Malware behavior.
Broken functionality.
19 karma · joined November 23, 2025
This is one thing no nation would want to do. This is one thing no business would want to do. So yeah.
I'm not seeing the open internet as it once was. A new Claude model too capable to be released since the guardrails can't be guaranteed, this means walled gardens are coming up.
Local inference. Closed circuit inference. Trust me. The walls are being built as we speak.
On the other hand. SWE UNITE! If big companies eject them, SWE could federate into bigger companies. They certainly got the skills. Dump enough talent on the market and you are feeding the competition at a faster rate then ever. Nerd revolution 2.0. Big companies will be left in the dust, after the initial boost.
And this only if, and only if, no bubble will be burst :)
But, isn't the chat window a shell?
If not. AI is the tool to get "here" faster. And then go from here to there.
All you need is to take a little time to learn how to use this new tool: AI.
Take time to learn.
Have you taken the time to document what mathematicians were able to do with AI? What researchers were able to do with AI? They took the time to learn the AI tool. Then they used it with great results.
What are you waiting for? Learning is something you should also do. Go do it.
No mystery here.
Mastering a certain form of internet search does not mean you are learning, it means you are mastering, to some degree, a tool to search. Shortcuts are OK here, per me. Learning comes when you actually go beyond tool-use skills.
To be more explicit, the time learning a tool is not time used learning, it's time used preparing for learning. AI cuts that, if you want, and you get straight to actually learning something instead of tripping over tools and infrastructure, becoming too overloaded to be able to see the forest from the trees.
One, if cognitive overloading is not in the article, then it's good, it means I actually put some thought in the responding effort.
Two, AI expands possibilities for those that want that, and offer shortcuts for those that want that. No different from any other learning process: you could actually learn something or you could just do it. It makes sense, not all humans seek learning, but most humans look for results and answers.
There was/is constant progress that constantly demanded/demands more tech. Without more tech, the progress would have/would stalled.
AI is a tool to help you see the forest from the trees.
You reading articles the old fashion way can be akin to seeing the trees but not seeing the actual forest.
Young minds tend to learn. How they do it, the old fashion way, the new AI way, they will learn.
Many blank out in school on different subjects and the cognitive overload byproduct follows them all their life making them wary of new things.
And finally, maybe you, personally, are reaching a limit in your comprehension of the modern world, and you show it by fighting the wrong battle with the wrong arguments.
Or maybe you are onto something.
But since CEOs, or any other bosses, need to make a living, they will eat the liability in exchange for wealth, and leave engineering in the dust.
If engineering owns quality, then engineering own all, up the chain. No need for anything and anybody.
Which is the AI pipe dream, really.
You are, in fact, with using AI, QA or coding or otherwise, externalizing services in hope the services will improve and costs will drop.
Let me know how that goes without HITLs.
I propose a new paradigm: programmer experience, PX.
So, code generated by AI ideally would follow the rules of PX. Whatever those may turn out to be.
If the goal was to complete the circuit, arriving at start point A, that means you have to travel both tundra and hike the mountain, no matter the order.
If B was the goal, then yes, it makes sense to choose C over D or vice versa.
Mesa enforced rules may well be ignored, is this true?
Mesa is yet another exercise in passing the responsibility to a magical system.
Tests and human review vs. Mesa: battle grounds.