cush

They just banned algorithmic pricing in seattle grocery stores. What that means and how they can possibly enforce it, I have no idea.

5000 messages doesn't seem like a lot. Is that per agent or total?

We’re currently entering that time and people are quickly learning that empirical evidence is the new output. It’s the difference between “I think the bug is here” vs “I fixed the bug and here’s the evidence I gathered from user telemetry”

Disclosing that you got some info from an AI is way better than not. We’re all using AI in some capacity just be transparent about it. If you didn’t read the findings then say it. As always there’s nuance and it depends

It’s an agent that’s always-on and can do things proactively. It’s not an app so it’s not limited by your device.

Turns out you you just need taste and the time to iterate

This is such a genuinely useful way LLMs can truly help people. A maze of thousands of information-heavy pages distilled into a single input box. A lot of people get stopped short when presented with too much information - it's daunting. Stuff like this, while super boring and obvious and uncool, totally enables people

yeah I thought the post was going to be satirical

Kids will turn anything into a chat room. My nephew has this Google doc all his friends use to chat in in school. They just type in the page.

Haha I’m the same way but this is why pens come in a pack of 20. My guy get a cup. Fill it with pens. Put ten in your car and five in every room.

Seriously there’s zero benefit to be writing CLIs in typescript in 2026

Haha true. This is why paper and pen are so hard to beat!

This would be cool if you could write on it with a stylus. I can’t imagine typing on my fridge - too clunky

Every emerging leader should listen to this podcast as an example of how someone can literally go insane with power. It’s scary to listen to.

You’re underselling how insane he seemed. Jenson’s behavior on that podcast was completely unacceptable. So much hubris and interrupted constantly. He presented so many complete unknowns about the future as obvious and matter of fact to him. The man has completely lost his mind.

Sorry I just don't get it. It's a massive problem when a designer needs permission to force push to a repo to update a bug. These boundaries exist for a reason.

Right but it's all this ceremony that kind of all begs the question - why git? What's the motivation behind using git to do all this if the repository (where the code lives) and the tickets (bugs in the product created by building the code), are naturally out of sync? eg in many cases a bug can't be closed until someone verifies it's fixed, which happens after merge. The point at which a bug is marked as verified is arbitrary with respect to the commits and code. It's just a radom point in time as far as git is concerned. To me there's no need for git to be involved in any way and a url to a ticket in a commit message is far superior in terms of tracking

Wouldn't it require constantly pushing/fetching? Or would it effectively be like a hosted thing with a service layer on top of git showing a live view of the repo's tickets? Like github but for tickets... oh wait...

To me, tickets need to be too broadly accessible for anything like this to be viable. Any barrier to entry to creating tickets means people aren’t filing them. Every role at every level looks at them and edits them.

Yeah yeah we don’t want a centralized service, but it’s the ideal use case for a centralized service.

I look forward to it looking absolutely nothing like these concepts

The actual outcome. The fact this post is even being commented on - that hackers have discovered a way to influence the models - is but one small proof. The vast majority of data coming out of LLMs these days is truthful enough that you're going out of your way to argue that this special case is noteworthy. The idea that the ingestion of data is "uncritical, and based on the assumption that all data is of equal quality" is ridiculous

That too, is an assumption. I think what you mean to say is they're not perfect at determining what data is wrong or deceptive

Kind of clever. Not sure what this has to do with Opus 5.5 though. Creating an html presentation with transition animations has been a thing since Opus 4.6 - Recording it with playwright/ffmpeg doesn't seem like a model thing.

They don’t assume all data is of equal quality

Until there’s real civil liabilities around how companies use and share data there will never be an economic reason for any company to respect their consumers. When the data is worth more than the core business, the equilibrium is completely thrown off. It’s the same forces pushing AI companies to effectively give away inference while their chatbots convince teenagers to commit suicide. You are the product.

Is YC seriously still invested in this trash?

Totally agree. Opinions are cheap. People can be drawn to “horrible” art, and small artists - especially social media managers - right now are creating intentionally bad mspaint.exe 1994 aesthetics because AI art looks like it was created by real artists, and it’s the only way to differentiate

> does training require a special, separate, license or can you legally acquire a work and then use it for training?

No. But it's not about current precedence or legality because the legal framework for accurately (according to general moral and societal acceptance) is decades behind where it needs to be. The courts will decide over the next few years.

> final exam essay from an anxious student

It's because so many of these models were trained on corporate content, which is the exact same vibe. "We're going to drone on for pages about how great we are for building the thing without explaining what it can do for you or how to use it, because spending real effort connecting with our customers isn't something we ever learned climbing the corporate ladder"

Yikes. That’s some deep entitlement.

Unfortunately in the real world there’s this thing called money, and we exchange it for goods and services. The reason information isn’t free is because it costs time to produce it and people need to be fed.

If you believe that a creator doesn’t need to consent and doesn’t deserve credit or compensation for their work, then you’re likely not someone who has many fundamental needs unmet

These AI companies actively chose not to get consent from creators and earn billions from their content with no compensation.