@jakintosh @zaratustra lol. to be fair, i think it's maybe more nuanced than just being opaque/imprecise.

im also not entirely convinced that the raw cli style interface we have for this stuff right now is going to be the end-all interface for most of it

@jakintosh @zaratustra i dont think that’s it's primary feature. the primary feature of transform models is that they can identify patterns that we cannot. they're like an electron microscope for patterns.

it also happens that we cannot look through this particular electron microscope

@jakintosh it’s been pretty amazing to knock together prototypes with i will admit

no i think we don’t look through it in the specific way that transform models too.

for example Google has a way to identify diabetes through a photo of someone’s eye. That is not something we could previously do.

@jakintosh you’re talking about an abstract process by which people learn that you’re nervous we will stop doing. I'm talking about a literal actual process that exposes things that we previously did not have access to.

I think I am not so worried that people will stop doing the process. You’re worried about losing it just because we have this new tool.

@jakintosh But what has instead happened is people are learning and writing of variety of wild and interesting programming languages, and they're building and working with microcontrollers on a scale way beyond anything anyone was doing along time ago because we have raspberry pis and FPGAs etc.

Tools that make the stuff more accessible may mean a smaller percentage of users in a given field are working with raw technology, but they almost always mean more overall are still doing the hard work

@jakintosh i think we may disagree fundamentally on the causes and requirements here.

so much of our world is tech based we have a requirement of so many tech workers, this leads to abstractions required so we can allow for lower-skill labor, there just isn't enough high skill labor out there to support the system.

also, afaik most security and efficiency problems dont come from bad software construction, but collisions between environments and workflows

@jakintosh im going to skip responding to the energy use thing because that seems like a late stage addition that isn't really what we were talking about before.

i do think it is a full-scale embrace of messiness. I guess I think this idea that problems can be solved elegantly is just not really true in the real world. I can't think of a single real-world problem that has an elegant solution.

even insurance and permitting, which should be straightforward is messy all the way down.

@jakintosh i think part of moving programming into a space where it is more accessible, more functional, and more practical for use in the world, means making it more world-like, and less abstraction-math like.

and i do think you're right that it is a kind of anti-engineering sentiment.

i think where we maybe have the disagreement is that I think the engineering idea that problems can be solved elegantly just does not scale at all

@jakintosh and all it takes is 5 minutes talking to a security researcher to realize how much it doesn't scale (like a major proximity attack vector is ipv6, for example, a system that is beautifully elegant, but was just never really used).

or considering that we don't have a single elegant functional secure software system for an entire business