This gets downvoted? Why?

There's a difference between the cost of coding and the cost of delivering and maintaining software? AI has demonstrated that these two things are almost entirely unrelated.

Almost everywhere I've worked, the "designing and writing code" part was about 5% to at most 10% of the calendar time that it takes to make and release a software product. The remaining 90-95% of the time is: aligning stakeholders, meeting with all contributing teams to prioritize, gaining approval from various executives to commence the project, obtaining security reviews, privacy reviews, legal reviews, and so on, soaking in dev, staging, and beta environments to find bugs, manual QA testing, aligning with marketing--potentially waiting on key external marketing events, waiting for various people to come back from vacation, waiting for Mike to answer his E-mail... These things take the vast majority of a software project's time and can't be automated by AI.

So, AI is making 5-10% of your project much faster. Whoopdie doo.

It’s interesting to me that you don’t understand how 90% of the things you listed can either benefit from automation or be made irrelevant because of automation.

The firms of 2031 won’t be doing business like the firms of 2021 but just using AI for coding or in a few places to accelerate the same workflows.

Has AI demonstrated that or have people using AI demonstrated their lack of ability to properly use it, as they are fumbling in the infancy of an new age?

I'd argue that it's shown something slightly different, it's related but maybe not in the way some people hoped.

I think it sums up to something along the lines of "you get what you pay for".

“They are still dumb” “We learned some ways to bypass the dumbness”

"We learned some ways to bypass the dumbness" "They are still dumb"

So clickbaity title selection is fun?

My new car came with terrible tires that have little traction, but I just buy a new set. I don’t say it’s a crap car just because they cheap out with the stock tires on it. I love the car. Keychron on that workstation and be done with it.

A keyboard key is not generally considered a consumable, though.

Asymmetric multiprocessing with your mom

Strong dislike for papers that tell me what to do in the title, especially when even the paper admits a loose correlation of the intermediate tokens compared to solution correctness. My solutions work and they speak for themselves.

This is a position paper. Its purpose is to advocate for a specific viewpoint to the ML community.

From [1]: "Position papers make an argument for a viewpoint or perspective about what should be done [...]"

[1] https://icml.cc/Conferences/2026/CallForPositionPapers

Sure, and the parent comment's position is that they dislike it. Its purpose is to advocate against clickbait titles becoming normalized in the scientific community.

This is the opposite of clickbait. The topic is obvious from the title.

Clickbait doesn't have to be false, it has to be shocking. Being false is one way of being shocking. "Stop doing X!" -- really now?

> My solutions work and they speak for themselves.

I understand the sentiment, and I also use the "thinking" traces as insight, but wouldn't you want your solutions to be based upon a good understanding? If the correlation is weak, then our solution is also weak.

I admit I didn't read the paper, but if thinking traces are not "thinking", then what are they? If their content is not representing progress towards a solution then they are irrelevant and we should just be able to remove them and save a lot of time and money. There's a lot of money to be made by doing so. So why are they there at all? What do they represent?

A paper title is marketing, you’re expected to read its content

I hate articles that do this as well in the title. It's basically just a form of clickbait.

If “terms are simply created for understanding”, then why is their misuse so unimportant? Isn’t the whole point of a term’s use in understanding only obtained with the proper usage? Isn’t improper usage actually creating confusion and misunderstanding? Shouldn’t you care?

Autism being a spectrum doesn’t mean it is not a true/false. Both can be true. You can either be autistic (somewhere on the spectrum) or not on the spectrum at all.

Can you please elaborate?

To me autism is a spectrum, from statistically non neuro divergent (if there is something like that), to severely disabled (there may be more dimensions)

You can be non-autistic, or you can autistic. And if you are autistic, you exist somewhere on the autism spectrum. If you are not autistic, you are nowhere on this spectrum.

Neuro Typical is the term you are looking for. And, I agree with you about the spectrum. But people seem to take it more extreme.

Thank you for the term I was missing. What are the "more extreme" elements?

yw. I think people treat is as black/white true/false. Like autisim is mostly the same. Im my experiences, the spectrum is very wide. I heard someone refer to it as flavors which I thought was interesting.

AI;R AI did read it for me

Must be an AI generated acronym: that semicolon looks like LLM signature to me