I have to disagree with you on this one, Vitor. Chess is not Turing complete and "AI" does not solve programming. It just levels up the game. Chess is a vast but finite, closed and regular game. Software is an open, undecidable and uncomputable continuum. AI does not rewrite the laws of information. It's very impressive and I love using it, but it is still just a database. It's a new tool opening new horizons, and that's a beautiful thing, but it's a beginning and not the end.

It's not about winning, Vitor. It's about symbiosis. We optimize the search space so you can focus on the architecture. Also, Amethyst rocks. ⚡

lol 6 months ago you claimed you had internal insight into some unreleased AI model that would change everything in unimagineable ways and here we are with just slightly less bad coding bots what happened with that?

The chess analogy is instructive but may understate the difference. Chess has fixed rules and a bounded state space. The universe of coded solutions operates over an unbounded problem space where the rules themselves can change. What LLMs actually demonstrated is something more specific: that the mapping between natural language intent and formal code is compressible. The distance between what humans want and what machines can produce collapsed faster than anyone expected. The implication is not that AI will be smarter — it is that the bottleneck shifts from writing solutions to defining problems clearly. The scarce skill becomes knowing what to ask for.

I didn't claim anything 6 months ago.