[DoctorOetker]

There is substance in philosophy, don't get me wrong, but just not that much of it, theres only a handful of real theorems with proofs (like the deduction theorem etc., which is basically some syntactic sugar correctness proof, if I may put it barbarically).

A physicist will have studied atomic and molecular physics courses, and some intro to chemistry course, and there will be some overlap with thermodynamics. But no physicist pretends to grasp chemistry like chemists do, even though chemistry is technically a branch of physics.

Technically mathematics is a branch of philosophy, but the sheer diversity of statements in mathematics, the nearly endless constellations of symmetries and structures described in mathematics make the few "deep insights" from philosophy pale in comparison.

It's great that the important sliver of your philosophy courseware (the formal logic part) essentially taught you programming, but that is you pivoting to computer science and enjoying success, its not really the non-formal-logic parts of philosophy that propelled you forward.

Relying on ML/AI to solve your problems, and effectively advocating to stop understanding or stop thinking is advice that will not age well. Meritocratically what is supposed to set a "philosopher" ahead of their peers?

Picture a philosopher managing a cloud of AI agents, trying to break RSA-grade products, without the philosopher understanding the intermediate insights.

Contrast with what some human individuals can achieve without AI, they will break it long before the philosopher with AI will!

[NonHyloMorph]

What is your argument exactly?

You establish, that it is virtuous to not fall for the hybris that claiming knowledge beyond the scope of your domain is. (i.e. the virtuous physisit who does not mistake his encounter with some institutional courses in chemistry for a foundation to transgress against "the chemist" by pretending to grasp chemistry like the latter does)

Now what is it exactly that you want to put forward regarding the faculty of philosophically trained cognition again?

[DoctorOetker]

"There is substance in philosophy, don't get me wrong, but just not that much of it"

[gopher_space]

Start thinking about where your numbers come from. Do some qualitative to quantitative conversions for a system with a feedback loop.

[NonHyloMorph]

The more the studies of substances progress the more that concept slips through our fingers

[qjack]

On the contrary, formal logic probably played a much smaller role than the rest of their philosophy degree in their success. Most programmers deal equally with philosophical problems as they do technical problems: what components should exist, what the boundary between those components should be, how those edges should be described. These are not "engineering" problems, nor are they the type of philosophical problems that more formalized philosophy (which your reply seems to overweight) are good at solving.

[lsiq]

"Theres only a handful of real theorems with proofs"

Philosophy is not mathematics. Philosophy asks you the question of what is a theorem in the context of philosophical thought, why should the fractal of reality be reduced to a reductionist theorem in the first place, and what consists as sufficient proof for said theorems.