People will always be set in their ways, that's just a universal constant, but it's not a reason to dismiss other issues.

Switching languages is important for better coding practices but also very difficult for the reasons you suggest. I'm arguing that LLMs will make it even harder.

switching to new languages, even ones that are clearly better at data management, security, typing, efficiency, etc, could therefore increase substantially. I don't think that's good.

Because languages become adopted when people adopt them. But if the majority of coders in the future rely on LLMs, they will be discouraged from using languages that there is insufficient training data for, because the LLMs won't be able to structure code very well for them. The resistance to >

This seems 100% true.

Try to have a first complete draft done at least a month in advance so that you have time for serious revisions.

People won't use Claude for helping to code a language it hasn't been trained on, so where does that interaction come from?

As for incentive for new coding, imagine if we'd stopped at BASIC or COBOL?

Modularity/locality does not require discrete, gradient-free separation.

I don't think anyone is expecting a truly discrete boundary like we see in artificial systems. But there seem to be some parts of the cortex that are at least substantially distinct from their immediate neighbors.

But again, this negate the many other kinds of processing that are clearly non-modular/non-local.

What I struggle with here is the idea that there is a right approach. The brain has multiple styles of computation running in parallel.

There are others though. Dorsal lesions allow people to identify objects but not grasp them. Ventral lesions allow people to appropriately interact with objects without being able to recognize them. These seem reasonably specific from a functional perspective.

True but some of these specific deficits are pretty crisp (from my arm's length understanding). E.g. aphasia is a very profound phenomenon and speaks to a significant clustering of speech generation function.

Agreed, we're using a pretty weak definition of modularity in this thread.

The interesting evidence for modularity is selective forms of agnosia, as suggested above.

Of course. And, every single time, I tell the story of the Google code starting with an NSF GRFP, just to remind the numbskull dipshits that the NSF has paid for itself a bazillion times over. Not that it matters, it's just screaming into the void.

There are only so many hours in the day, and only so many sycophants willing to work for government salaries

Every hour DOJ wastes going through hiring, onboarding, federal court admission, learning how to not fuck up, etc is an hour they can't spent doing repugnant shit

bsky.app/profile/ohzo...

Is that illegal?