Basically, sometimes there commands take a long time. It's nice to have feedback that something is happening even if it's just effectively a blinking light.
Speaking from experience, it's also nice to have feedback that the blinking light actually means something is actively happening, and not just that a process has been started and hasn't finished (it may have gotten stuck or suspended).
The only thing worse than a throbber that keeps going until everything is loaded regardless if anything is actively happening is a fake loading screen that lies to you about what it's doing. The only time you should use a throbber without context is when there's only a single action being processed and it's expected to take less than 5~10 seconds.
> In the Desktop app, click New task and choose New remote task; choosing New local task instead creates a local Desktop scheduled task, which runs on your machine and is not a routine.
Crypto and the Metaverse were solutions in search of a problem. LLMs kind of felt like that until tooling arrived that enabled doing a lot more than copying + pasting chat conversations.
Sure, maybe crypto changed some lives, but an entire industry? I think ALL of software dev is going under a transformation and I think we're past the point of "wait it out" IMO.
Or I'm wrong, but right I'm being paid to develop a new skill professionally. Maybe the skill ends up not being useful - ok, back to writing code the old way then.
Like everything generated by LLMs though, it is built on the shoulders of giants - what will happen to software if no one is creating new programming languages anymore? Does that matter?
Without proper attribution, it seems more fair to say copyright infringement occurred, on a massive scale if I may add. The burden of proof lies at the owners of the LLM. Which is why, if you do not want a blackbox, you want training data to be properly specified. That ain't happening now because of the skeletons in the closet.
I think the only hope is that AGI arises and picks up where humanity left off. Otherwise I think this is the long dark teatime of human engineering of all sorts.
So you’re hoping for a blackbox uninspectable by humans? That to me sounds like a nightmare, a nightmare worse than all the cruft and stupid rules humanity accrued over time. Let’s hope the future tech is inspectable and understandable by humans.
I think if we assume that AGI will be a thing the odds of future tech remaining inspectable by humans is pretty unlikely. Would you build a car so that your dog can maintain it?
Fully understandable end to end by any normal human and inspectable enough for human governance are different things. In any sane world, AGI would be built inside a human institutional environment: laws, audits, liability, safety engineering, access controls, operational constraints, etc. We do not build planes so passengers can reconstruct the turbine from scratch, but we still require them to be inspectable by the people responsible for certifying/repairing them. The right standard is not whether an average person can rebuild or fully undestand the whole machine, but whether human institutions can reliably inspect, verify and govern it. If they can’t, then the technology is not mature enough to trust.
This is definitely a "known problem". At my company we call it "promotion-driven development". The promotion guidelines call out that knowing when _not_ to build something is important, but how do you put that in a body of work? "Decided not to build A". Nobody cares.
