True. But also -- how do humans do it? There are docs and there's other similar driver code. I wouldn't be surprised if Claude could build new driver code sight-unseen, given the appropriate resources
Humans do it with access to the register-level data sheets, which are only available under NDA, and usually with access to a logic analyzer for debugging.
Usually, the problem with developing a driver isn't "writing the code," it's "finding documentation for what the code should do."
... and then figuring out where the hardware company cheapened out and created a whole unfixable mess (extra fun when you first ship your first 10k batch and things start failing after the vendor made a "simple revision"). Then finding a workaround.
Except it often is the case that when you break down what humans are doing, there are actual concrete tasks. If you can convert the tacit knowledge to decision trees and background references, you likely can get the AI to perform most non-creative tasks.
I half agree. But two points: 1) if you can formalize your instructions ... then future instances can be fully automated. 2) You are still probably having the AI perform many sub-tasks. AI-skeptics regularly fall into this god-of-the-gaps trap. You aren't wrong that human-augmented AI isn't 100% AI ... but it still is AI-augmentation, and again, that sets the stage for point 1 - to enable later future full automation on long enough timecycles.
Formal instructions paired by tables are almost as rigid as code. Btw normal engineering disciplines have a lot of strict math and formulas. Neither electrical nor mechanical engineering runs on purely instructions.
The non-software engineering disciplines I'm thinking of rely on blueprints, schematics, diagrams, HDLs, and tables much more than human language formal instructions. More so than software engineering.
Disagree, they rely on both equally, not much more on one of them. Consider the process of actually building a large structure with only a set of such diagrams. The diagrams primarily cover nouns (what, where, using what), whereas the human language formal instructions cover the verbs (how, why, when). You can't build anything with only one of the two.
And sure, the human language formal instructions often appear inside tables or diagrams, that doesn't make them anything less so.
This is based on having worked with companies that do projects in the 10 figure range.
Scientific method. There are many small discoveries humans make that involve forming a hypothesis, trying something out, observing the results, and coming to a conclusion that leads to more experimentation until you get to what you actually want. LLMs can’t really do that very well as the novel observations would not be in their training data.
One thing I noticed: because you're tricking your eyes into thinking they're observing at a different distance, your brain doesn't seem to correctly account for head tilt (my theory of the diagnosis). Anyway, I think you're head must be exactly level with the image or you'll get double-vision/blur
It feels like a significantly more likely explanation is that younger, newer companies are going to embrace the younger, newer agile methodology. Younger, newer software companies are also more likely to take on risky projects and fail than older established companies with older practices.
> But the biggest lifeline arrived in April, when Gov. Kathy Hochul and state lawmakers agreed to include new and recurring funding for the M.T.A. in the state budget.
The MTA doesn’t need more money. At least not yet. It needs a complete and total overhaul in all aspects so it’s no longer the least efficient transit agency in the entire world.
When it costs absolute bullocks to actually build/revamp any sort of infrastructure, I’d say it’s kinda hard to level up the quality to other cities’ levels.
Even so it's a maddeningly complicated system. If you end up in front of a doctor outside of your magic network, you might end up with a sudden several thousand dollar bill instead of $400.
Minor mistakes and games can also create odd billing situations that are opaque and difficult to fight.
Pedestrian and bike deaths are climbing [0]. 44% of New Yorkers are considered rent burdened [1] and sure as fuck can't afford a car in the city. Cars can only be considered a successful mode of transportation from a fairly wealthy and elite perspective of a car owner in New York. If you have the cash for the car itself and off-the-street parking, sure, it's probably great. But for everyone else it makes daily life of walking and biking in the street significantly more dangerous with no clear reciprocal benefit.
It's also very across the harbor between Staten Island and Manhattan. Any bridge or tunnel would be multiple times longer than any other bridge or tunnel in the area (and correspondingly expensive).
The original plans were for a tunnel between SI and Brooklyn. Still probably the most realistic of any plan though it does lose the benefits of a direct connection to Manhattan.
We should be asking “why not both?” but unfortunately NY construction costs are inflated so ridiculously we can’t even afford one let alone get politicians with a strong enough backbone to support these common sense projects that would alleviate strain on NYC housing stock.
