You will literally build nothing but the most primitive of devices unless you accept black boxes. In fact I'd argue its one of humanities great strengths that we can build on top of the tools others have built, without having to understand them at the same level it took to develop them.
Black boxes aren't inherently bad. But if they don't have well defined mappings of inputs to outputs, they aren't good black boxes. That's the problem with Claude Code imo.
not really. Most of the technology is not black box but something of a grey box. You usually choose to treat it as a black box because you want to focus on your problems/your customers but you can always focus on underlying technologies and improve them. Eg postgresql for me is a black box but if I really wanted or had need I could investigate how it works.
True, you can understand an ICE engine all the way down to the chemistry if you so chose. An LLM isn't even understood by its inventors so users have no chance to understand it even if they wanted to.
Yeah someone should’ve told that to Donald (Knuth)
/s
For those who don’t know, Knuth implemented the typesetting system TeX just to make sure his book’s typesetting was correct.
You can pretty much only innovate when you reject the blackbox and decide to make a better one.
Otherwise you’re likely implementing something you could probably get off-the-shelf, which is ok, but also something that you could just… not implement.
