Yes, this mattered when 6 character passwords were common.

It's actually been useful for me to explain certain best practices now that I can show that the LLM cares.

Why is this name bad? Because an llm will get confused by it and di the wrong thing half the time.

Yes, I agree, we seem to need to feel "special".

Language is really powerful, I think it's a huge part of our intelligence.

The interesting part of the article to me is the focus on fluency. I have not seen anything that LLMs do well that isn't related to powerful utilization of fluency.

Python packaging is the least zen of python thing about python.

The real world moves. If your code didn't change it must be generating value against something that is very standard but I'd be very surprised that you're not modifying, adding, etc based on usage to derive even more value somehow.

> Code that doesn't need to change is a really good sign that you've got something good.

Not really, but you're thinking in terms of "my code nailed it because I'm not touching it" and that has NOTHING to do with it being easy to change.

Quoted: "Likewise, you can repeat yourself but classes only have a single (duplicated, but subtly different) responsibility."

I'm proud of my little joke on dogmas: "The only dogma I believe is that all dogmas are wrong".

I like to phrase this kind of thought as: "The only dogma I believe, is that all dogmas are wrong".

vim is late 1991, vi was 1976, sublime text was 2008. Just seems like garbage writing (very easily could be LLM).

In the article the author mentions wanting to benchmark a GPU and using ChatGPT to write CUDA. Benchmarks are easy to mess up and to interpret incorrectly without understanding. I see this as an example where a subtly-wrong idea could cause cascading problems.