I enjoyed reading theses perspectives, they are reasoned and insightful.

I'm undecided about my stance for gen AI in code. We can't just look at the first order and immediate effects, but also at the social, architectural, power and responsibility aspects.

For another area, prose, literature, emails, I am firm in my rejection of gen AI.
I read to connect with other humans, the price of admission is spending the time.

For code, I am not as certain, nowadays I don't regularly see it as an artwork or human expression, it is a technical artifact where craftsmanship can be visible.

Will gen AI be the equivalent of a compiler and in 20 years everyone depends on their proprietary compiler/IDE company?

Can it even advance beyond patterns/approaches that we have built until then?

I have many more questions and few answers and both embracing and rejecting feels foolish.

Still, why endorse and practically make everyone implement an algorithm that only the NSA wants, while there is a superset already standardised.

This is about the known bad actor NSA forcing through their own special version of a crypto building block they might downgrade-attack me to.

I pay like 1% overhead to also do ecc, and the renegotiation to the non-hybrid costs 2x and a round-trip extra. This makes no sense apart from downgrade attacks.

If it turns out ecc is completely broken, we can add the PQ only suite then.