That's still less thinking overall that someone who thought about all of that and thought about the scripting would have done.
replyAnd even less than someone who wrote an interpreter for the script, less than someone who also chanted times tables while doing it.
replyMore thinking isn’t a simple good thing. Given a limit to how much thought I can give any specific task, adding extra work may mean less where it’s most useful.
That's not a good-faith argument; obviously we're talking about relevant thought, rather than distraction (which, in context, would be less thought).
replyIt is a good faith argument, my point is exactly that the actual scripting was not part of the relevant thought any more than the interpreter would have been.
replyThat adds up over time, though, and it works in reverse. AI will always be able to read and write faster than a person can. You may be able to write the script, but in the time it would take to /literally/ write it, you're on to the next thing. And if that script is actually a feature that spans two or three or 10 files, now you're really cooking.
reply