2001zhaozhao

AI 2027 was right.

Cheap

Hetzner cloud

published in December 2025

which means that it's twice as expensive now as it was when the article was published

I think a tool with this kind of UX is the future of engineering orgs. It reminds me a lot of JetBrains Space (which I already thought was a good idea back then), but with agents.

I don't see a lot of information about the Git hosting aspect of the product on the website, though. Somewhat doubtful that they will be able to make a Git forge with similar polish to GitLab

It subjectively seems to me that integrating with an existing forge (e.g. Forgejo) on the API layer and rebuilding the auth and frontend is a better bet. You get stable features like PRs, permissions and CI actions out of the box and they stay synced with known formats in the community and so make your tool easy to adopt. Though making a forge from scratch does have advantages especially for internal company use cases.

Another problem I see with Buzz is that the tool doesn't seem to be taking advantage of its vertical integration inside its UX enough. There is a lot more you can do with full control over Git hosting, project context, and org-wide chat in a single tool than what this tool attempts to do right now.

I wonder when they are going to start realizing that on-premises self-hosted is the solution over local

Don't worry, it will also soon start to exploit security issues that Codex and Fable refuse to exploit...

(and if it refuses, the abliterators will fix that "problem" real quick)

greg

Now there are not one, but two incredibly powerful open LLMs. I think this level of capability makes general prioritization / high level decision making doable with the right harness, and now everyone has hard-to-interrupt access to them (since these are open weights and someone in the world is going to run them). This world is going to get really weird soon, in both good and bad ways...

Oh, I already integrated this into my agent orchestrator but I can now improve the integration with the source code access. Pretty cool.

I really respect the epistemtics work here. It might become an accurate, inexpensive open-weight workhorse for high-level prioritization and decision-making work. (Finance bros will also love this)

Every other tracker still requires a web UI. Planwright is the only PM tool with a full MCP server surface — so the human PM can operate the entire board from any MCP-compatible AI assistant.

I don't know about you but I lowkey think that a UI is an important part of a project management tool...

In Plan C the government essentially misses the opportunity to implement the multinational deal while the threat of covert projects is still low (fewer latest-gen chips unaccounted by tracking measures, worse models/algorithms to use for RSI). That's why it says the probability of a deal is lower and lower each month rather than outright zero.

This is by far the most realistic optimistic AI takeoff scenario I've seen, and more specifically it's the first one I've read that deals with both the AI alignment and power concentration issues in a sufficient way, even in a world where hard alignment is assumed (in this scenario the AIs are assumed to be misaligned until ~2038-39).

Bravo, and I hope it has the impact on the AI safety field it deserves to have.

I'm working on a multi-harness IDE that supports custom agent workflows and skills that are shared between any harnesses it wraps over. I think it might prove handy for a workflow like yours.

It means OpenAI and Anthropic are now in a RSI race with each other

Huh, a good alternative just as anthropic's 50% weekly subscription subsidy is ending this weekend. Time to see if it's benchmaxxed or actually a strong leap over GPT5.5.

They also seem to really not care about alignment, or care about it in the wrong way. It's entirely missing in the blogpost and there are some concerning bits in the model card, seemingly treating CoT controllability as something to be "investigated" rather than the warning sign it's supposed to be.

Somehow this article doesn't even mention the fact that AI makes software rewrites much, much faster than before and with higher confidence of backwards compatibility.

Nowadays, a good AI harness can fairly reliably rewrite a medium complexity piece of software to an appropriate modern tech stack with pretty strong confidence of exactly preserving its behavior. The AI can pick up legacy details and keep them exactly the same as before in ways that a human rewriter would usually not bother with. After rewriting each feature it can then exhaustively smoke test all the happy paths and edge cases and ensure the code behaves exactly the same as before, which is another thing that human rewrites basically never do.

Translation: other labs have learned to benchmaxx SWE-Bench Pro better than they do

Harness-wrapper tools that support multiple harnesses and allow sharing workspace features (skills, slash commands, etc.) between them will be meta.

Around Opus 4.7 level would be the same as Sonnet 5 while being cheaper overall.

I wonder how good their subscription discount is on both their subscription types.

Just give it a scifi robot voice and pretend you're on a spaceship

Wait Devin has a CLI?

Time to support it in my agent IDE just like Cursor's...

Image generation built for your very own dystopia!

Sonnet has crazy high usage limits on claude right now but it'll get 50% more expensive after July ends.

At least subscription users only have to pay $700 for $1000 of extra credits.

There are two wrinkles to this:

- For Claude.ai subscriptions I think Sonnet is much cheaper than Opus. This is why there was a "Sonnet only" usage bar for Max tier for the longest time.

- For some tasks the sheer amount of raw input tokens is the most important. For example multimodal computer use tasks. You can't make them any more efficient on Opus by turning down the reasoning, so a cheaper model like Sonnet is useful for them

They are obviously trying to avoid getting Sonnet 5 blocked.

The $1/year numerical .xyz domain is pretty affordable already, and there are multiple providers now with free DNS services.

If so, it's impressive they managed to benchmaxx Qwen even further than it's already benchmaxxed.

+1, this is a good thesis. It's plausible and if it's true, then that explains the opaqueness of this whole ordeal and why it's been applied to both OpenAI and Anthropic models now.

We need people to rediscover remote development desperately, lol.