It's not clear to me why you consider my approach a pipe dream. The only criticism I've heard is that people won't adopt it. Is that the only one? One critical

It's not clear to me why you consider my approach a pipe dream. The only criticism I've heard is that people won't adopt it. Is that the only one? One critical question for you is: can someone rebuild a piece of software for themselves, from scratch, using LLMs, without changing radically in terms of how many neurons in their brain are devoted to programming? If they need to have real control here, they'll need to understand a lot about programming, build up a certain skeptical mindset in reviewing code, etc. That sort of requirement feels like it'll also affect adoption. If they do so without learning much about programming, then I'd argue they don't have much control. It's not them rebuilding the thing for themselves, it's the LLM rebuilding the thing for them. And that comes with the same sorts of Principal Agent problems as depending on other sorts of AIs like tech companies to do so. They'll find themselves awash in eldritch bugs, etc. So I think LLMs can't square this circle. If they want to not devote a lifetime to programming, user control using LLMs feels like more of a pipe dream than my approach. Because my approach depends crucially on personal relationships. There's no illusion that each person is getting personally customized software. Instead we're banding together in computational space as if we're travelling through medieval Asia -- using a caravan. Caravans had a natural limit in size, because larger caravans were easier to infiltrate with bandits. Managing those risks in a large caravan requires the geopolitical skills of a king to constantly see all the angles of who can screw you over at each point in time.