Outside of my own specialty I can people in the software industry bogged down by managing excessive boilerplate. I think this happens most often in web dev and data science.
In my opinion this is an indication that the software tools for those ecosystems need improvement, but rather than putting in the design effort to improve the tools in the ecosystem, these Big Data companies see an opportunity to just throw LLMs at it and call it a commercial product.
As a senior dev I hate vibe coding. I can write code an order of magnitude faster than I can review it, because reviewing code forces you to piece together a mental model for something made by someone else, whereas when I write the code myself I get to start with the mental model already in my head.
Writing code is never the bottleneck for me. If I understand the problem well enough to write a prompt for an LLM, then I understand the problem well enough to write the code for it.
I don't think this is a fair comparison because arithmetic is a very small and almost inconsequential skill to develop within the framework of mathematics. Any human that doesn't have severe learning disabilities will be able to develop a sufficient baseline of arithmetic skills.
The really useful aspects of math are things like how to think quantitatively. How to formulate a problem mathematically. How to manipulate mathematical expressions in order to reach a solution. For the most part these are not things that calculators do for you. In some cases reaching for a calculator may actually be a distraction from making real progress on the problem. In other cases calculators can be a useful tool for learning and building your intuition - graphing calculators are especially useful for this.
The difference with LLMs is that we are being led to believe that LLMs are sufficient to solve your problems for you, from start to finish. In the past students who develop a reflex to reach for a calculator when they don't know how to solve a problem were thwarted by the fact that the calculator won't actually solve it for them. Nowadays students develop that reflex and reach for an LLM instead, and now they can walk away with the belief that the LLM is really solving their problems, which creates both a dependency and a misunderstanding of what LLMs are really suited to do for them.
I'd be a lot less bothered if LLMs were made to provide guidance to students, a la the Socratic method: posing leading questions to the students and helping them to think along the right tracks. That might also help mitigate the fact that LLMs don't reliably know the answers: if the user is presented with a leading question instead of an answer then they're still left with the responsibility of investigating and validating.
But that doesn't leave users with a sense of immediate gratification which makes it less marketable and therefore less opportunity to profit...
There's a lot to be said for the scale of damage that can be done with something, especially relative to the effort needed to do that damage.
These days tech companies are doing enormous damage to people's brains (saturating our dopamine receptors to the point that many people have depression and executive dysfunction) to turn us all into consumption machines that can only find happiness by consuming content and buying commercial products and services.
Imagine how much more harm they'll do when they have direct access to our neurons, without even LED pixels as a buffer in between.
This is a very important concern. Tech companies already exert entirely too much power over society through smart phones and their accompanying apps. The damage they would do with direct access to your neurons is incalculable.
The only thing that comforts me is that I firmly expect that society as we know it will entirely collapse before this technology can really be capitalized. It's not a very comforting expectation, but it somehow bothers me less than the idea of techno-fascist corporate feudal states taking control of everyone's thoughts.
Of course I agree with you, but the sad reality is that they're getting away with this stuff so far. I think Hegseth's time will be up when they finally need someone to do jail time for the team. Until then they'll probably keep him around because his incompetence is strategically advantageous for their puppet master's goal of undermining the republic.
It's not really up to me, it's up to the judgment of Trump and whoever pulls his strings.
But looking at historical precedent, maybe something like the Iran-Contra affair that landed Oliver North in jail while sparing Reagan from any accountability.
I guess a good rule of thumb would be whether the scandal will involve jail time.
He's a fall guy. They'll get rid of him once they have a big enough scandal to pin on him that he's otherwise lost his usefulness.
Social accountability (meaning being called out on social media, being fired from a job, or being boycotted) for unapologetically spewing hate speech or sexual harassment and whatever else "wokism" is against.. is not the same as inflicting violence on people. Your failure to understand the difference between accountability and violent authoritarianism says a lot about your character.
I wonder if they anti-DEIed away all the competent service members, leaving only brain-rotted skinheads running the place.
Probably the most important thing is keeping up with security fixes. I'm not an expert in web security, but my impression is that there's a never-ending cat and mouse game between hackers and browser developers to find or patch exploits. And since browsers play such an important role in the activity of hundreds of millions... billions?.. of consumers, it has the largest possible attack surface for hackers to target.
Then there's things like better support for web assembly (how I would love the web dev world to break the JavaScript hegemony), and the constantly shifting web standards that are meant to make websites more capable, easier to program, and more performant. E.g. things like websockets and WebRTC.
I imagine this should count as illegal stock market manipulation, but the government would be too toothless to prosecute it.