rico735

Not sure where you got that from my comment.

Might want to Google Global Crossing. The internet survived, but most giant companies did not.

Doubt the race to the bottom is really good for consumers, unless you actually just want more stuff rather than better stuff. The bubble bursting is going to be pretty horrible financially for us all.

The main thing it seems to have done so far is made everything feel less trustworthy, and everything digital less safe. It has empowered scammers, that's for sure.

And for what benefit? Spunking out 7/10 code a bit faster with your brain turned off. Great!

The post I was replying to was questioning why people are showing doubt here and I was offering up a theory in this specific case. It's not supposed to be helpful or combative, just a thought. I agree with most of what that post is saying tbh.

Mixing security with PR just does not seem a good idea, and a worrying precedent.

PHP handled it correctly, and I trust them. I don't feel the same about OpenAI.

You can have more than one conversation in a thread, and not everything has to be black-or-white!

I didn't say it was made up (hence my comment that the reaction to it's potential was right), I said that OpenAI have used it as a marketing opportunity and muddied the waters in doing so, due to being a historically untrustworthy company who use scaremongering as a marketing technique.

There is a wolf in the boy who cried wolf.

It feels like the problem in this specific case is that the security people have a link to OpenAI, who have a financial interest in this being as big as possible.

PHP were right to make the warning so strict, and people were right to take sites down in precaution. It certainly could have been horrific.

However, OpenAI makes it a boy who cried wolf situation and I've no idea if "we expect to see exploits 15 minutes after the patch is launched" was a genuine concern that thankfully doesn't seem to have happened or them trying to over-state the ability of their models.

Your point is valid about how we need to be more concerned about this stuff, but I just wish it wasn't being played for bragging rights by AI guys. I mean, they had an official php2shell website ready-to-go for the patch launch party, which doesn't help it not look like a PR exercise.

If you ask an LLM to review your code, then it tends to write a lot of code for situations that will never happen. You choose the bits you need. It's actually pretty useful as a code reviewer.

If you don't review the review, my assumption is that it will add a lot of code bulk, which won't break anything now but that bulk could soon fill up context windows and/or require far more tokens in future when you want to maintain it. You'll most likely end up with a project that human's can't maintain.

Code bulk and future maintainability really feel like unsolved problems, and we have no idea what tools or costs will be this time next year.

I'd rather see your reasoning.

AI research started in the 1950s, and has always led to AI winters as promising areas of research peak.

I suspect they are stealing your data when you install the apps, but if these companies are acting legally and not doing that, I can see no way they can avoid model collapse now that the internet is mostly unusable slop.

Have the devs been financially rewarded for their speed or just given more work? Have the customers been charged less?

If "you don't have to review" really is true then the economics are an even bigger nightmare. The value of code has decreased, the "SaaS is dead" claim becomes real, and any good idea can be easily cloned.

Why so sure they will get better and not just plateau? They seem to be doubling in cost each time with less notable gains, the economics seem increasingly shaky, and potential problems with model collapse and context window size has not been solved afaik.

"Most people using it for work already pay API rates"

Citation?

I'm thinking scbench.ai, and the fact that future token costs may become more prohibitive to just use it for everything.

For me, the middle ground is review and keeping a mental model, not never using LLMs. The "Anthropic are our friends and will never fuck us over!" seems pretty naive.

There are ultimately a lot of unknowns at the moment, and it is simply too soon to know if giving up understanding your code base is sensible. People (influencers) have only been saying not to bother reviewing for about a month.

Also, so many vibe coders don't seem to know that you need to keep third party elements patched.

Isn't the core problem that everyone thinks they can now "code", and you have to justify the invisible bits, such as UX and maintenance.

Asking AI to review my code is actually pretty useful... but makes the process slower.

Even projects that you could have done without having to look anything up?

In my experience, it seems to mostly save time on things you don't really know that well, whilst depriving you of the chance to learn new things.

That's not really my point... my point is that it's an unsettled debate between speed and caution, and devs are not unanimous on it, unlike the claim of the original post that seemed to think everyone was reporting the same gains.

The divide with developers at the moment seems to be about people who believe in review & are being cautious (who are not seeing major time gains according to all reports I have seen), and those who trust it to be able to fix things forever and will no longer have to worry about understanding the code, so are happy to atrophy those skills.

Yes, my code will have mistakes, and I'll use LLMs for some tasks. I also review and have a mental model, which means I can easily fix them, no matter what happens in future with AI. Reviewing also means I'm seeing the limitations and common mistakes of LLMs.

A no-review approach will be far faster than this, obviously, but if scbench.ai is still true on the frontier models, it may come back to bite people when they have no idea how it works and the context becomes too big to maintain.

Don't think the 0.2% really are in agreement that "large, complex projects that used to take them weeks/months can now be completed by agents with a prompt".

The divide seems to be between people who think you may need to understand the codebase for maintenance, potential future token costs, optimisation, code erosion & being wary of the assumptions/mistakes that they have seen LLMs make, and people who don't review code and are confident that the AI has made no mistakes and will be available for next-to-nothing forever.

It's certainly allowing the latter to move fast... but will their clients be happy if/when they break things. We'll find out soon, I'm sure.

They usually have terms and conditions to make it YOUR FAULT if you publish something that has copyright, and they have paid loads of legal fees after-the-event for stolen books in their training data. It's never been fair use, just very wealthy people getting away with criminal acts.

Lovable have the following terms, for example - "You assume full responsibility for your use of AI Output and agree not to rely on it for critical or high-risk functions (including medical, legal, financial, or safety-related purposes) without appropriate safeguards. AI Output may be similar or identical to content generated for other users who submit similar prompts. We do not guarantee that AI Output will be unique, free of third-party rights, accurate, suitable for any particular purpose, or that it will build, repair, complete, or improve any application or project or achieve any particular result."

Probably easy enough for Adobe to find a few potential things and still shut it down with the threat of lawfare, I'd have thought. They're very wealthy.

The direction is going to be mostly about money and legality, I'd have thought.

This will certainly be a good test of the latter. Adobe are very wealthy, and presumably one of the enterprise customers AI companies want to get.

Vibe coders just drain them money and will never pay API prices.

But who will win?

Would be interesting if you honestly documented as to if/when it starts breaking old things as you add new features.

scbench.ai suggests this will happen on projects where the human is no longer in the loop, and it's a good sized project to find out.

That's really sad.

I suspect any attempt to market will be where demotivation kicks in. When they entry level is so low, far fewer people are going to bother giving anything a click.

Whilst it is the Astra aesthetic, the expectation of any three.js game will be that it is all surface and no detail, whether someone has put the effort in or not.

There is a theory that they are training them on those benchmark tests. No way to know if that's true, but there is also no reason to trust these companies to not do something like that. They lie a lot.

The "how much time does it save a dev" tests seem a stronger way to measure success, but not seen one of those run for a while.

Not bothered with Astra myself, but the demos I've seen people build don't seem any more impressive on the important stuff. Defaulting to three.js for games just feels smoke-and-mirrors to make them look better, as those games are still as unplayable for the same reasons they were in 2D.

Ultimately the Bun rewrite takes on trust that there was no human review/intervention, even though I assume Anthropic have a lot of very good engineers and it needed to work perfectly for it to be good PR.

I'd be very surprised if there was not a lot more human work than they are making out. They're certainly not a trustworthy source.

If not, do we really think no one at Bun now has a mental model of how their own software works, and only Claude can fix it moving forward?