| > So if you think that there is something salient about humans that can't be reproduced eventually by AI, then look into religious dualism. Contradicts > not what I was discussing. I was talking about programming. To be concrete: my argument is that to > "simulate humans or reproduce all of human nature" Is exactly what would be required for an LLM to replace a human as an effective interface for programming. Crazy hill to die on, I know, but that's the goal. I am purely talking about programming. The reasoning looks something like this. 1. LLMs are undeniably useful as assistants when programming. 2. At some point though, they are leveraged too much. This leads to humans having an inability to reason about the generated code. 3. The LLM now needs to be as good of an interface as a human being to be of any use. I think most people would agree with this distinction. Where people argue is where the cutoff point lies - and it's actually hard to find. How do you know when you have transitioned between the three stages? It's tempting to say, if the speedup is marginal, it isn't worth the risk. |