Comment by andsoitis

> Makes the same mistake as all other prognostications: programming is not like chess. Chess is a finite & closed domain w/ finitely many rules. The same is not true for programming b/c the domain of programs is not finitely axiomatizable like chess.

I believe the author addresses it in the article:

> many domains are chess-like in their technical core but become poker-like in their operational context.

Also applicable to programming.

Programming has parts like chess that are bounded and what people assume to be actual work. However, what LLMs don't do well is understanding future requirements, stakeholder incenctives, etc.