No, it isn't. It can autocomplete a fragment of a sketch of an idea into something that may or may not match the original vision and almost certainly has serious bugs which only manifest over time because they elude a cursory test.

▲

Valodim 6 hours ago | parent [-]

You say that as if it wasn't true for anything human programmers ever produced

▲

encyclopedism 5 hours ago | parent [-]

Because Claude isn't a human the perception of it is different.

Humans can fly planes, computers too can fly planes. I'm not going to give the same leeway to a 'computer' flying a plane that I would to a human. Because we understand that humans are just that, humans. The demands placed on a computer are so very different.

▲

keleftheriou 5 hours ago | parent [-]

What about driving a car?

Computers are already driving cars autonomously, possibly better than the average human already, and quite plausibly will eventually be better than the best human driver.

	▲	encyclopedism 3 hours ago \| parent [-]
		Precisely my point. Say for examples planes, trains or automobiles, humans may make way more errors than a computer does but you can bet your bottom dollar the threshold for allowing computers to autonomously control the above is way higher. Because the expectation is that if it is a computer it ought do it far better/safer.