In this case it's not reproducing training data verbatim but it probably is using algorithms and data structures that were learned from existing C compilers. On one hand it's good to reuse existing knowledge but such knowledge won't be available if you ask Claude to develop novel software.

▲

RobMurray 4 hours ago | parent [-]

How often do you need to invent novel algorithms or data structures? Most human written code is just rehashing existing ideas as well.

▲

notnullorvoid 2 hours ago | parent | next [-]

I wouldn't say I need to invent much that is strictly novel, though I often iterate on what exists and delve into novel-ish territory. That being said I'm definitely in a minority where I have the luxury/opportunity to work outside the monotony of average programming.

The part I find concerning is that I wouldn't be in the place I am today without spending a fair amount of time in that monotony and really delving in to understand it and slowly push outside it's boundary. If I was starting programming today I can confidently say I would've given up.

▲

lossolo 3 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

They're very good at reiterating, that's true. The issue is that without the people outside of "most humans" there would be no code and no civilization. We'd still be sitting in trees. That is real intelligence.

	▲	ben_w 2 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Why's that the issue? "This AI can do 99.99%* of all human endeavours, but without that last 0.01% we'd still be in the trees", doesn't stop that 99.99% getting made redundant by the AI. * vary as desired for your preference of argument, regarding how competent the AI actually is vs. how few people really show "true intelligence". Personally I think there's a big gap between them: paradigm-shifting inventiveness is necessarily rare, and AI can't fill in all the gaps under it yet. But I am very uncomfortable with how much AI can fill in for.