Even a short surprise can be crucial in an ancient battle, where breaking formation can be fatal

Breaking a calvary would be very powerful. And horses are a larger target.

Perhaps it's a timing issue? Perhaps he would have time for more work but the calls cluster when he's busy?

That’s what I was trying to say. Inbound calls always seem to come at inconvenient times.

But at the same time we all build things on top of other things and rely on complex supply chains. That's also a form of collaboration

That seems more like independant collaboration. Someoje built something without getting 10 cook to taste the broth. If its good, then someone will identify it for its merits and then build on top of it

As per the article—it describes an ideal organization where everyone, too, works towards achieving a similar goal. The crucial difference highlighted is whether it involves one feeling responsible and recognised for their work on a particular part (even if it is destined to integrate with other parts, not unlike how a given human would with the rest of society).

Collaboration between us is the default (no one exists in isolation), but forcing a particular sense of collaboration onto people is a different thing.

It clearly says in the article that this is just a demo

A demo as "the future of" something doesn't really resonate with me. It's like saying a melodic motif and a couple well-written lines of lyrics are "the future of" my new music career.

I guess it depends on how you parse "the future of X".

To me it sounds like "This is how I imagine the future of X", i.e. a preview of a possible future.

Explains the Fermi paradox

Well, that remains to be seen

For me the proof that we do indeed have and use a technical dialect of English in this field lies in the simple observation that no matter how much praise I get at work for how good my English, that doesn't map at all with my ability (or lack thereof) to converse fluently with the random Joe on the street of an English speaking country

It's not necessarily just the terseness. Terseness might be a selling point for people who have already invested in training themselves to be fluent with programming languages and the associated ecosystem of tooling.

But there is an entire cohort of people who can think about specifying systems but lack the training to sdo so so using the current methods and see a lower barrier to entry in the natural language.

That doesn't mean the LLM is going to think on your behalf (although there is also a little bit of that involved and that's where stuff gets confusing) but it surely provides a completely different interface for turning your ideas into working machinery

"[T]here is an entire cohort of people who can think about specifying systems but lack the training to sdo so so using the current methods and see a lower barrier to entry in the natural language."

"Specifying" is the load-bearing term there. They are describing what they want to some degree, how how specifically?

> But there is an entire cohort of people who can think about specifying systems but lack the training to sdo so so using the current methods

Nah, it will be extremely surprising if even 1 such a person exists.

On the other hand, there are lots of people that can write code, but still can't specify a system. In fact, if you keep increasing the size of the system, you will eventually fit every single programmer in that category.

A form of context engineering

And influence he got. Gutting it was an act of influence and carried the message he wanted to carry across quite perfectly