I've been seeing too much "I've been coding for decades and what I've always done has be reduced to telling AI to do it for me."
and not nearly enough "I've been coding for decades and recently worked hard for months with AI's help to make something I would have never considered possible before."
Much easier to complain that you are bored than to step back up to high-effort with your new fancy tools.
Having been a product and UX-focused dev for my entire career, I knew only the basics about parsers and compilers, but have enough experience to grasp where each piece of the puzzle fits, and how to evaluate them. At the beginning it was just a fun test, but it got progressively more serious; it now implements 100% of the latest spec, beats QuickJS in performance, and surpasses V8/JSC in test262.
It took me four months, and I imagine it would take me a single month to do it again - I’ve learned a lot. Someone who already knew what they were doing, and with the right orchestration, could achieve this in weeks at minimal cost.
I really think we are in for a cambrian explosion of software, enabling things that were just always a little out of reach before (like why can’t most of your devices really talk to each other, in 2026).
Beg to differ.
The architecture is different, the language is different, implementation choices are all mine. It was not developed by autonomous agents. I don’t think you’ll find any code that is a duplicate of other engines* - happy to be proven wrong here.
* The regexp and unicode modules are taken from QuickJS and have the appropriate licenses.
https://blog.stuartspence.ca/introducing-asteria.html
https://store.steampowered.com/app/5482440/Asteria_4X/?beta=...
To be clear, I've made large software and game projects over the years, but no way I'd have found the time to do a remake/enhancement of a game I loved as a kid from 1995 that has zero business case. Not without AI.
To pile on, here's mine: https://github.com/linsomniac/apt-cacher-ultra
It is a robust, reliable cache of apt packages, with the additional goal of still being able to serve packages from the cache even when the upstream is down. This was started shortly after that DDoS of Canonical this past year. We've run apt-cacher-ng and apt-cacher over the last dozen years, but (a) it requires hand-holding about once a month and (b) it did absolutely nothing for us when Canonical was under DDoS.
I've put well over 100 hours of my time into it. Still running into a lot of people knee-jerk calling it "slop", but I've had 200-ish machines pulling from it for 6 months and it has worked way better than apt-cacher-ng.
I'm not really sure what to do with people who dismiss AI-assisted projects, while dehumanizing the 100 hours of my time I've put into it. I fear we're running the very real risk of both sides losing: the people trying to thoughtfully create with AI losing because of the AI, and the people avoiding AI losing because they can't keep pace.
What the fuck does this even mean?
Like za_creature said you can use a language more towards the YOLO end of the spectrum - more Go or Python or JavaScript than assembly or Rust.
Your commit history shows you had an issue of high background CPU use. You probably wouldn't have it in a manually coded implementation.
You might want to change the way you phrase this idea. I think you meant that Go/Python/JS are more "YOLO-friendly languages" (you'll get into far less trouble if you write slop in them). My initial reading was the opposite. It sounded like you were saying the languages themselves are the slapped together garbage.
Assembly is most certainly not "YOLO-friendly", but is more YOLO.
Why even write one of those? Just set up an nginx proxy cache and call it done.
But that doesn't even scratch the surface of what this project does. We already have a few simple approaches to this problem: apt-cacher and apt-cacher-ng. Neither of which were any help when Canonical was under DDoS. Both of which have proven unreliable.
As I said elsewhere, apt-cacher-ultra is a pretty subtle piece of software, it doesn't just do a naive cache, it fully understands the apt repo structure, validates the repo, and snapshots it, understands what packages your clients frequently request and preemptively downloads updates to them as part of the snapshot promotion, etc. A DDoS of the package sources, even in the middle of an upstream releasing updates, is something a-c-u will handle no problem. I've simulated this by firewall rules blocking upstream traffic. It's also proven much more reliable than apt-cacher-ng.
I've been in the software game ~40 years, I've seen it time and time again: "How hard could it be" and then when you get into it you realize there are a lot of devils in the details.
That's pretty naive.
This isn't just a simple http proxy and checking if the requested URL exists on disc. It's a pretty subtle snapshotting system that fully understands and vets apt repos, detecting when the repo changes, proactively downloading "interesting" packages that have updated, verifying and validating all packages, and then promoting the repo to active when it is healthy. Plus a web-based admin interface.
The core of it is around 20K LOC, with another 40K in tests. The COCOMO model gives that an estimate of around 2 developer years of effort assuming full time work.
apt-cacher-ng, the hand-written C++ version, is 16K LOC for the core. apt-cacher-ultra does a lot more. Seems like a pretty reasonable LOC count to me.
What are you basing your assertion above on?
Indeed. The number of hours is my goto defence too. So far I've put in maybe 200 hours of time into design, iteration, playtesting, QA, and balance of my game. Sure - almost zero has gone directly into writing code but this is still a major project.
People who one shot a crappy game have no idea how much work it still takes to get something really good over the finish line.
>I'm not really sure what to do with people who dismiss AI-assisted projects
Mostly I've stopped worrying or trying to convince the haters. I'm having a blast and building great things (lots more than just Asteria).
Good luck with your apt project!
I think this could be achievable with LLMs if they had a much higher token rate. That way you'd have less downtime and could work on the problem more aggressively. How it's designed to work now, offloading cognitively, doesn't feel very good, even when you 'ship' more.
I get it, I've gotten a lot of joy over the decades from the specific act of programming. But I also get a lot of joy from making something. I'm old enough now that I don't have a lot of my time left to "hand stitch an amazing tapestry". But with AI tooling, I do have time to try out a bunch of ideas and see how they work, scratch little itches and also just run a mad scientist library of experiments, without each experiment taking tens or hundreds of hours of coding to see how that experiment pans out.
Why not? What is the goal of "having an amazing tapestry"? Do you need to do increasing more things in the limited time you have left and making a tapestry isn't one of those things? What will you have once you've "finished" an amazing tapestry, just something to hang on the wall and look at? How does one "use" a tapestry after it's "finished" such that the act of finishing it is the most important thing? If you've finished it, will you get more enjoyment from looking at it for longer because it was finished sooner and thus the length of time you can look at it before you die is maximized? Exactly what you are optimizing for here?
Let's call it "Joy".
I've done hard things. Many of them have a significant amount of time that is a slog. A tapestry is going to have a lot of days of just slog work. And that's fine. Doing hard things can be very rewarding. I've reupholstered a couch by taking it down to the sticks, repairing and reinforcing the frame ("hey kids, the couch isn't designed for walking and jumping on"), enhancing the design, re-springing it, redesigning the cushions so that they didn't need readjusting every time you sat down, making new foam cushions, and then sewing a upholstery. Took 3-4 months.
But, I'm in the last half of my 50s. The project you're commenting on, apt-cacher-ultra, probably would have taken 2 full time developer years to get to where it is now, and I'm doing some pretty big changes for the next version. I literally probably have a handful of that sort of project I can do left in my life, assuming I quit my job now and work full time on it.
Let me tell you, it's pretty sobering to be faced with: "I may only be doing this once, maybe twice more in my career."
So yes, building experiments where I get to try out my ideas without 2 developer-years of coding required is going to give me an opportunity for a lot of creation that I otherwise wouldn't have had. I've spent decades hand-crafting code, I fully understand the joy of doing so.
its a tribalism problem, but one of trying to uphold the current tribe system while theres a pretty obvious new tribe system replacing it
AI has taken that security away from me
I’m not trying to be contrary, just that doesn’t say a lot.
I know plenty of people in their late 40's 50's and 60's that were doing fine and who now have to compete with junior and Claude.
And sometimes just Claude.
Obviously they had no inherent right to income but still, people have obligations that need to be met and if they stop spending the economy is not going to be happy. Especially cruel because we have been telling everybody for decades that a career in software is stable and that there will always be a need for more people.
I suspect that when all this is over 1929 will look pretty good.
I don’t, necessarily; but I do know that if you’re not even trying, then you’re putting yourself at greater risk. This isn’t one of those developments that people can just stubbornly dig their heels in about.
Life throws obstacles at everyone. Learning how to dodge and weave is essential to survival.
> I suspect that when all this is over 1929 will look pretty good.
Oh come on. Let’s not be so dramatic, shall we?
You'd have said the same thing in 1928...
Seriously: this is a massive problem that we are creating and given that the tools that make the problem require better tools to solve them I really am not all that happy about how this is going.
Hindsight is 20/20. Besides, what good is panicking? It won’t help with the inevitable; better to adapt and save for it.
> the tools that make the problem require better tools to solve them
You’ve found the opening :-)
I'm not worried about myself, I've had a lot of luck in my life for which I'm super greatful. But I'm also quite aware of the exceptional position that puts me in and how many people are not so fortunate that they could probably live on their savings for the rest of their life if things ground to a halt.
Most people live paycheck to paycheck, or they may have a few thousand bucks in savings at most. They've worked hard all their lives and simply were never in a position to save enough against this kind of eventuality because the deck was stacked against them.
Have a heart, and realize that barring a couple of unfortunate moves it could be you looking at your last 500 bucks with rent due and a couple of mouths to feed.
I’m sorry if it’s coming across that way. It’s not my intent, and I’m aware that many people are a lost paycheck away from a crisis.
But if you really think the right thing to do in response is to complain and commiserate, I don’t think that is helpful, either. I think it’s much better to encourage behavior that has a chance of being effective.
If you think it’s somehow wrong to encourage people to behave in such a way that has a better chance of setting them up for success, then I vehemently disagree.
> To effectively tell them... to adapt when that simply isn't an option is losing sight of the human angle.
You must have a pretty low opinion of people if you think they can’t adapt.
What if complaining and commiserating leads to fighting for political actions that lead to outcomes we like better?
This thread is not designed for discussion? I'm not even sure what that means. If the sentiments expressed in this thread lead to people discussing the same topic elsewhere, does it matter what this thread is "designed for"?
> 2/I’m not sure what outcome you’re contemplating
What does that have to do with anything? I'm responding to a comment complaining about the fact that others were complaining about a narrowly envisioned future which seems, to them, inevitable. I'm merely pointing out that the dissenting opinions could have value to individuals who want different outcomes from the ones predicted.
It means that that’s not where the conservation in this thread is going, and in my experience on HN, almost never does. There’s no organizing going on here. It’s not even clear what a group of organized people would fight for based on the conversations here.
Finally, I’m not telling people they can’t commiserate or complain. It’s an open forum for people to speak their minds. However, that freedom cuts both ways; people are equally allowed and encouraged to have contrarian views that are respected.
How do you know there aren't people organizing after discussing something online and realizing there are others out there who agree with them? You assume, but you don't know.
And yet, you speak confidently, as though you do know. What's with that?
I’m not going to produce a laundry list of how it’s already impacting engineering productivity and practice. You can look that up yourself.
That's because you don't have one.
I work for a big tech company. My org is being asked to be more judicious with AI usage because there is no evidence that it improves productivity and is in fact slowing some work down. Recent studies back this up. It is affecting practice, not productivity.
> The fear and anxiety are driven by some people’s natural responses to that, as they see it, too.
How do you separate that out as the cause of the anxiety, when the leaders of AI companies are actively fearmongering about the power of their technology?
I agree, but I'd like to think these people come from a optimistic point of view.
A lot of people don't seem to understand that the "human in the loop" is exactly the thing the big AI leaders want to cut out as much as possible.
This is sensible and pragmatic, but I think you're talking past the other commenter.
Obstacles presented by, for example, your boss, or your company's competitors, or your political system, are not the same as obstacles like heartbreak, natural disasters, emotions, illnesses we cannot yet cure.
> Learning how to dodge and weave is essential to survival.
A lot of people perceive that elites are throwing dodgeballs at them in order to increase their own profits. Saying "them's the breaks, it's just the way it is" appears to be deflecting criticism from those elites and that system.
It probably depends on whether you think we could actually feed everyone, today, if we chose to, or if you think e.g. human nature prevents that from being possible.
We could also all put our gifts toward preventing the "new reality" you see as inevitable, and put you at greater risk.
The future isn't written yet. Your ability to predict it is an illusion. In aggregate, people whose job it is to predict large-scale economic events are worse than chance in their predictions.
I can read between the lines.
Also, this new reality is today. You may not be seeing this in your place of business or culture yet, but for many of us, it arrived up to 2 years ago.
If that's happening at [redacted] of all places, I think it's reasonable to think that the technology may not be as transformative as predicted due to its (currently) poor performance in generating revenue.
We're profiting from its inefficiency by selling compute to other companies, especially AI startups. It's expensive and unprofitable for them and a cash cow for us. The position we're taking is bearish and somewhat more reversible than that taken by Meta, for example.
Sounds good, but isn't supported by data. Tetlock did not establish that all experts are worse than chance.
> The average expert was slightly better than chance.
-Tetlock
There's no realistic way to compose a statistical model for what will happen to a society when a powerful new technology is introduced. Predictors of our brave new AI world are going to be about as accurate as our pundits.
That or swallow a bullet, we'll see. Haven't decided. We'll see how long my current unemployment lasts, and how long my savings last after that
Having been in this game for a long time, I get the negative aspects of the industry. They grind on me, as I believe they have for you. Choosing a different path is not an all or nothing proposition. Your knowledge, and you as a person, have value. I hope you find a way towards better mental health and wish you well on that journey.
>Your knowledge, and you as a person, have value.
This is the exact thing AI is threatening to take away.
What will it not replace, eventually?
Been seeing a counselor for over a year already
Went and made a doctor, guess it's time to look into medication
Thanks
Don't worry about me, I'll be fine. Been here before, just very unhappy to be here again that's all
I'm sorry for your loss, but welcome also to the real world. You had it better than most for a long while.
My lifestyle isn't super expensive, but I can't afford to retire or anything. I have a mortgage that I still owe money on
My comforting thoughts are, who is this all for, and what would happen if AI actually makes human labor redundant? Labs control the AI sure, but so much stuff is built around humans that it almost becomes comical to think it would be a bad outcome for a the average person.
Farms and land don’t cease to exist, houses/apartments don’t go up in flames instantly, people aren’t reduced to functionless sludge creatures as soon as they’re done being economic drivers. What’s the real plan? All the normal people die and a thousand or so chosen few sit around and watch AI videos and eat grapes until the heat death of the universe?
Nah, we’ll figure it out, perhaps it will be harder temporarily, and perhaps SWEs lose status before everyone else, but it will probably be okay overall.
Imagine what happens if landlords decided one day to collectively demand more money than actually exists in the total monthly income of workers. What would happen?
You can point out that if everyone just stopped paying rent, their houses and apartments would still exist, and they could live rent-free as their landlords would have no money to spend on enforcement. Technically, this is not untrue. But it's not what would actually happen, is it? One person would be the first to default on their rent, and their landlord would use the money collected from all their other tenants to seize back that tenant's formerly rented property. No individual tenant would dare to be the first to stop paying rent, so they all continue paying rent, selling their stuff, taking out loans until there's physically no way for them to keep paying, and only then do they default.
I am strongly feeling I'm already redundant
‘Not having to work and being warm and fed’ is called being a pet. Some cats and dogs enjoy this life greatly. I’ve been thinking about this a lot recently.
Give it some time and you'll be adding to that list.
In every war, countless innocent people die due to mis-targeting or other failure modes. At times the casualty count there exceeds military deaths. It is so common that we have a term for it: collateral damage.
So the question is: does AI lower such damage?
If AI had not been used in the attack on Iran, history indicates the death tolls in this regard would likely been much higher.
Not making a political statement or implying support for the war. Just making a point that these comparisons are more complicated that your example.
> If anything, it should make me more optimistic, not less. If you have an idea, you can turn it into product within 30 minutes, no matter how complicated it is.
There is no product in that anymore because someone else could copy your product in the same time.
This fallacy is second to only every SME believing their jobs are going to be the jobs AI can't replace.
You have QA engineers chiming in about how "QA" isn't going anywhere.. On threads talking about code, tests, and PR reviews being completely automated.. PR reviews being a quality assurance activity..
Cancer deaths are going to sky rocket before this is all over.
I guess my wording was really bad. The point I was trying badly to make: I wasn't thinking about cell-level stuff, but rather human-level observations, experiments, etc. and these are not possible in a lab but only out in the "real world." I don't see AI running anything on that level.
edit: that would be more like medicine, not bio-science
https://learn.hms.harvard.edu/insights/all-insights/how-arti...
Yes, detection with AI is obviously already superior to doctors, but on research I remain skeptical.
AI has essentially stolen my career from me. I _liked_ having to solve complicated problems with software, I enjoyed having to get into the nitty gritty to get things done. I never really cared that much about the actual business problems I was solving, so moving up a layer of abstraction to be some sort of bastardized product manager/architect does not scratch the same itch.
OTOH, for solving problems I care about, AI has been a god send. I can achieve things that I would have never had the time for.
I think we'll see a lot less people willing to share if the end result is just to feed the machine no matter how they arrived at it.
I don't see why I should care about this any more than I cared about "somebody I don't like could read my code and learn from it" in the past. The frontier labs can generate or buy all the training data they need; not releasing your app isn't going to hurt them in the slightest.
Big solo projects exist, they're just not coming out as frequently because of, uh, how time works
[1] Yes, lots of people use dictation instead. I feel like speech-to-text loses you the benefits that speaking has over writing in terms of communication power, plus it's inefficient. I'd rather harness the benefits that writing (really, editing) has.
Don't we see this already a lot? I feel like people constantly say this exact same words.
Now I must pay for codex/claude, and that money goes to billionaires psychopaths. So that sucks as you can imagine
My understanding from reading the lwn article is Linus's implication is more specifically about filtering out people that cannot write code without LLMs or the willingness to spend the money on the tokens required to uphold the quality of the kernel. He does not want to push out developers that do not use LLMs.
Which talk of his gave this impression?
If you can make it solo with an LLM then someone else with an LLM can copy it immediately
That happened at least 20 years ago. How many recent "this product did so great because of the care of software engineering, and now the creator is comfortable for the rest of their life without risk of it being copied" success stories are there compared to "this product chased some trends VCs were nuts about with a slapdash MVP and the founders took out 8 figures from their later fundraising rounds, but then the business sputtered out"?
I think there's an angle with AI tools where business-minded people will have a better chance of doing interesting things now than in the recent past, because you could potentially tailor much more deeply to individual customers with reasonable economics than in the past. There are fields where there's room for a garden of solutions from different small-team vendors appropriate for different use cases instead of a one-size-fits-all SaaS winner-take-all type market in the past. We could kill the old line about SAP around needing to change your business to accommodate SAP instead of customize SAP to accommodate your existing workflow.
But if you aren't business-minded at all there are likely less places that will need to hire as many careful maintainers or novel-software-writers, which obviously is a huge kick in the teeth to a lot of people.
You could also focus on problems. What are the actual problems you want to solve? Can you use software to solve them? Do you still need to buy that software from other companies, or is it now feasible to have sufficient in-house expertise to develop it yourself?
why are you here if you dont enjoy the solving of problems first and foremost?
Can we please, for once, stop trying to figure out how to "get ahead" of each other, and instead figure out how to build a decent and dignified floor for as many people as possible? Because I imagine that, "Ultimate power in the hands of anyone with enough VRAM to run GTAVI," works better when people are in a culture of looking out for each other, versus a culture of clawing their way to one of the limited lifeboat spots (under the mistaken impression that there ARE lifeboats, when, again, everyone potentially has the power to blow up the lifeboats).
You end up with the government deciding how much bread each person needs, how much the bread will cost, how much to pay a person so they can pay the defined price for the allocated amount of bread, etc.
Either utopian claims of an AI and robot-powered future are right and we don't need money because you can just have what you want, or money and resources will still be scarce and we will continue to compete amongst ourselves for resources.
2) America in 2026 is not the USSR in the 20th century, so even if they did, our circumstances are very different from theirs.
3) UBI was only the first suggestion; you completely failed to address the other and then jumped to a black-and-white conclusion.
The general thrust of my proposition was that people shouldn't have to submit to an artificial system of manufactured competition and unnecessary "productivity" in order to access goods that are objectively abundant. When people realize that and make the necessary compromises, they won't have to worry about shipping useless AI-assisted slop for "income security" and can focus on using AI to build consequential and useful software.
Please do not get bogged down in whatever kneejerk anti-UBI thought-loop your misaligned amygdala is screaming at you.
2) I didn't say the US is the USSR. I pointed to a clear example where a UBI-like structure was tried and failed. Feel free to call out specific differences that may help it work better today in the US, I'm genuinely curious despite my skeptism.
3) I can respond to the others as well, but that isn't necessary to have an interesting debate or discussion on any one topic. If one was required to respond to all raised ideas they could try to shut down all conversation by threading together a long list of hard to discuss topics, avoiding responses to any one topic.
I do agree people can avoid having to submit to AI or ML systems though. We ultimately all make our decisions, some more impactful than others, and if we end up in a dystopian future with no jobs and AIs/robots in charge of the world we made that bed for ourselves.
I'm not bogged down in any kneejerk reactions and I'm not parroting what I've heard air bags saying elsewhere. I've read up on the topic, the history of the USSR, and read Marx writings (well the translations, I speak some Dutch but no German). We may disagree, but my views aren't uneducated reactions.
2) >I pointed to a clear example where a UBI-like structure was tried and failed.
You did not.
3) That's not applicable here. Why did you respond to the UBI issue only?
>I do agree people can avoid having to submit to AI or ML systems though.
I didn't speak to this at all. The "artificial system of manufactured competition and unnecessary 'productivity'" is independent of AI and ML and has existed for several decades.
>my views aren't uneducated reactions.
See 1.
My conclusion is that you actually aren't interested in a conversation. You haven't responded earnestly or considerately to anything in my initial post except the portion suggesting UBI, which you dismissed with a faulty presence.
Here is my suggestion: talk about something else from that post. Anything else. Do not revisit the UBI topic.
I did respond earnestly, whether you accept it or if I'm explaining myself poorly. You have yet to propose how a UBI would actually work, or pointed to an example of it ever having worked in the past. Socialism and Marxism have been tried, the don't work. And yes, UBI is an idea that goes back to Marx's writings.
1. “The Soviets tried a UBI-like system and it failed”
The Soviet system was the opposite of a UBI in almost every defining respect.
It was conditional on work. During the 1929–35 rationing period, rationing applied only to people employed in state-owned industries and their family members, and politically disenfranchised “lishentsy” were deprived of rations entirely. There were four ration tiers, and the lower ones couldn’t get basic items like meat and fish. That is a tiered, employment-linked allocation, not a universal one.
Work was legally compulsory. The 1936 Constitution made work an obligation of every able-bodied citizen, on the principle that those who don’t work don’t eat. It also defined the system’s distribution principle as payment according to one’s work. A 1961 RSFSR decree went further and targeted people avoiding “socially useful work.” Joseph Brodsky was tried for “parasitism” in 1964. A system that punishes people for not working can’t be called a UBI.
It wasn’t cash, and it wasn’t the standing system. Rationing was in-kind and episodic. Bread rationing ended in early 1935 and all food rationing by October 1935, then returned in wartime and again during perestroika.
_heimdall’s fallback (that the Soviets lacked a “true UBI” only because they needed people to work, which was “an implementation detail”) concedes the point. Unconditionality is the defining feature of a UBI, not a detail. His causal logic also fails. The Soviet economy’s problems came from state control of production and prices, and a cash transfer leaves prices to the market. That is why Milton Friedman backed a negative income tax: he thought it would address poverty without expanding the state bureaucracy he opposed.
His claim that UBI “goes back to Marx” and so shares socialism’s failures is also unsupported. The histories I found trace the idea through Thomas Paine’s Agrarian Justice (1796/97), Thomas Spence, Joseph Charlier, and later Friedman and Stigler’s negative income tax. In 1968, more than 1,200 economists, including Tobin, Samuelson and Galbraith, signed a call for income guarantees. Marx isn’t in that lineage. Even if he were, a policy’s origin doesn’t determine whether it works.
2. “No one has shown a UBI working” Alaska is the best long-run case. Residents have received a universal, unconditional dividend since 1982, and a peer-reviewed study found no effect on employment and a 1.8-point (17%) rise in part-time work.
3. Other claims _heimdall’s AI/ML reply: fuzzythrowaway’s point was about an economic system that forces people into manufactured competition. _heimdall answered a different claim, about submitting to AI and ML systems. _heimdall’s false dichotomy: he says either post-scarcity utopia or continued competition for resources. UBI proposals assume scarcity continues, so the dichotomy doesn’t engage with them. _heimdall’s “top-down help never lasts”: he gives no evidence. Alaska’s dividend has run for over four decades, and the Social Security Act dates to 1935.
Claude correctly understands my earlier points and expands upon them with the history I was referencing and the rationale I was constructing. Perhaps it puts it more persuasively.
I 100% agree people need a culture of looking out for each other. I'd argue that has only successfully happened sustainably in smaller communities, and from the bottom up rather than the top down.
Take care of your neighbors, and ask them for help when you need it. You aren't proposing this here so I'm not arguing with you, but it never works for long when the "help" comes from the top down. For a short period we may actually see the government take resources from some to help others, but eventually that is corrupted and they stop at the point of taking resources and power.
Can we get a forum for sharing project that were _proudly_ built with AI due how ambitious they are?
I was a fantastic IC and built really amazing software. I'm an even better AI-empowered engineer.
The old era is dead. The new one is exciting.
But even without that, open weight models are already good enough and everyone would be fine with paying unsubsidized prices for them.
Employers previously hired you because cheaper alternatives such as offshoring were impractical…
Now the AI is cheaper, faster, and better than domestic labor and offshoring while still hosted domestically…
Some will feel one doesn’t need an experienced rockstar to babysit an AI…
In about an hour I just solved about 80hrs worth of personal coding/debugging with a portion of a $20/month Claude subscription… Frankly it makes all my knowledge and experience feel kinda worthless… I only gave it a few sentences…
So then, given your knowledge and experience, what challenge would require 80 hours of real, focused work out of you using today’s tools?