Uwe Friedrichsen

> There is a whole giant essay I probably need to write at some point, but I can't help but see parallels between today and the Industrial Revolution. You might want to give the following Articles a read then: https://www.ufried.com/blog/ironies_of_ai_1/ https://www.ufried.com/blog/ironies_of_ai_2/

In my opinion, the way this will play out is with a significant amount of validation and human oversight to fully utilize these LLMs. As you mentioned, I recommend giving the AI room for error and improving the experience of manually checking everything. Maybe create a tool to facilitate manually checking the output? This is a valuable read: https://www.ufried.com/blog/ironies_of_ai_1/

Part 1: https://www.ufried.com/blog/reusability_fallacy_1/ Part 2: https://www.ufried.com/blog/reusability_fallacy_2/ Part 1 was posted previously but without much discussion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22583605

Like my own his English is good but not that good. His seems the right way to explain (there probably is a formal description for the style of writing (and a word for it in German)) but when reception is not guaranteed (I keep feeling like I almost got his point.) I would lower myself to explaining by code example. Something like a "hello world" of usable vs re-usable. Someone more skilled in the art should probably address note 6 ( https://www.ufried.com/blog/reusability_fallacy_3/#fn:6 ) I did recall a thought I had some years ago that I will describe crudely because I'm lazy: Parts of applications, by popularity, should be re-implemented in API's. Parts of API's, by popularity, should be implemented in modules. Parts of modules, by popularity, should be implemented in frameworks. Parts of frameworks, by popularity, should be implemented in (higher) languages (then lower) Parts of languages, by popularity, should be baked into hardware. (Unpopular parts should migrate the other way around but that is not important right now)