Exhaustive brute force prompting is completely unfeasible. The number of potential prompts is impossibly large.

Psychologists and therapists have different specialties too, for mental differences. This is generally considered a good thing.

Hopefully he would be using the LLM as an enhanced search engine that can point him to relevant authoritative sources that he can use to fact-check its output. I have done that in the past to some effect.

People don’t understand they need to do that.

With that diversity of preferences, some organizations might also be willing and able to do rigorous testing of the updates that are most important to them.

It seems like a helpful efficiency to spread out the testing burden (both deliberate testing and just updating and running into unexpected issues). If everyone updated everything immediately, everyone would be impacted by the same problems at the same time, which seems suboptimal.

If you like Catholicism but struggle with the papacy, have you considered Eastern Orthodoxy?

Within Eastern Orthodoxy, I struggle with 2+ hour long services. :)

Jokes aside, there are only a couple in my area and they are ripe with tribalism and hard to approach. Appreciate your recommendation, though.

Do you even use two hands for shortcuts like copy and paste?

I use ctrl-c and ctrl-v for those. Right hand presses right control with palm of hand (just below pinky). Left hand types the letter like normal.

I just kind of roll my hand to the ctrl key, I don't use a finger to press it.

Same thing with right-ctrl.

Yes. And even considering the locations of C, X, and V on the QWERTY layout, I wouldn't type Control with any of those with one hand.

> Sometimes the docs straight up lie, and it takes 5 minutes to figure that out. Should they also be ashamed?

Yes.

I feel like we do that pretty regularly in the US.

If 1% of the people in each specialization are advancers, and you add up all the specializations together, then 1% of the total number of people are advancers.

Even this assumes that everyone has a specialization in which 1% of people contribute to the sum of human knowledge. I would probably challenge that. There are a lot of people in the world who do not do knowledge-oriented work at all.

You don’t need to do knowledge work to advance the state of the art. You could be working in a shoe factory and discover a better way to tie your shoes.

Your math assumes each person has exactly one thing they do in life. The shoe factory worker could also be a gardener. He might not make any advancements in gardening, but his contribution means that if you add up all the fields of specialization the sum is greater than the population of humans. Take 1% of that sum and it’s greater than 1% of humans. 1% of people in a specialization is not the same as 1% of specialists. In fact, I would say it’s a much higher proportion of specialists making contributions (especially through collaboration).

Oh, and don’t get caught up on the 1% number. I used it as shorthand for whatever small number it is. Maybe it’s only 10 people in some hyper-specialized field. But that doesn’t matter. Some other field may have thousands of contributors. You don’t have to be a specialist in a field to make a contribution to that field, for example: glassmakers advanced the science of astronomy by making the telescope possible.

"Vibecoding" is about how you use AI tools, rather than who you are.

If you're asking the AI to generate large amounts of code that you don't really look at, you're definitely vibecoding. If you are mainly writing the code yourself with some assistance from AI tools, you are not vibecoding.

Naturally it's fuzzy in the middle. And for people without software development skills, vibecoding is the only option they have.