munksbeer

The design of the EU which gives the member states elected politicians (heads of state) the most power is very intentional.

This is a bizarre argument. Emmanuel Macron sits on the EU Council. He has no democratic mandate?

The entire point of the EU design is that ultimately the member states national governments (the heads of) are the most powerful and set the direction. It was done this way because people didn't like the idea of EU ministers. There was even a huge objection to the change that introduced the Parliament, the MEPs that you are now saying should hold ultimate power.

And this is the problem. People decide up-front that the EU is "not democratic" and then they adjust their arguments and data to fit this narrative.

The EU Council are the democratically elected leaders of the member states. How is them deciding the direction not "democratic"?

Please could you cite your sources for this.

I think what you've typed is not representative of what happened here. My understanding is that the EU Council forced this second-reading, not the Commission.

To provide evidence for my argument: https://fightchatcontrol.eu/

Look at "Timeline". This is the Council, not the Commission. This is your elected heads of state. This is "democracy" in action.

"Council and EPP attempting to bypass Parliament With negotiators still deadlocked on core issues, the Council and the European People's Party (EPP) are trying to sidestep Parliament by reviving the expired Chat Control 1.0. The Council plans to fast-track a rewritten proposal with identical content, effectively circumventing the Commission's right of initiative, democratic oversight, and a fresh opinion from the European Data Protection Supervisor (source)."

Because it is so insanely useful, having it cut off is quite jarring.

You didn't address my point at all.

> The member states want to reactivate the transitional regulation for voluntary monitoring of messages by technology groups, which expired on April 3, in an expedited procedure. The Council adopted a corresponding position for a “new” regulation on Thursday via written procedure to close a looming legal loophole and increase pressure on MEPs.

This is the EU Council pushing it. The elected heads of state of the member nations. The Commission just do their bidding.

For what it's worth, I love GeForce Now. I no longer need to maintain a gaming PC, find somewhere to keep it, etc. I was so sceptical that streaming games could work but it does, and it is amazing.

>Technically, this is meant for bypassing the EU commission. But of course, in reality it is for getting past the Danish and potential Belgian and Hungarian and other's vetoes. The commission really wants this.

Excuse me? That is quite an assertion. You're saying the EU Commission, the civil servants appointed by the EU Council, are somehow controlling the EU Council to push this agenda?

I don't believe that is true. Please provide evidence.

In the article, it talks explicitly about this being driven by the heads of state.

You're blaming the wrong people and making this worse.

The article is literally about the EU Council, the elected heads of states of all the EU nations. The elected leaders of the EU nations really, really want chat control. The Commission has nothing to do with this.

The EU Commission does the bidding of the elected EU Council. The Commission is sort of a civil service.

Denmark seem to be the ones pushing chat control the hardest.

What sort of proof are you expecting from another poster on hn?

I am what you might call an AI enthusiast. I've embraced it for coding, and find it has refreshed me.

But the stuff you're talking about here drives me nuts.

> Everything voted on was already decided between the commission and lobbyists before behind closed doors.

Please stop spreading this nonsense. The Commission acts on directives from our elected national representatives. They get a broad or narrow agenda and work towards that.

I haven't tried this model. We have a corporate plan for several models, and they are liberal with our spend, because we're always in an arms race with our competitors in our industry. So any advantage we can get, we need to take, or we lose edge/market share.

We have access to anthropic models, openai models and google models.

I run all my sessions on their best models with max thinking, because I don't care to optimise token usage at this stage. We are still learning every day about how to optimise our workflows, but I will say that I don't typically experience what you're describing.

I have very opinionated AGENTS.md files at the repo level, and at various other levels in the repo where more specialised rules are needed but I don't want those in my context unless that specific section of the codebase is going to be used or touched. I make a lot of use of skills. And my sessions are almost all "spec driven" in the sense that I type out an opinionated requirement to the LLM, tell it to challenge my thinking, to push back, to iterate on its own thinking, then to formulate a plan, then once done, go over it again to find any issues. I will then review the plan, or wing it, depending on the task. I then look at the overall code structure and design it has done. I have strong, opinionated coding rules in my AGENTS file. I have strong testing requirements (mostly end-to-end, not unit style).

I get really good results from this. But, I will say we're working in a highly opinionated codebase. We have the fundamentals in place already, where there are rules for how you do everything. The agent follows those rules pretty well. I'm not sure how well it would work on a codebase that is messy with a lot of conflicting design principles.

Look at the state of the comments on that thread.

"This is completely false! Code is review is to ..." proceeds to state an opinion.

Sometimes, some days, I just look forward to not having to deal with programmer hubris ever again.

That is exactly my point.

This is me too. First access to the internet was through a dial-up to a "bulletin board" (via a girlfriend's fathers account). From there you could launch a shell and get (I will get things wrong here) lynx, gopher, usenet, telnet (muds), etc.

Then I went to university and we got access to the internet directly there, but in the country I grew up in, it was pretty much only university students on IRC etc at the the time. Within a couple of years the commercial providers sprung up and "everything went downhill" (the sentiment being expressed here).

This is just life in general. Every generation thinks it is unique in growing older and thinking how much worse things have got since when they were young (or their parents were young). You can find examples of this in very old literature.

You can also see this in many threads here on hn.

The problem with this argument is that there are an infinite amount of "crackpot" views that then need to be "acknowledged" and engaged with.

Misleading misinformation. The EU laws come from direction set by the Council (elected representatives from the national parliaments). Then their chosen civil service (the Commission) formulate and propose those laws based on the direction set by the Council. Then the EU elected MPs vote on the laws.

That is not less democratic than how many countries operate.

>If you see people saying it often, but you are convinced they are just feeling threatened, what AI generated software would point to to say, "Look at this! Definitive evidence that they are just coping!"

This is a trap. Anyone who answers this will see the goalposts being moved yet again.

95% of our code at a top in market global fintech is now written by agents. We make it write good code, and it does.

I don't know who you're talking about. Am I missing some context here?

>But we also have years of research about how social media and other internet phenomena are ruining kids' lives.

That's not the question. Some group is obviously pushing this agenda globally. Who?

You can't restrain the power of the Council. The Council is the member states. What you're proposing would take power away from the member states and hand it to, who? People already think the EU is undemocratic, imagine after that.

The main problem is that people still do not understand how the EU works. They don't understand that almost everything comes from the direction the member states push from the Council.

And in fact, I think the member states like it that way, or why else wouldn't they educate people more?

> Would you still believe this if Chat Control got though?

Chat Control is being pushed by member states. The people who keep saving you are the MEPs (elected EU MPs).

You would most likely already have chat control if you were not in the EU. All governments around the world are pushing for this.

The Council is the member states.

The Commission are their appointed civil service and work on whatever agenda is set by the Council (the member states).

Almost everything people complain about coming out of "the EU" originates in the national elected governments.

About the only ones actually protecting the people of the MEPs (the elected EU MPs). They keep shutting this sort of stuff down, and then some member state (mostly Denmark it seems) finds a way to resurrect it again, and again, and again. They only need to succeed once.

Yes we understand all code merged. Yes, I have coding rules and standards that the agent follows to ensure it writes code in virtually the same style as the whole team does. Someone isn't going to let my change be merged if they don't understand it.

My hunch however is that in a few years we're not going to be reviewing as heavily as we improve guardrails and can trust the AI code and review cycle more. I'm not sure what to expect for my career at that point.

We still review everything. And we guide by planning, prompting, speccing.

So we're not actually much faster at the core code, because reviews still take time. Ultimately, we're on the finance markets and we have regulatory pressures and I, as the human, am responsible for putting the code out there.

But we're freeing up a lot of time to get other things correct. We have n x more metrics now because plumbing in basic stuff is now trivial. We now have dozens more tools and skills to help analyse issues (e.g. why this price and not x), answer questions, etc.

I now have skills to scrape logs, download unpack and scape our bus persistence, link to kdb, and so on, all in my claude prompt, joining it all together and the AI is figuring things out. I can diagnose things, I don't know, maybe 100 times faster?

It is revolutionary, and I am highly sceptical of the motivations of people who keep saying otherwise.

Isn't it just the same thing? You loan the company money and in return they give you a note that says you get a portion of the company and dividends?

Different mechanics, but stripping everything away, roughly the same.