People start to hate AI

People start to hate AI.

It's a very interesting phenomenon. Stronger than anything we witnessed before.

This negative emotion is tangible - in social media, in communities, in legislation.

4 years ago, AI was a curiosity.

1 year ago, it was still interesting.

Now it is ubiquitous - so people started hating it, en masse.

The reason is the SPEED of the change.

AI is a storm. It doesn't need 100 years, or 10 years - like fire, automobiles, electricity, or email. It changes everything, now.

So, we are all scared.

And our reaction becomes irrational.

It's more irrational than people burning books, when we were afraid of new ideas.

More irrational than Samurais, Zulus, and Amerindians charging with arrows and spears, against rifles, railways, and machine guns.

Of course, people post-rationalize this irrational hate. It's a typical process: First we feel emotions, than we post-rationalize. And the post-rationalizations are usually exaggerated; extreme. AI is the Devil - or sometimes a God.

"Datacenters are killing the planet / consume all our electricity / water" (no, they are not. The energy consumption is quite small, compared to... everything else).

"AI is taking over our jobs" (well, yes, but it is also creating even more jobs).

"AI will set us free, and nobody will need to work again" (of course not) (corollary: let's tax AI / robots. Bill Gates keeps saying this, since 2017...)

"AI is stupid, and cannot replace humans / artists / lawyers etc" (this contradicts the previous argument, but well).

"AI cannot invent anything original" (well, maybe - but neither can you).

"AI will take over the world and kill us all" (no, it is not).

"AI doesn't know what it's doing, doesn't have awareness and intentionality" (again: this contradicts the previous argument, but well - who cares about logical contradictions in an irrational post-rationalization).

The key reason for this hate: the same as ever: fear of the new. Fear of technology. Fear of change.

Geniuses like Asimov, or Frank Herbert, forecasted this. They looked at history and arrived at the same conclusion: people hate change.

Asimov wrote about the C/Fe (carbon/iron) culture: impact of robots, rejection and hate of robots, good robots vs. bad robots, adaptation to C/Fe, changes in industry, economy, legislation; moral and ethical impact. 

So here we are. We will set barriers, impose legislation, block datacenters, and we'll set robots on fire.

And in the end, we will create the best brave new world.

Because AI is here to stay, and will change this world.

Art is easy. Science is hard

 My (sarcastic) answer ref. the quality and value of art: I recognize only the authority of the Supreme High Council for the Certification of Art Quality.

In other words, the quality of art is not a valid, falsifiable, reproduceable question. There are no authorities, standards, or units of measurement for the quality of art.

Until five years ago, the definition of art (and of artistic quality) was a rather inconsequential problem. Art quality was a topic for salons of bored intellectuals, who would debate questions such as: what is the value of a painting made by a monkey, or by a child? 

In fact, we had quite a few famous experiments with experts unable to distinguish between kindergarten drawings and abstract paintings valued at millions.

And here comes AI. 

And we make this astonishing discovery, that it is incredibly easy to make art, but incredibly difficult to do science and engineering. 

Any monkey or child can draw or sing something that we can then interpret artistically in a million different ways (“what did the artist mean?”). 

But only one researcher in a million is capable of discovering and proving a valid, reliable, reproducible scientific theory.

Why I believe in education. And why the global population just started shrinking

I was just asked why I believe in education.

The global natality rate just dropped below replacement rate. From now on, the world population is shrinking.

Why this is bad? It's not about absolute numbers. It's about the trend. A shrinking, aging population means decay. 5 billion people is not necessarily worse than 10 billion, but the trend is a disaster. It's like a company shrinking. It's still a big company. But it's overweight, bureaucratic, static, disillusioned, lacks energy and stamina.

Why is the human population and natality shrinking? Less children, even in underdeveloped countries. Better birth control. Much higher cost for raising children.

Our children start working at 25. Our grand parents were productive at 12.

It's difficult to raise 3-4 kids until 25.

So here comes the question. Why do we educate our kids? Why do we spend 20+ years as parents / taxi drivers / mentors, between school, football, piano lessons, chess and art classes?

In short, I believe education makes us better. More effective, smarter, more reasonable. You earn more money, help more people, and contribute more to the progress of society. You save lives and do more good for those around you. You are less likely to vote for demagogic, populist, or sociopathic politicians. You are better equipped to defend yourself against aggression. You avoid conflicts and help de-escalate them. You build things that are useful to your family, your colleagues, and humanity.

The bar for AGI is ever higher

Every year, AI becomes significantly stronger. But we keep raising the bar for AGI - "real" Artificial General Intelligence.

<< Yes, AI is smart, but cannot solve math problems. So it's not real intelligence.>>

<<Yes, it solves simple math problems, but not difficult problems. >>

<<Yes, it solves complex math problems, but cannot reason. >>

<< Cannot write poems. Cannot draw. Cannot compose music >>

Well, now it can.

One year ago, ChatGPT even passed the Turing test for AI. Still nobody noticed.

The Turing test is the single most important test for AI. The imitation game. Designed over 50 years ago. The single simplest measurable test of real intelligence. Never passed - at least until last year.

Read more about the Turing test: https://blog.stefanmorcov.com/2022/12/can-ai-pass-turing-test-lets-ask-chatgbt.html

OpenAI ChatGPT passed the Turing test in April 2025

But we simply raised the bar even higher. "There is no AGI".

The Handmaid's Tale: a long, sad, boring mockery of contemporary society

I finally forced myself to watch The Handmaid's Tale. 

My intuition was right. It's a long, boring TV show. The story is promising - but rarely convinces. There's no suspension of reality. Low expectations, low quality. 

But it's a show that needed to be made. 

It's a mockery of contemporary religion, superstition, demagoguery, and politics. And we needed to challenge them.

We take religion and politics so seriously, now. So we don't even recognize demagoguery anymore. 

So the show is actually a very sad, sad form of Monty Python. 

We needed this serious, lugubre, boring, sad movie, to mock ourselves, and our society.

It's not tech acceleration. It's an avalanche

I'm reading the printed Financial Times and Daily Mail - for the first time in maybe 10 years. 

Courtesy of Austrian Airlines, who offers wifi, but internet connection not working, so only static content is available (i.e. scanned newspapers). 

Very interesting experience. The gap between online and offline content is amazing.

The printed version is interesting. But... static. No search /filter /browse. Not summarizable. No right-click for additional details, or research /deep search. 

This is a good moment to realize how fast our world is changing. Today's society is significantly different from 10 years ago. The tools used now are so different. It's not only a change between generations. A 10 year gap in learning /re-training is now enormous: it makes you obsolete.

THIS TRANSFORMATION made me change significantly my view on the speed of history, and tech acceleration.

Until a few years ago, I thought that the acceleration was an illusion. A time bias, when we consider recent events as more important than distant events. A kind of speed fallacy, where the nearest objects seem faster than distant objects. I thought that 50k years ago, innovation was as fast as today, but we cannot see it from our distance. (Except for propagation, which obviously was much slower - information travelled by foot, not by internet).

I no longer believe that the transformation is linear.

SEE: there was almost no difference between the tools used 1 mil years ago, and 100k years ago. We used pretty much the same stone tools, or pottery. If you woke up after 5k years, your life wouldn't change very much.

There was almost no difference between the agriculture of 5k years ago, and 300 years ago. If you woke up in a hundred years, you would use similar tools, and grow similar crops.

BUT if you now work in any blue-collar job (modern farm, retailer, factory, delivery, distribution), you operate robots, drones, and satellites that didn't exist 10 years ago.

Or, if you work in a white-collar job, any job that handles information, then you use email and internet that didn't exist 30 years ago; and E-commerce, CRM, videoconference, cloud, content, collaboration, analytics, and productivity tools that didn't exist 5-10 years ago.

Even more: we use AI today, which didn't exist 1 year ago. 

So, printed newspapers, or any static content, are now anacronic.

Of course some people still read printed news. Well, some people are still hunting and gathering, aren't they. But printed information is already anacronic.

We cannot afford to ignore the technology avalanche. 

We live in a completely new world, every year.

The modern "iron-carbon civilization" predicted by Isac Asimov

 Isac Asimov perfectly predicted (in 1950) our social resistance to AI.

We are afraid of technology (we always are).

Afraid of losing jobs - to robots.

Ethical issues.

Fear of the unknown. Fear of change.

In his novels, Asimov designed and examined societies with few stupid robots, and with few very smart robots; societies that rely on massive cheap robot labour; balanced societies; as well as societies largely manipulated by robots.

He invented the concept of "iron-carbon civilization", to describe the dynamics of humans and robots/AI, how we learn to cooperate, and coexist.

This is what we witness today !

We learn what AI is, and does. 

We get INCREDIBLE economic benefits.

We revolt, and resist. 

We define artificial rules for what AI-generated art is, vs. "real" art. 

We create AI agents to simulate exactly what we do. We bitch that AI cannot imitate us perfectly.

We detect AI-generated work, and then we train AI agents to avoid detection.

We are afraid.

We adapt.

We live in tremendous times. 

[Social experiment: this post has zero-AI. Did anyone notice? Is this good, or bad?]

(AI) Technology doesn't democratize efficiency. It benefits early adopters

Technology doesn't democratize things. Initially, it benefits early adopters. Those with the resources and education to adopt and adapt fast. 

The new tech buzzword is: AI agents make everybody more efficient.

Yes, it does. But not equally.

It's a good punchline and buzzword, saying that technology democratizes things - information, knowledge, education, transportation, resources, communication, or, with contemporary AI agents: work efficiency.

But this is rarely true.

I don't remember any technological innovation who really democratized things - at least at first. 

Technology tends to benefit first the rich and the educated - those who already have the capacity to invest, absorb and adapt faster. 

Yes, technology trickles down, eventually. But not immediately. 

It was the same with automobiles - first adopters were rich people; later beneficiaries were industrialists who sold (Ford Model T) affordable cars to the working class. 

Same with writing, printing, books, and newspapers: for hundreds of years, the beneficiaries were still the upper and middle classes, who were already literate, or had the resources to educate their children. For hundreds of years after Gutenberg, the majority of the population remained illiterate and didn't really benefit. Intergenerational mobility was significantly lower at the time, when education was a luxury, and most children had to start working VERY early in factories or agriculture. 

Same with the internet and email: first few years, it was reserved for universities, researchers, top tech entrepreneurs, academia, financial magnates - not everybody. 

So no, AI is not for everybody, it doesn't democratize first, and it doesn't benefit everybody equally. We have to move and adapt fast.

New relevant study (from Marius Comper): 

https://www.ft.com/content/0873e3cb-cb02-4b47-941f-14da74149670?fbclid=IwdGRjcARa7tVjbGNrBFruyGV4dG4DYWVtAjExAHNydGMGYXBwX2lkDDM1MDY4NTUzMTcyOAABHtvpmg9E9NL4vg8-W7XJcFqyz5I2YLwqWuTkFra4mwAO2yOhKZZzgCDBPoPh_aem_WAnPyG78hQSzOTJtuOIDVw

See also discussion 

https://www.facebook.com/share/p/18YjsXCRPB/

Elitocracy is more unstable then democracy. Don't restrict voting based on literacy

Although it sounds fancy (elitist), elitocracy is much more unstable than democracy, as a form of government. 

The main reasons for which we support democracy: 

• more equitable distribution of wealth, privileges and justice; 
• more stable on the long term (less prone to atrocities or war).

But a lot of intellectuals believe that elites would make a better government, and would take better decisions.

Some elitists believe that government should be formed directly from elites (usually intellectual elites). 

Some moderates believe that only elites should have the right to vote. 

Some even more moderates want minimum thresholds for voter rights, e.g. literacy tests.

I should note, there are studies that show that intelligent people are not necessarily better leaders. A good leader has a mix of social skills (EQ), IQ, network, and even compassion.

But the bigger problem is that all forms of elitocracy are easier to abuse.

Elitocracy tends to turn into oligarchy (which almost always then becomes a dictatorship). 

Because the question is: who decides who has the right to vote? 

And this question becomes: how do we make sure "our people" have the right to vote? 

Where “our people” means our relatives, our children, our friends, those with the same background, who live on our street, went to the same schools, work with us, invest in the same companies, our investors, suppliers and clients.

And then, it's a simple recipe to allow only "our people"  to vote: you use your initial political majority to pass favorable laws (for large groups), and apply exceptions (for small groups).

And your majority becomes stronger and stronger, and you eliminate more and more voters from participating.

In the past, they used voter registration based on property ownership. This sounds obsolete, so we'll just skip it.

But a significant number of smart people want to implement voter registration by literacy. Which might sound reasonable, right? 

Well, first of all, you just excluded poor and isolated communities from voting. Which in democracies is typically considered discrimination. 

Then, you need to apply exceptions. So you apply criteria such as proof of birth, or proof of residence, and at the same time, you make it much more difficult for certain categories to register, or obtain papers. 

And then, you apply even stronger exceptions. So you can implement grandfather laws.

So, although it sounds fancy (elitist), elitocracy is much more unstable than democracy. 

It tends to be abused, becomes oligarchy, and then autocracy.

Belief in God is nothing like belief in science

Many believers think that believing in a god or a divine force is the same as believing in a scientific theory.

Obviously, this is a fallacy - a clever but misleading play on words. Belief in a scientific theory has absolutely nothing to do with belief in a deity. In fact, even using the word “belief” in a scientific context is inaccurate.

I suspect this is a way for some believers to logically justify their faith - by playing with language and framing things in a way that equates science with belief.

On the opposite extreme, equally unfounded, are those who claim they can prove the existence of a god or the supernatural.

Personally, I find these attempts - both to equate faith with science and to “prove” faith - unnecessary. Believers should embrace the reality that their faith has nothing to do with science, that it isn’t proven, and that it doesn’t need to be.

After all, it’s easy to “believe” when you have proof. At that point, it’s no longer belief - you simply know. The real challenge is to have faith without guarantees or evidence.

And perhaps that’s exactly what believers should take pride in.

Notes

1. In science, the word "belief" is rarely suitable. We prefer hypothesis, model, "we propose".

2. We all know that science is not absolute. Scepticism is built-in. There is no absolute scientific truth. All scientific theories are evolving. Some theories are proven simply wrong. Some evolve into better theories.

The concept of falsifiability is worth mentioning. Religious or supernatural belief is not falsifiable.

3. Science produces provisional, evidence-based truths.

Some theories are extremely stable. Some not.

4. So here's the interesting question, it's the meta: what is truth in science?

The theory that I particularly love is utilitarian/pragmatic. It is very suitable in engineering, and in social sciences (management, sociology), but also applicable in all sciences.

"A theory is true if it works."

5. Mathematics is probably the weirdest science, btw. It is at the same time very practical, and also very abstract, both in language and concepts. It is full of paradoxes - it even negates itself (it proves that it cannot be complete, it is limited by design - Gödel's incompleteness theorems). 

And mathematics also works: we use it exceptionally well to cook food, to build houses, generate fake photos, discuss on Facebook, and to put people on the moon. 

7. So no, we don't "believe" in science, or scientific theories. We build it, we discover it, we invent it, we demonstrate and prove it, we challenge and evolve it, we apply it in practice.

8. No matter what theory of science we use, the idea that we "believe" in a scientific theory is, in principle, inappropriate.

Inflation is a proven method to tax the poor and middle-class.

Inflation is an ancient-proven method to tax the poor and middle-class.

Inflation was not invented in 1971, when Richard Nixon formally abandoned the gold standard. The UK had already stopped internal convertibility in 1931, US in 1933.

Gold and silver were theoretically also “convertible” during the hyperinflation of the 3rd-century crisis of the Roman Empire, or in Ptolemaic Egypt. 

The inflation of 16th-century imperial Spain had nothing to do with convertibility. 

Governments have generated inflation both with and without gold and silver.

Of course, it’s remarkable that nobody understands what inflation actually is. 

Inflation is a hidden tax on the entire money supply, including bank deposits.

Plus a reduction of domestic production costs, to increase competitiveness in foreign markets in the short term. 

It’s remarkable what governments do with this. And it’s remarkable that almost no one understands it.

Inflation is a massive, hidden tax.

AI is magic?

BUBBLE 1. AI is magic, everybody is replaced by AI, software engineers disappear, people don't need to work anymore, we are all gonna have fun, everything is great.

BUBBLE 2. AI is magic, everybody is replaced by AI, creativity is killed by GPT, software engineers disappear, everybody loses their jobs, the stock market crashes, AI will take over the world, the world is doomed. 

MIDDLE GROUND: AI replaces only people who do repetitive boring tasks, and cannot adapt. AI cannot replace human creativity. AI doesn't replace software architects and engineers. Vibe coding is still a myth. We will benefit from AI to improve our lives, society and economy. 

Negativity and opportunities: again

Most people have a negative attitude.

We see problems and risks, rather than opportunities.

And negativity increases with age.

As we get older, our appetite for risk decreases. We become more conservative. We are afraid of change. We see fewer opportunities, as we have more to lose. Loss aversion bias appears. Potential losses seem more important than gains.

And we tend to see only problems, only the negative side of things. “The world is doomed, nothing works, education collapses, things were better in the past, today’s immoral youth, technology is dangerous, AI will destroy humanity.”

Of course, looking for problems is also a pragmatic, engineering mindset. You need to see problems - to start looking for solutions. In fact, every opportunity starts with a problem. Solutions rarely appear before problems (although it happens, and occasionally even disruptive).

I pushed myself for so long to think in terms of opportunities rather than risks, that it became a reflex.

I am conservative by nature, and I had to train my sense of opportunity.

Now I have an allergic reaction when I see fear of technology, fear of new, risk reports that block opportunities.

AI replaces software programmers and composers, yet?

After three years of AI revolution, I still believe that major technological revolutions create jobs and businesses. They don’t create unemployment. The invention of the plow didn’t put gatherers out of work. The printing press sparked a phenomenal boom in the book industry and jobs: printing houses, publishers, libraries, writers, translators.

AI won’t lead to the disappearance of software and technology companies either. It will multiply them. 

(Rant triggered by very cool discussions with Vlad Coroama, Mihai Amariutei, Alexander Kruel).

As for how much software programming will actually change, I have reservations. 

I first said it 25 years ago: Software developers are cheap, and replaceable. But software is much more than that. We need architects and engineers; not coders. We need people who understand mathematics, algorithms, data, patterns, design, methodology. "Writing code" is a low-level job, and requires low-level qualifications.

This is even more true today - when AI replaces more and more low-level jobs.

But:

DOES AI REPLACE REAL DEVELOPERS?

=> NO.

We write code every day, at Hermix. With AI. 

From our experience, AI isn’t miraculous, yet. Surely it helps. But it doesn’t replace us - it just helps us. It is a fast, limited assistant.

SO WHAT ABOUT ALL THE STORIES ABOUT VIBE CODING?

Every day, we read about a new AI agent writing an entire application from scratch. 

An AI agent wrote a C compiler. Another migrated an Nintendo game to run in the browser. A non-tech guy built an entire web app in 10 minutes. An AI invented a new game (ask for links).

Are these true?

Well, some are true, but they are anecdotic, exaggerated, not replicable.

If you examine them closely, none is a genuine example of truly innovative real-world application, built from scratch without human help.

It is trivial to write a C compiler in 2026. We already have thousands of open-source C compilers. 

It is trivial to rewrite an application from one language to another.

AI-generated code has security / architecture /design problems, needs huge corrections and rewrites to make it viable.

I keep an open mind, I read and follow developments, I test new stuff (never enough). But I haven’t seen a reliable case of a real, original application entirely generated by AI - yet.

That being said:

I STRONGLY BELIEVE IN AI and the AI REVOLUTION.

It is already transformative, it revolutionizes the society and economy.

As of now, AI doesn't operate independently. Doesn't replace teams of developers, nor music composers, painters, translators.

It only helps them.

AI remains an assistant, for those programmers / architects / composers / managers who are smart enough to control an army of AI agents. Essentially the same visionaries who already knew how to coordinate teams of human agents, to achieve original, impressive results.

The reality is that we now have (many) agents that can quickly solve deterministic computational problems. But we’re still talking about armies of junior agents — unoriginal, not very smart, and very fast. 

Why I Don't Believe in the Pension System (Even Though I'm Pro-Social Policies)

I'm very socialist when it comes to pensions — and broadly, when it comes to education, research, healthcare, and social safety nets. I deeply believe in the state’s responsibility to provide basic protections for its citizens.

But in most other areas, I’m quite capitalist. I believe in market dynamics, personal responsibility, and economic freedom.

That’s exactly why I don’t believe in the pension system — not Pillar I, not Pillar II, not Pillar III.

Pillar I: Social safety net, not a real pension.

Let’s be honest: Pillar I is not a retirement savings plan. It’s a social assistance mechanism — and that’s okay! It’s like unemployment benefits, public education, or universal healthcare. It’s meant to be a safety net for the elderly, to ensure a minimum standard of living in old age.

But let’s stop pretending it’s a “contributive” system. It never was, and it never will be. It has never been financially sustainable. It runs on political promises, electoral cycles, and constant state patchwork. It’s been eroded consistently — especially through inflation, special pensions, and arbitrary decisions by the state.

So yes, it’s a socialist system — and that’s fine. But it’s not what people are told it is.

Pillar II: State-controlled investment? That’s not real investment.

Pillar II was supposed to be a privately managed pension fund. In reality, it’s state-controlled. And I’ve never trusted a system where the state tells me how to invest my own money.

That’s not investment. That’s just another political instrument.

I’ve always been certain that the state will eventually seize or redirect those funds — and so far, it’s doing exactly that. It controls where and how the money is invested, how and when it can be withdrawn, and whether we’ll even see it again.

I’m convinced we won’t. Pillar II was just electoral marketing.

In short, we need to rethink how we talk about pensions. We need to stop mixing the language of "social protection" with "financial independence".

AGI and "true reasoning", vs "AI" and "reasoning. How society handles language mis-use and abuse

Obviously, current AI is not really intelligent, doesn't have "true reasoning" or "true understanding". And we may argue (scientifically) that the terminology is wrong. Which it is. 

But this will not change the way people use, and mis-use, words.

What we do, when words are mis-used or abused, is invent new words.

So, we say AGI (General Artificial Intelligence), and "true reasoning", to clarify that "AI" and "reasoning" are improper terms.

Transparency, Traceability, and Accountability in politics, public procurement, and spending

Transparency, traceability, and accountability are essential for a healthy society and organization.

Opaque government is dangerous, as it enables mistakes and accidents, some with extraordinary consequences.

These principles must first be applied to the financing of political parties and election campaigns. It is critical to know who funds a party and where the money goes.

That’s the basic step.  

Then, transparency must also apply to:

- Public spending, through sound governance principles in public procurement and spending.

- Hiring public servants and officials.

- Lobby - a functional registry of organizations and individuals that try to influence public policies, laws, taxes, subsidies, including lobbying channels and funding sources.

Democracy is not a natural phenomenon. It must be built and protected.

Engineering complexity: because it works !

Why do we build complex products, like smart phones, AI, or Hermix?

Because complexity works. It delivers benefits and value, to the economy and society. And this is particularly true of modern engineering. We build complex products, for complex organizations, even if sometimes more fragile, or expensive, or risky. Because they work. These are thoughts about product and engineering complexity, from our Hermix webinar of 27. Nov 2024, with Arian Turhani, VP Capgemini for European institutions, and Alin Izvoran, public procurement expert: AI for public procurement and sales. Complexity has 2 major aspects: structural, and dynamic. Structural complexity means composed of many varied interrelated parts. A modern car has thousands of interdependent components. A modern AI neural network has hundreds of billions, even a trillion nodes. Dynamic complexity relates to uncertainty and ambiguity. It is characterized by emergence, nonlinearity, adaptiveness, propagation, chaos. This is where we get Taleb’s black swans and Lorenz’ butterfly effects. These systems are difficult to predict and control, even if we have sufficient information about their components. It was Aristotle who first described the phenomenon of really complex environments, 2300 years ago, as he famously said that the whole is not only more, but in fact it is different than the sum of the parts. And some of the effects of complexity are positive. The whole is not only different, but also better. These complexity manifestations also occur in relation to modern engineering technology. This is also what we are also building with Hermix. We build more than a tool with significant economic and efficiency benefits. We build a complex ecosystem. We create a new paradigm, with policy implications; such as increase in transparency and competition. We help create a better market environment.

Full video on Hermix website.

"AI Prompt Engineering" is an elementary skill.

 "AI Prompt Engineering" is not a new job. 

It is an elementary skill. 

Basic "digital literacy".

For at least 20 years, "Office, email and internet" have been mandatory in all CVs.

You must now add "Prompt engineering". 

Prompt engineering is the ability to ask questions and obtain relevant, useful answers or text from GPT (and other LLM/AI tools).

I could never list " MS Office" in my CV skills. Not only that I memorized most Office shortcuts, but I've been writing VBScript macros and Java/C++ OLE automation code ever since grad school (thanks Ionut, I learned so much from you). Listing Office or Internet as a skill would be silly: I can actually write their code.

Similarly, I cannot list "prompt engineering" as a skill. I strive to become an AI expert, of course. ChatGpt says that an AI Specialist is a master in machine learning, data science, and artificial intelligence; managing NLP; Python, R, or Java; ML libraries such as TensorFlow, PyTorch, Scikit-Learn.

But yes:

Prompt engineering is now the basic digital literacy skill, to add to all CVs.

 

L.e. Great comment 

from Tavi Paunescu on FaceBook: At least Office was a clearly defined suite, current AI big names are black boxes. So "engineering" against a black box :)

My reply: Any sufficiently advanced technology is not distinguishable from magic. See also Strugatki's picnick. ChatGpt says it's Arthur C Clarke.

L.e.2 Great comment 

from Smaranda Spizzico: how can I learn?

My reply: great question. Thanks!

ChatGpt says:

Prompt: How can you learn prompt engineering?

Answer: [...] Start with General Prompts: Experiment with simple, straightforward prompts. Notice how the wording, structure, and even tone can affect the output. For example, try using different formats like questions, commands, or step-by-step instructions.

Understand Prompt Types: There are descriptive prompts, directive prompts, few-shot prompts (where you give the model examples), and chain-of-thought prompts (where you guide the model step-by-step). Experimenting with each type will help you understand which works best for various tasks.[...]

A brief history of the glorification of the past

One day, when I will be old and wise, I will study philosophy and socio-psychology, and my research topic will be the myth of the glorious past. The rosy retrospection syndrome, "neiges d'antan."

Another topic might be the study of happiness, but this correlates dangerously well with depression.

Because we have at least 4,000 years of documented history of glorification of the past. Probably the first hieroglyph written by the first Egyptian scribe was about how things were better "in the old days." And the last story told by the last Neanderthal was likely about "today's decadent Sapiens civilization and their decline compared to the moral values of our Homo Erectus ancestors."

On the other hand, when I will be older and wiser, I will most likely write an essay about the decline of the modern world.