These are in every paragraph of his examples:

"While rock climbing, someone says the instructor used to be her physics teacher. The British man is surprised, so she explains that in their culture, it’s healthy to switch jobs every two years, ideally to something the opposite of what you’ve been doing."

Small things can have big impacts.

They motivate you to see an angle you just haven't thought about.

I had the issue that I stoped feeling confident going on holiday without proper insurance in a time when i was traveling with my DSLR (worht 3-5k) but i wasn't 'rich' enough ot just replace it if something would break or steal.

There is a sentence: "A ship is not build to stay in the harbor".

I accepted more risk due to this and stoped overthinking certain risks. I'm not here to just sit at home and watch television and if i go out and try something, its fine to risk things

Because I don't want to spend that much time an all systems i'm running?

you also get a whole community testing the stack, fixing it too.

And don't be that pissi... when I started 20 years ago, stuff like this would have been the gateway to linux world and is for sure still today for plenty of people...

You don't know HOW someone is using AI.

I for example, let the AI generate inbetween reports for a hobby project. These reports describe me how the project looks, stages, progress, etc.

I do know plenty about this particular project.

Also i wrote tons and tons of CRUD apps, do I really loose anything if that one quiz i did for learning, i don't understand in detail?

Yeah you're still missing the point.

A more appropriate analogy for what you just described might be writing vs ghost writing.

But it's certainly not handwriting vs typewriter.

Note: there's no implied value judgement here.

My point is that the analogy that LLMs are equivalent to typewriters is fundamentally broken. Using an LLM to create text, and writing using writing tools, are simply completely different activities that just happen to lead to (at least superficially) the same outcomes.

Similarly, downloading a vase and 3D printing it isn't the same as making pottery. Programming a knitting machine to make socks for you isn't knitting. Putting text on paper using a printer isn't calligraphy.

And I'd argue we're going to collectively conclude that assembling software systems using AI isn't coding.

Again: no value judgement. But life isn't always just about outcomes. Process does, in fact, matter, and I think it's important we maintain these distinctions.

It's genuinely amazing and baffling to me that a non-trivial number of people around here don't seem to grok that.

Anthropic is market leader, of course they are also part of the forefront of doing things like this.

There motivation is quite clear: Proper fast adoption.

does it help if you get news out? For sure, but this is a reasonable good and interesting thing they did.

Could i define MHS? For sure, would anyone use it? For sure not.

You sound quite negative for something which fits anthropic very well.

Its more like that no one took the time and effort to standardize a proper USB HID interface in a way that that it has clear benefit of a hardware manufactuerer exponsing a good generic easy to use interface through USB HID and standardizing reasonable broad spectrum of features.

Its not magic what they do, but its def a very helpful and clear thing: You design an USB interface for natural language and you do this were you don't have to follow bits and bytes but just plain text and you know it actually getting used by someone.

I mean if i would make a microscope, I would also deliver the software for it if it is anything more specific than a 0815 generic school kid microscope.

USB-HID is standardized. But you still have to represent the device model somehow. You can never get away from that.