In the 1980's I worked for a startup company run by a super smart guy Peter Dunai, who once said "a …

I agree for the most part, but I am also intrigued how this will play out on the regulation side of things. Hollywood loves to treat AI as something that can go rogue, but these tools will have all kinds of safety locks on it and will only give you answers to things its allowed to. Plus, it will be logged and tracked just like everything else. You never want to openly allow anyone access to an AI bot that can spit out encryption cracking algorithms with ease. Or worse, something that can solve infrastructure bricking paths that could take down important systems. Or an AI bot that can interfere with real-life things, for example, find someone that doesn't want to be found. So yea, I cannot wait for this to get better and remove all the boilerplate I have to deal with, and let me focus on the parts of the job I actually love.

How will you know when it's actually working as intended? The issue is /strongly/ epistemological.

> web started to arrive that leveraged the core values of the technology, such as interconnection between people A lot of people blame the advanced social media products on the internet for a decline in mental well being and for increasing isolation and lack of human connection in society. That might not be the best example of something we want the AI path to emulate.

AI development will not be using no-code technologies. Text is the best form of compression (of meaning/intent/information) for 99% of software and that isn't going to change. What AI will accomplish is creating an entire new package ecosystem from scratch, written at a low-level so that it can be extremely performant, while also being highly extensible, abstract, intuitive, interoperable with all languages, etc. Then the code will be able to take human prompts and translate them into business logic code that uses all those packages. For fuzzy domains with low correctness requirements, the AI will be able to make all the changes to the codebase without verification. For domains with higher correctness requirements, humans will review all the code, or you could have the AI first generate a formal specification based on the prompt, have the humans review that, and then have the AI generate…

> Programming literally should be as easy as talking to the computer and telling it how to shapoe and change the software and it should happen right there in real time on your screen. Kind of like what the intention of Smalltalk was, minus the verbal part. You modify a live image like sculpting clay, except now you have an AI generating code for you. I wonder what Alan Kay thinks of this approach.

> [programming] should be an iterative, interactive process that anyone can do. It should be more like painting... You mean like taking years of rigurous practice to master, requirering specialized equipment and expensive materials plus an education in color theory, composition and art history :)

>> AI assisted programming is brand new. The field that studies the automatic creation of computer programs is called "program synthesis". It is a field that straddles multiple sub-fields of computer science, including AI (where research is usually on inductive program synthesis, from examples). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Program_synthesis It is also a very old idea, as old as computer science itself- or even older. Here's wikipedia, again: *During the Summer Institute of Symbolic Logic at Cornell University in 1957, Alonzo Church defined the problem to synthesize a circuit from mathematical requirements.[2] Even though the work only refers to circuits and not programs, the work is considered to be one of the earliest descriptions of program synthesis and some researchers refer to program synthesis as "Church's Problem". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Program_synthesis#Origin Even …

> It should be more like painting So, something that takes natural talent, years of practice and a lot of time and patience? At least programming pays well.