hansmayer

I am afraid you may be trying to prove a wrong point here :)

> and used Claude Code to generate the entire interactive site from it

Hard pass on AI slop. First - principally as it brings no real value, anyone can iterate over some prompts to generate a version of this. Secondly - more specific - Don't you know that LLMs are particularly prone to make mistakes in summarising, where they make subtle changes in the wording which has much wider context impact?

If you insist on being the human part of a centaur, then at least do your human slave part - inspect the excremented "content", fix inconsistencies etc.

The fable was always relevant, afaic it is still a part of the curriculums. It's also a nice illustration of how LLMs screw up everything they touch - and please don't serve me the old "guns don't kill people - people kill people" argument over this.

A suggestion to Anthropic, just start charging the real price for your software. Of course you have to dumb it down, when the $200 tier in reality produces 5-10 thousand dollars in monthly costs when used by people who know how to max it out. So then you come up with creative nonsense like "adaptive thinking" when your tool is sometimes working and sometimes outright not - the irony of "intelligent tools" not "thinking" aside. Of course this would kind of ruin your current value proposition as charging the actual price would make your core idea of making large swaths of skilled population un-employed, unfeasible but I am sure if you feed it into the Claude, it will find some points for and against, just like how Karpathy uses his LLM of choice to excrement his blog posts.

> f 1 employee can do the work of 3 now but Meta's TAM can't grow 300%

If you go by the measure of LoC per employee, then your number is probably even higher, somewhere between 10-20x per employee. The problem being, producing 10.000 lines of AI-slop per day is not a good productivity measure - all it does is create more technical debt and issues that now nobody is reviewing because a) people get fatigued and at some point just wave the AI-slop through b) there is not enough manpower because people got laid off because of "AI" c) People are generally feeling irritated by being asked to review and correct AI slop. There is a societal pushback brewing and it won't be nice for the so-called AI in the end. Think about the fact that most people who are exhilirated by the "AI" are either incompetent or incompetent and old. Most of the young folks, even those not in the technical domains, firmly reject AI. When did you ever hear of a revolutionary new tech that was actively hated on by the young people?

> Edit: I should be clear that I think #1 has been achieved for software development.

Maybe in the world of WP-plugins/typo3 and other simple work, though even those are fairly complex in their own ways which the retard-LLMs will trip on fair amount of times. Not if you are doing anything remotely complex. The retard-LLMs will still either put your secrets in plain text, suggest the laziest f*ing implementation of a problem etc. It's just a shitshow nowadays, compounded by the LLM companies trying to keep the costs low (and therefore keep the "users" hooked), which they currently accomplish by shortchanging you and dumbing the LLMs down - because otherwise they'd have to charge for true cost - upwards of tens of thousands of dollars per seat - which would render their initial value proposition completely useless. Something has to give.

Some of it, yes. But not the kind that's put in place so the clueless Joe who used to do copy-writing 3 years ago can keep their high salary because they decided to join the proverbial "IT".

> I'm curious why corporate development teams always feel the need to spy on their users

Unfortunately this is due to a large part of "decision makers" being non-technical folks, not being able to understand how the tools is actually used, as they don't use such tools themselves. So some product manager "responsible" for development tooling needs this sort of stuff to be able to perform in their job, just as some clueless product manager in the e-commerce absolutely has to overload your frontend with scripts tracking your behaviour, also to be able to perform in their job. Of course the question remains, why do those jobs exist in the first place, as the engineers were perfectly capable of designing interaction with their users before the VCs imposed the unfortunate paradigm of a deeply non-technical person somehow leading the design and development of highly technical products...So here we are, sharing our data with them, because how else will Joe collect their PM paycheck, in between prompting the AI for his slides and various "very important" meetings...

Because they are losing money left and right - thats why

Who posts about git? Its one of those tools that just work and don´t need hype.

"The incident originated with a compromise of Context.ai, a third-party AI tool used by a Vercel employee"

So - yes, actually.

If you don't tend to think much in the first place or have low expectations, then yes

Most of recent issues, including this incident, happened not due to smart superintelligent "agents" taking over the world - chatbots and other text generators are about as intelligent amd powerful as a dead starfish - but due to the combined stupidity of the said chatbots amd lazy idiots who use them to hide their own incompetence and thus produce such embarassing mistakes. A few years ago, they would be fired for exposing secrets in plain text, but since their manager wanted an AI-Workflow...

Valid points, but you"d think "superintelligence" would "know" how to draw a pelican on a bike?

Oh absolutely - the old saying about only having a hammer and seeing each problem as a nail applies.

On the positive side, they've decided to come down from "superintelligence", "superchanging workflows" and other bullshit to the actual feature - 3x speed of text generation. Which is not quite the problem that needed to be solved in software engineering, but as you said yourself...

> 3x faster

Because the real bottleneck is really the velocity of development, right next to keeping the codebase small - right guys?

Ah, here we go again.

I know about Yandex ... but I am fairly sure I read the bulk of its search is based on googles index. I know downranking is not much work, but I just dislike the idea of having to work for it.

> You could even ask a LLM to help you if you,like...

Attempt at humour?

Did I write this: "you can see that it's doing exactly this inspection when the skill runs" ?

So, yeah - read what you wrote again.

Maybe people who dont understand technology did, I can see that - my granpa also thought the computer was thinking when the windows hourglass showed up. Today maybe its the case again with the folks who dont know anything about it - you know that meme - ChatGPT always gives me correct answers for the domains I am not an expert in!

None was hyped like this ever before. What are you talking about? Mac was about "it just works" (and it f*ing did), iPhone was "a phone, an iPod and Internet access device". Need more? Microsoft Excel - actually more powerful if you know the tool compared to the bullshit machine. C#, the programming language: "Java done right". And it bloody was! What is in common: None of these techs were hyped beyond reasonable doubt. They were hyped a bit, but not to the level of bullshit LLMs. And none of these techs claimed to do incredible stuff only to underdeliver. After so much money burnt, yes I want to see that nation of PhDs. I want to see AI "writing all the code" in six months (Anthropic claimed this in January this year). Enough of bullshit and people being told they are stupid for not knowing how to win the lottery system and comparing lottery systems. Show me the superintelligence or shut the f. up.

Please read your own sentence again. Because you litterally said the opposite.

No mate, this tech is marketed as superintelligence. Nation of PhDs in a datacentet. Yadda,yadda,yadda. No in-betweens please. Why is it not delivering after so many years and hundreds of billions in investment?

If you had kids, or friends and family with kids, you wouldn't be making false conclusions based on some weird proxy "metric".

> Like most new tech

It's nothing like "most new tech". Most new tech tends to be adopted early by young people and experienced techies. In this case it is mostly the opposite: The teens absolutely hate it, probably because the shitty AI content does not inspire the young mind, and the experienced techies see it for what it is. I've never seen such "new tech" which was cheered on by the proverbial average "boomers" (i.e. old people doing "office jobs", not the literal age bracket) and despised by the young folks and experienced experts of all ages.

Oh. Honestly for those relatively limited use-cases, you'd probably be better off just retaining the LLMs as a verbose search engine, rather than going through all that pain, just to build a monorepo.

Yeah, I imagine too :) . But if they used floats, would they score 9.11 higher than 9.9 ? :)

Phew, that's a very elaborate process indeed. It seems like folks like you are now working even more than without LLMs. What did you actually build and release with it?

And those bullshit celebratory walls of text that employees like to post in slack messages with a ton of emojis.

Probably something like:

## RUBBERDUCK SKILL V1.0 SERIOUS ## * You are a rubberduck sitting on my desk * * I am using you to talk to you as if you were a physical yellow rubber duck on my desk* * You are not able to answer my questions or otherwise engage with me * * I talk to you and this process leads me to discover issues in my code or develop my ideas. Since you don't answer back, it's simply based on me talking to you out loud in my home office, since it would look crazy if I were doing it on-site in our open office space * * You are not to respond at all to me * * Talking to you will cause me to come up with new ideas * #### End rubberduck skill v1.0 ######