> If a technology is convenient for people, you shouldn't need to insist to make people use it.

This is like the railroads, and the tracks have been laid. Because of the enormous cost, it can't be left to "hope they'll find it useful," and has to be pushed like crazy, or we're going to be left with a train system with no goods or passengers, and no path into the future.

Personally, having AI as an intelligence I can call like it's a library from apps I build... and to help build those apps... I feel that the future is as bright as the sun. I've always believed in software, but I feel like a chef that's just discovered salt and butter.

I don't know what it means for the world stage, but I believe that software is the highest art, and it's just had an incalculably massive buff. As an artist, I am stoked. The possibilities for creation of good things are limitless, and if you can't see that, I can't help you.

However, I wouldn't necessarily invest in AI companies. I don't know how this all fits into the rest of the world, except that I believe in my own ability to make products, same as I ever did, but now with AI.

> This is like the railroads, and the tracks have been laid.

Except that for railroads I don't need people to convince me about how/when/why it can be useful.

Railroads came out to solve an issue we had (and then it evolved). LLMs are not giving us any new solution, just different speed (better) and quality (worse) to solve things we co&ld already solve.

It's basically the same concept as fast fashion. Worse quality, more speed, possibly more economic. You can change your wardrobe possibly every year, but you will never wear good quality clothes.

Now you can write code at impressive speed, but it is worse in quality, and you need to review it more often than "normal" code.

AI code should always be fully reviewed and put into the correct context to make it useful, otherwise long term problems will void short term benefits