speakingmoistly

> Appreciate the insight on a possible standard lack of synchronous versions.

Looking closer at the commit and release history, it looks like poor release hygiene, really. Commits hint at a 0.44.0 release that doesn't show up in tags and the changelog file that is included with the source (in the extension that you pull down and the repository) isn't readily maintained.

The absence of a verifiable link between the marketplace artifacts and the underlying code should probably give people pause about the trustworthiness of the extension. I bet a good chunk of what's on that marketplace is in that situation.

The better place to flag this would probably be on their issue tracker. The release on the marketplace being five hours ago, it's not unlikely that GH releases are manual and lagging behind (seeing plenty of this in projects that publish container images, the updated image comes through Renovate hours before anything shows up on release pages).

I hope their foray into compute works out better than their shoemaking. Bought a pair, didn't even last a season before starting to fall apart (which would still be very on brand for the general AI sector).

Yet another exhibit to add to the "why do we give so much airtime to these folks and their hottakes?" pile.

I'm sure people like Karp would love humanities gone, because that would mean the ethical and social impact of the work they advocate for gets less attention.

Oh neat, thanks for coming back around and looking into it. I had initially looked for the source under the same account as the benchmarks [1] posted with the project, but I didn't expect it to live somewhere else entirely.

Looking forward to taking a look at what you've done there.

[1] https://github.com/Abilash2001/SlimeWeb/

Ironic title given the aggressive paywall.

This is just a manifestation of the same short-sightedness that led to idea of "let's only hire seniors" not thinking too much about how juniors grow and become seniors themselves.

Being more efficient could have meant "same output, less effort", but the obsession with infinite growth warped this into more work. Greed comes in the way of the future we were meant to have.

The way things are going, whether it is or not, I expect someone to push it on their org for a productivity experiment.

"Enterprise-grade compliance" gave me a good chuckle.

To be fair, that's less "cramming AI for the sake of it" and more "people are going to do funky handrolled things, let's make and maintain one thats native to the ecosystem".

I bet there's plenty of internal FastAPI apps duct-taped together serving that exact purpose.

It's a bit odd to see an MIT-licensed work that isn't source-available (unless I missed something, no repository is linked to the PyPi page, and the only relevant repository I could find attached to your account is the benchmark code). It certainly makes it harder to trust benchmarking or quality since it cannot be audited directly - I'd be curious to see if this a Python wrapper for Tokio or if it does something else.

Bold words coming from someone whose success and gravitas largely hinges on the free labour of others and a disregard for intellectual ownership.

Why so?

He's a public persona and was initially picked for a high-visibility position at Mozilla. While he's free to donate to whoever (or more generally, do) as he sees fit, the org is equally free to not want to be associated with that.

In the case of positions that aren't in the public eye, there's more of an argument to be made (although even there, there are lines where you can argue that a contributor doesn't align with the values of the organization depending on what the disagreements are), but if he's meant to represent the group, the expectation of privacy is different.

CI/CD and security audits are activities that help with confidence and kicking the tires after development takes place, but the practice that's really needed here is scrutiny and review from the author of the change and from non-author peers while code is being put together. I'd go further and say that if the intent is to produce a production-ready, secure and well-designed and implemented solution, it cannot be vibe-coded.

A prototype that de-risks the design and that gets trashed before implementation begins would be the right place for vibing.

That's very true, but there's room for some nuance. Because of author inexperience, I wouldn't expect audits and reviews to be comprehensive, but I would expect the questioning to take place. In the case of imports, it doesn't take years of experience to verify that the versions added are latest stable and to generally check out release notes / issues. It's far from enough, but it's something.

Also agreed on the cheaper-to-write bit. Trying to redeem piles of slop into something workable is a fool's errand.

To be fair, that happening feels more like poor management and mentorship than "juniors are scatterbrained".

Over time, you build up the right reflexes that avoid a one-week goose chase with them. Heck, since we're working with people, you don't just say " fix this", you earmark time to make sure everyone is aligned on what needs done and what the plan is.

I think some folks are very quick to drop rigor and care as "traditional practices" as if we're talking about churning butter by hand. One thing that might be valuable to keep in mind is that LLM tooling might feel like an expert, but generally has the decisionmaking skills of a junior. In that light, the rigor and best practices that were already (hopefully) part of software engineering practice are even more important.

> In traditional development, you review versions carefully. With AI-generated scaffolding, that step is easy to overlook.

If in "traditional development", everything is reviewed carefully, why wouldn't it be when some of the toil is automated? If anything, that's exactly what the time that's freed up by not having to scaffold things by hand should be invested in: sifting through what's been added and the choices made by the LLM to make sure they are sound and follow best practices.

> Under the new policy, Amazon engineers must get two people to review their work before making any coding changes.

I wonder if this is adding human review where there was none, or if this is adding more of it.

Did you identify the kind of performance problems you were solving for? Curious to hear whether the source of the lag is known.

The local / "runs entirely on my machine" claim should probably come with an asterisk: the TUI part is local, but this still relies on an LLM API existing somewhere outside the machine (unless you're running an Ollama instance on the same host).

Nonetheless, this is neat!

> Even Khosrowshahi sets boundaries around his personal time: Whenever he’s in town, he blocks off two hours to have dinner with his family. > > But just after the meal ends, he’s back to checking his emails at 9:30 p.m., and goes through his inbox again when he wakes up at 5:30 a.m. > > It’s possible to strike some balance while working hard, he insists—but something will always have to give.

"Whenever I'm in town, I carve out two hours to have a family dinner" doesn't exactly scream healthy balance. I suspect that it's mostly off-work time that "will always have to give".

This very much reminds me of the saying that roughly goes "in the end, the only people who remember you working late are your kids/partner".

Have there really been that many worthwhile releases for Teams? Security updates aside, videoconferencing is definitely a thing that can just be "done" depending on what their needs are.

You don't necessarily need to "keep up", you just need to solve your business problem.

> The pipeline takes an episode from research to published podcast automatically, with quality checks that catch hallucinations and anything that can’t be sourced back to an actual document.

What always gets me with this type of thing is that folks don't trust the LLM to not make things up (rightfully so), but will solve that problem with more LLM. What makes the LLM-based quality checks less prone to derailment?

It's not so surprising to read this further down

> One person can now do what a newsroom did and I don’t think people fully understand what that means yet.

This kind of naïveté is a major contributor to the ongoing spread of LLM-powered disinformation.

It also took them a solid month to fix sorting podcast episodes by date a bit back, essentially broke the experience.

The danger with fencing things off is in how you determine what is fenced off and what isn't. I'm not convinced it's possible to do that without creating something that gets harnessed for censorship or propaganda based on who has the bigger end of the political/economic stick at that moment.

> If your code is no longer private, then you can take advantage of the greatest feature of open source software: community involvement. People are free to submit bug fixes and features to your codebase, allowing you to offload some of the remaining human work involved in managing a product. [...]

The one question that comes to mind, especially because "managing a product" is mentioned, is why would anyone explicitly provide free labour to any sort of profit enterprise?

There's deeper discussion to be had about open source projects that live within corporations at different degrees, but this specific bit feels very extractive unless we're just talking personal projects.

I've seen this posted a few times now, might as well leave the comment I meant to make the first time around: this sounds like a tool solution to a process problem. You're right in that it shouldn't take hours every week to communicate status upwards, but the solution isn't necessarily to automate the whole of it (although automation does have a role to play). The reason why it takes hours is likely because the process in place to do it is flawed (one common mistake that comes to mind is not accumulating notes along the way, which is very quick, and trying to catch up all in one go just before the deadline, which takes a lot more time and effort for a lackluster result). Fix the upstream issue and you'll never spend hours on status reports again.

Other than for the remote desktop part, Tailscale [1] smooths out a lot of this and has a nice access control scheme. I've been a happy user both at the homelab scale and within bigger orgs.

[1] https://tailscale.com/

Curious to hear your reasoning there.

The only argument I've heard to far about how this is the path to betterment relies on getting past a theoretical hump where AI and robotics go further and can replace most labour, and the upper class giving up it's power over the masses voluntarily instead of going further down the same road we're already on.

I can't speak much for the first, but I think trickle-down economics has better chances of working out than the second (i.e. none).

There's many things to be unpacked here, but one that feels particularly compelling is how the potential of AI is being leveraged to divide people further along class lines instead of being a tide that rises all boats. The narrative around AI adoption is largely a rehash of "think of how much more we could do with less", which is generally great for the ones who owns the means of production, not so much for the ones who are on the factory floor. It's quite visible when AI is being used as an excuse to lay people off and expand the expectation on whoever is left without necessarily increasing compensation to follow with the "added productivity". The worker/employee power dynamic is only made worse there since it seems to be a shared corporate wet dream to hire as little as possible and have "digital coworkers" fill the gaps. This isn't a new story: before, it was offshoring to cheaper markets (i.e. where the power dynamics are even more tipped toward the rich), now it's the dream of a digital worker that doesn't talk back and will work 24/7.

There doesn't seem to be much interest in using this to make people work less and engage in the rest of life more, hence the jokes about how somehow, the machines are generating art while folks are still toiling away to make ends meet.

The class division is even in the original message we're responding to: failing to get on the bandwagon or being pushed from it leads to lower income and status despite there being plenty to go around if we only stopped chasing infinite growth.

Does anyone actually ask for this? What problem is it solving other than following the hype?

One of the main things I've gotten out of the whole OpenClaw/Moltbot/Clawdbot situation is that the general public has a dangerously low grasp on information security. There's usefulness to that type of assistant, but I have yet to see a compelling, general consumer take on it.

It however comes with organizations monitoring employees invasively. Harm reduction in all of the above can be achieved by having sane PTO / sick leave policies, and by decoupling healthcare from employment (in the US case).

People are not working while ill or diminished because they love their work, they do it because they do not have the option to take time off to recover without consequences. Of course, businesses won't pick a human decency option and would rather work people to the bone and strap sensors to them to know when to discard them for the next in line as long as it maintains the current power dynamic.