Odd how you still see announcements of this nature if Anthropic's marketing is be believed.
For me the biggest signifier is Spotify. They claim their (best) devs don't even code anymore, they use an internal AI tool that they just send prompts to which then checks out a personal test build that they can download off of Slack. "A new feature in 10 minutes!"
Okay, if that is the case, why have we only seen like 3-4 minor new QoL improvements in Spotify the last ~12 months, with no new grand features? And why haven't they fired 95% of their devs and let the remaining elite go buckwild with Claude?
The Emperor really has no clothes.
My CEO keeps asking me "how can we go faster with AI", and my answer is "we can't, because even if we had developers that would instantly develop any feature perfectly, we'd still be bottlenecked on how slow we are at deciding what to actually release".
No, they claimed they didn’t code during a time period. Around year end until early this year. Technically they could have just been on leave.
Also best dev = principal / staff engineers. They rarely code anyway.
AI or no AI anyone could have made that claim.
You are seeing improvements? From what I can tell, my user experience has only been going downhill over the past years - even pre-AI...
"Anthropic released vibe coded C compiler that doesn't work" sounds like https://github.com/anthropics/claudes-c-compiler/issues/1 passed through a game of telephone. The compiler has some wrong defaults that prevent it from straightforwardly building a "Hello, world!" like GCC and Clang. The compiler works:
> The 100,000-line compiler can build a bootable Linux 6.9 on x86, ARM, and RISC-V. It can also compile QEMU, FFmpeg, SQlite, postgres, redis, and has a 99% pass rate on most compiler test suites including the GCC torture test suite. It also passes the developer's ultimate litmus test: it can compile and run Doom.
What you’re seeing is a shibboleth. If you can make the above claim without choking, then you’re a member of the tribe. If it seems so outlandish that honor and sense demand you point out the problems, you’re marked as an enemy.
The primary objective is to retarget PyPy on top of the Python main branch. A minor objective is to document what of PyPy can be ported to CPython (or RustPython).
Keep a markdown log of issues in order to cluster and close when fixed
Clone PyPy and CPython.
Review the PyPy codebase and docs.
Prepare a devcontainer.json for PyPy to more safely contain coding LLMs and simplify development
Review the backlog of PyPy issues.
Review the CPython whatsnew docs for each version of python (since and including 3.11).
What has changed in CPython since 3.11 which affects PyPy?
Study the differences between PyPy code and CPython code to understand how to optimize like PyPy.
Prepare an AGENTS.md for PyPy.
Prepare an agent skill for upgrading PyPy with these and other methods.
Write tests to verify that everything in PyPy works after updating it to be compatible with the Python main branch (or the latest stable release, CPython 3.14)
This is the perfect question to highlight the major players. In my opinion, a rapidly developing language with a clear reference implementation, readily accessible specifications, and a vast number of easily runnable tests would make an ideal benchmark.
https://claude.com/contact-sales/claude-for-oss https://openai.com/form/codex-for-oss/
And for what's it worth, PyPy isn't even eligible for the Claude trial because they have a meager 1700 stars on GitHub.
An unmaintainable mass of Ai slop code and the decision to either pay the ai tax or abandon the project.
(I haven't checked the OpenAI one, as I have no interest in them)
I expect they haven't decided that themselves yet and don't want to commit publicly until they've seen how well the program goes.
You know what they could also do? Stop the programs for new enrolments next month. Or if if they renew them like you said, it could be with new conditions which exclude people currently on them.
There are too many unknowns, and giving these companies the benefit of the doubt that they’ll give more instead of taking more goes counter to everything they showed so far.
We should be discussing what is factual now, not be making up scenarios which could maybe happen but have zero indication that they will.
Neither company have expressed that the six month thing is a hard limit.
The fact that OpenAI shipped their version within two weeks of Anthropic's announcement suggests to me that they're competing with each other for credibility with the open source community.
(Obviously if you make decisions based on the assumption that the program will be expanded later you're not acting rationally.)