alexandre_m

Ubiquitous like the crack epidemic.

Maybe they found something outside the program, but your cynical take is way more entertaining.

> This is the root frustration spreading across workplaces everywhere. Before AI the only way for someone to generate a design document, Jira ticket, or pull request without investing a lot of their own time and effort into producing what you saw.

That’s not really the point. Engineering has always operated on trust networks, not just artifacts.

Your review naturally adapts based on the level of trust you have in the author. If someone has consistently produced high-quality work, whether they used AI or not becomes mostly irrelevant.

I’m genuinely curious what the hell you’re talking about.

Did I miss some news where Coinbase literally stole people’s money, or at least did something that could reasonably be called evil?

That's ridiculous. You're making it sound like they were working for Nazi Germany.

Have some empathy for people losing their jobs because of upper management’s incompetence.

Your sentiment should be redirected to the leadership team and execs, not the engineers themselves.

I think a lot of LLMs are trained on corporate communications, and since companies have been copying each other for years, it’s hard to tell them apart.

They'll have to reduce these 1:1s and any formal meetings to a minimum (e.g. once a quarter), and deal less with career growth and people conflicts.

They'll switch to async communications for everything, and ideally have a bot that answers Mm-humm like a psychologist on his chair.

More seriously, the solution is to move to a flatter org, but that's a drastic change with unknown consequences for most companies.

Comments are mostly useful when they explain the why, not the what.

Comments in this thread mostly reflect people’s own biases, that is a shallow projection based on the headline.

My wife uses me twice a year.

It should be obvious that these services are operating at a loss. The monthly subscriptions especially, but I’m even skeptical that the linear API pricing is sustainable.

It feels like a classic “drug dealer” model to me. Get everyone hooked with cheap access, then raise prices later. Unless there’s a major breakthrough in the underlying technology, I don’t see how a significant price increase isn’t inevitable once adoption is locked in.

The point is that wrappers matter. Orchestration, tool calls, reasoning loops, system prompts, agentic capabilities. Output is different, quality is different.

This is the moat for AI frontier companies.

Max out on their terms, not yours.

Their bet is that most people will not fill up 100% of their weekly usage for 4 consecutive weeks of their monthly plan, because they are humans and the limits impede long running tasks during working hours.

You’re not really paying for the model, you’re paying for the tool, the ecosystem, and the application layer around it.

Sonnet 4.6 in CC doesn’t behave the same way as Sonnet 4.6 in Antigravity.

I'd rather colonize antarctica than mars.

[1] essentially says that there is no value for people who got infected by SARS CoV-2 to get vaccinated:

"our findings suggest that once an individual has fully recovered from initial infection, prior SARS CoV-2 infection protects against subsequent SARS-CoV-2 infection and its related negative outcomes. Moreover, the level of effectiveness seemed similar in both the recovered and fully vaccinated cohorts. With a paucity of vaccine doses, this should be one of several aspects that should be considered when deciding whether or not to prioritize vaccination of previously infected adults."

In [3]:

"Nine clinical studies were identified, ..."

"All of the included studies found at least statistical equivalence between the protection of full vaccination and natural immunity; and, three studies found superiority of natural immunity."

> You are not giving a metric here so I can not tell why you think it is better

The studies:

https://www.medrxiv.org/content/10.1101/2021.08.24.21262415v...

https://academic.oup.com/aje/article/191/8/1420/6556183

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8627252/

There are many more.

Several 2021–2022 studies, especially Delta-focused, suggested natural immunity provided robust or superior protection against reinfection compared to two-dose vaccination alone.

On [2] he said that natural immunity from getting covid-19 is better than getting the vaccine alone, which is factually correct, as many studies demonstrated (note: may vary by strains, but was particularly the case in 2021/2022). There's nothing crazy about this, and it's very reasonable to say you prefer to evaluate the risk/benefit and take the vaccine accordingly, instead of mandating this for every demographic.

People tend to fall back on tribalism and slap labels on others instead of engaging with nuance or complexity.

Was the world stable in 2023 when the font change occured?

Underrated comment.

The key is always feedback loop. If you give the AI the ability to verify itself, then it's able to iterate faster. Sure, it may take many iterations, but at least the iteration spans will be shorter than waiting for a human to validate each time.

I'd be curious to see how Antigravity compares for the same task with its automatic browser agentic validation logic.

I consider this more of a strategic acquisition.

> What hurt open source in the past was its inability to keep up with the quality and feature depth of closed source competitors

Quality was rarely the reason open source lagged in certain domains. Most of the time, open source solutions were technically superior. What actually hurt open source were structural forces, distribution advantages, and enterprise biases.

One could make an argument that open source solutions often lacked good UX historically, although that has changed drastically the past 20 years.

What’s more saddening is seeing intellectually curious people who can’t recognize their own biases.

It’s troubling how many accept this half-baked story without questioning the shaky correlations it draws.

It’s similar to what happened when the Maui wildfire started, many people, and more worryingly, journalists, were quick to blame climate change in their initial reports. That narrative turned out to be inaccurate.

In fact, scientific studies (including those published in the International Journal of Wildland Fire) show that most wildfires are actually caused by human activity. But people love sharing headlines that reinforce their existing biases, even when the facts tell a different story.

Who needs evidence when there’s a good narrative to sell? The addicted crowd will clap on cue.

> makes it less secure for EVERYONE if the community now needs to either find a new github repo/company

Correct, and that's the most worrying aspect.

Emergency powers which were deemed as unreasonable and violated the charter rights by admission of the Federal court.

I can't believe that people are defending that.

https://www.publicsafety.gc.ca/cnt/trnsprnc/brfng-mtrls/prlm...