> This is a trivial question. There's one correct answer and the reasoning to get there takes one step: the car needs to be at the car wash, so you drive.

I don’t think it’s that easy. An intelligent mind will wonder why the question is being asked, whether they misunderstood the question, or whether the asker misspoke, or some other missing context. So the correct answer is neither “walk” nor “drive”, but “Wat?” or “I’m not sure I understand the question, can you rephrase?”, or “Is the vehicle you would drive the same as the car that you want to wash?”, or “Where is your car currently located?”, and so on.

The reason that those questions are asked, though, is that the answer to the actual question is obvious, so a human will start to wonder if it's some kind of trick.

The answer wasn’t obvious to me, it was more like “parse error”.

I think most people would say "drive?" and wonder when the punchline is coming, but (IMO) I don't think they'd start asking for clarification right away.

That's a fair point, but if you would see it as a riddle, which I don't really think it is, and you had to answer either or, I'd still assume it's most logical to chose drive isn't it?

I don’t agree that the question as written would qualify as a riddle. If anything, the riddle is what the intention of the asker is. One can always ask stupid questions with an artificially limited set of answering options; that doesn’t mean it makes sense.

Same energy: https://youtu.be/8ERyTfm1Dxw

I agree. If the LLM were truly an intelligence, it would be able to ask about this nonsense question. It would be able to ask "Why is walking even an option? Can you please explain how you imagine that would work? Do you mean hand-washing the car at home, instead?" (etc, etc)

Real people can ask for clarification when things are ambiguous or confusing. Once something is clarified, they can work that into their understanding of how someone communicates about a given topic. An LLM can't.

> Now that writing code is no longer the bottleneck

I think it’s contestable that writing the code was ever the main bottleneck.

> As I see it, the end goal for all of this is generating software at the speed of thought, or at least at the speed of speech.

The question is what distinguishes that from having AGI, and if the answer is “nothing”, then that will change the whole game entirely again.

Oh, absolutely, my vision depends on AGI (and maybe even ASI), and I definitely agree that it'll be a whole new ball game.

Not if you use `-pinterest -facebook`.

OpenAI didn’t pay what is now the market price, while stockpiling wafers.

36% as per the linked post, 38% was a typo.

No. Testing generally can only falsify, not verify. It’s complementary to code review, not a substitute for it.

Services generally allow changing your email address. Otherwise, it’s one more reason to use your own email domain.

More limited features, like lack of model selection, more restricted use of “thinking” models.

>>> a significant % of users are profitable to serve, especially the "chat" users who don't use dev tools and have short context window conversations.

> More limited features, like lack of model selection, more restricted use of “thinking” models.

Yeah, but... do the "chat" users actually care about any of that? Would they even notice a difference?

My point is that, if all you're doing is chat, there's no value in any of the subscription models - for chat the free webapps are more than sufficient, so even someone spending the whole day chatting about something isn't going to hit any limits.

Exactly. The free version is good enough for the vast majority of casual users. According to estimates about 2%-5% of ChatGPT users pay for the service. And people who do pay are looking to get their money's worth.

I’m a “chat” user and notice the difference.

The issue is that Google apparently keeps charging the subscription despite the ban, so is not ending the contract in that sense.

Document-embedded VBA macros are disabled, but not VBA in general.

Pardon my ignorance, but how do I use VBA when F11 to get to the editor is disabled?

In my limited experience PowerShell is less restricted.

They may block you from developing VBA, but that doesn't mean that stuff in %APPDATA%\Microsoft\Templates and other trusted locations won't get executed.