened to my children in California. Then they justified it by lying to us that vaccine acquired immunity was better than natural immunity through infection. This didn’t sound scientific at all but they let it continue because they wanted everyone to get vaccinated for some reason.
It was Biden HIMSELF who originally said giving Long Rang Missiles, Tanks, and American Fighter Jets to Ukraine would start WWIII. lol. So your quip carries very little weight.
reply