CodingJeebus

There are all kinds of people out there generating meaningful content on their own terms that will never get picked up by the algorithm. I hate the content mills as much as anyone else, but the fact is that they exist because internet economy rewards them. The entire ecosystem incentivizes the soulless "goo" you describe over the meaningful work people are doing.

Ice T said it best: "Don't hate the player, hate the game".

Getting cheaper due to mandatory spyware that requires networking knowledge to properly isolate and disable. Thanks capitalism!

I think it's a function of growth at all costs (or to put more bluntly, capitalism). TVs need to continuously improve to keep selling, as do video game systems, etc. And graphics are the easiest benchmark to advertise progress, but also some of the most taxing systems to build because they're so complex that there are huge markets of commercial game engines to address this.

Good gameplay requires taste, nuance, experience. Things that are hard to quantify if you're an MBA.

I agree, but how does one begin to enforce a ban like this? Bait-and-switch has always existed in real estate, which is all the more reason to do full due-diligence and inspect the property thoroughly and not just put in an offer sight unseen. If a seller is using AI to that extent, I'd be worried about what else they're hiding about the property.

And I would be pretty nervous about asking any of the frontier LLMs to retrieve invoices:

I watched an accountant YouTuber reviewing a new AI-driven personal finance app the other day (I really need to touch grass), and it started out just fine. He had seeded the account with a bunch of his data and was able to ask questions about which categories had the most spend, etc.

About half a dozen questions in, he asked it to calculate a certain segment of his spend (and being an accountant, he had his numbers memorized), and he immediately got back a calculation that he did not expect. So he asked for an itemized response and it hallucinated line items that never appeared in his account data, which he pointed out to viewers. He followed up with the chatbot with "where did line item X come from?" and the bot acknowledged that it wasn't legit. He immediately noped out after that, and who could blame him?

Shoutout to Patrick. I had the opportunity to see him speak at a conference early in my career and read his salary negotiation essay. Taking the 30 minutes to read that piece has easily netted me an extra 6 figures of income over the course of my career by getting the most out of those critical conversations.

There's not a more tangibly valuable piece of content I've ever read as a professional than that. I send it to every single new grad that I mentor.

I understand the anger and I read the article, which mentions that. The issue isn't the rule, it's that a head of state (and not just a head of state, a head of the largest host state) allegedly called FIFA and asked them to intervene.

This wouldn't be a story if FIFA decided internally that the card should be suspended, but that's not what happened, so here we are.

There's always going to be a gray area when it comes to contact like Balogun's against Bosnia. Refereeing from one tournament to another isn't the same, the World Cup especially has this issue because the refs all come from different leagues around the world, each with their own skill levels and play styles. The technology helps to a degree, especially around more concrete rules like offside, but this will never fully go away, no matter how much process, people or technology is applied.

International football has to be one of the most corrupt communities in sports, which is saying something. Between bribing WC officials to sway votes on World Cup locations and awarding the tournament to a country that saw 6,500 deaths of workers building the stadiums[0], to implementing dynamic pricing at the current World Cup, a move like this feels very par for the course for these guys.

0: https://www.theguardian.com/global-development/2021/feb/23/r...

Agreed, these types of posts often feel like they're missing the forest for the trees. Sure, migrate away from Claude and maybe that will provide some runway, but all of these companies are built on the same economic fundamentals that do not scale.

We are currently in the "$7/mo Netflix with all the good movies" era of AI that will leave and never return.

I don't think it's possible either. DHH pointed out in the most recent episode of Rework that AI removes a lot of the barriers to shipping code, therefore making it possible to build in lots of different directions in ways that was prohibitive to many organizations in the past. But this isn't necessarily a good thing, companies still need to understand what to build in order to ship a cohesive product. AI is great for prototyping and refining use cases in ways that are far superior to static figma designs, etc., but it is not a replacement for taste and execution.

But a slop machine that haphazardly shoots features against the wall to see what sticks still isn't a winning product strategy in 2026. And the problem I see increasingly is that so much energy is being focused on how to deliver with AI internally and externally that is not being expended to advance a company's product. I believe more and more in the idea that for many startups and companies, the actual "customers" are the investors and the product-market fit that companies seek is the product of the company itself, because this is all being driven from the top down, not by customers and users in the market asking for AI features.

Overall, the screwworm program seems like a classic case of something becoming a victim of its own success: a problem got solved so thoroughly that we forget how big of a problem it was, and we gradually undermine the conditions that made the solution possible.

Chesterson's Fence strikes again. It's so easy to wax poetic about how ineffective government spending always is and should be cut to the bone that we don't stop to recognize that preventative programs like this save us from billions in economic losses.

The thread I responded to is about no longer needing to read code at all, not AI-assisted code-review. I definitely use AI-assisted code review. OP is arguing that one day we won't need to read code at all, which I disagree with.

Maybe, it seems like a bad idea for so many reasons though. Take away tactile code review, insert a layer of prompts and tooling between developers and the codebase, and you've created the conditions to let all kinds of nefarious things happen in a codebase. A disgruntled employee updates agent prompts instructing the code review bot to ignore data exfiltration vulnerabilities (because if we aren't reviewing code, we're probably not reviewing prompts either), ships a backdoor, and you better hope that your network monitoring catches it.

I think we're mving towards humans no longer needing to understand a codebase, and letting AI drive it.

Hard disagree. Even the best frontier models generate output that's not what I asked for. Sometimes I realize that I get lazy in my prompting and the lack of specificity winds up showing up in the output. Just the other day, a coworker built a huge feature using frontier models and it slipped an IDOR in.

I just don't see a world in which we completely cede control of the codebase to AI because it's still my ass on the line if I ship something that completely borks production. If I'm not reading code regularly, then I lose the ability to read code, and if I lose that ability, then I'm no longer a developer.

What I have observed through my limited experience, primarily testing docker-based development env setups in podman, is that it's usually not a straight swap.

Not to mention that a government ownership stake also incentivizes a bailout if this all goes bust.

A "push" towards a boring stack? That won't happen because the hype cycle trends towards new tools like water down a river. But if you're looking, I can't recommend Rails enough in 2026. Built on web standards, it's quietly pushing the framework forward and is so much less maintenance than modern JS apps.

The healthcare affordability crisis is only going to exacerbate the trend of using AI as a replacement for a real doctor. I went to urgent care a few months ago to get tested for COVID and two other flu strains and it came out to almost $500.

Anecdotally, several people in my life who embrace less traditional (and sometimes more conspiratorial) views on modern healthcare tend to be the ones that can't afford it. A confident-sounding chatbot to answer questions day and night about what's going on with your body is very seductive in a world where access to real healthcare is getting further and further out of reach.

Altman has done his fair share of "doom-trolling", claiming that his products are going to inevitably disrupt the global order in ways that demand government support and intervention. The entire industry has been marketing this way for years now.

Counter: I often struggled to find a professional "tone" in work communication that matches coworkers, or how to have more difficult conversations, and LLMs make it easier to get a basic idea of how to navigate.

I don't advocate for completely delegating communication and thought to an LLM, but using Claude to prep for the "I want raise and here's why I deserve it" conversation is an absolute game-changer.

Maybe, it's certainly a possibility. I'm skeptical only because of the sheer amount of spending that Anthropic/OpenAI etc. are committed to. A soft deflation only makes sense to me if they start making a more profit-driven motion as opposed to growth at all costs, which I don't see happening.

Zitron's reporting shows that OpenAI's losses are scaling linearly with their growth, and their long-term valuation is based solely on the idea that they will eventually reverse this trend. Anthropic/OpenAI pumping the brakes on growth mode could have ripple effects throughout the entire market.

I think the more likely outcome is that these companies keep burning and demanding cash until investors call BS.

OpenAI did confidentially file their S-1, which costs a ton of money to put together for the bankers and regulators to review. They did test the market and it looks like either the banks or people directly around Altman told him not to move forward. That doesn't mean Zitron was wrong about OpenAI IPOing. They took steps in that direction and then decided not to move forward. That's not his fault.

As far as the bubble bursting soon, we are starting to see some pretty concerning signals. The South Korean stock market triggered trading circuit breakers twice earlier this week to stop a runaway selloff in the tech sector. For reference, circuit breakers have only been triggered in the Korean market 10 times in history, and only 5 times ever in the US markets.

https://finance.yahoo.com/markets/world-indices/articles/kos...

The SpaceX IPO prospectus states that the company is targeting a TAM of $28.5T, equal to roughly a quarter of the world's gross economic output.

Patrick Boyle said it best. Roughly 1 billion people on the planet make more than $12k annually (folks with "discretionary" income). Divide that TAM of $28.5T by 1B and the every single person needs to give SpaceX ~$28.5K every year forever in order for that figure to make sense. It's more than 3x what the planet spends on food currently.

Respectfully disagree. From my view, the tech industry hasn't behaved in a way that regards long-term interests over short-term interests in a very, very long time. Much of the innovation is simply finding new and creative ways to shrink this loop even further, and vibe-coding/slop is just the latest manifestation of that.

I call out Boris but I also don't think he's being malicious.

From a market perspective, he's acting completely rationally in his own interests. Bottom line is that these companies need to do whatever they can to keep growing token consumption because that's their goal.

If the nation's drinking skyrocketed, we wouldn't be sitting here wondering why the CEO of Budweiser isn't advocating for temperance. His job is to move kegs, just like Boris' job is to move tokens.

There was a lot of anti government rhetoric and fear mongering (from libertarians) but the public never really believed the story was true.

The public never believed it because it runs squarely into the basic fundamentals that underpin the global financial system.

The finance industry learned long ago that currencies have to be stable and predictable in order to be trusted, and therefore NOT financial instruments to speculate heavily on. There's been this reality distortion field that crypto can be both a currency and speculative asset, but that hasn't borne out. If your digital dollar can gain/lose 5% of its value in a day, how do you trust it to transact with?

Crypto has been speed-running into many lessons we learned decades ago from the "Free Banking" era before the Fed, back when states ran their own banks, currencies, etc. Government got involved in banking management as a way to improve the stability and security of the financial system since things like fraud were rampant.

The world where OpenAI stops training because it's too expensive is a world where everyone else has given up even earlier.

With the commodification in this space, I don't see how that ever happens. The allure of free, local AI that competes with SOTA is enticing to all of the same people that are currently willing to pay for it. With governments wanting to take stakes in these companies and fears of widespread job loss, there's always going to be energy to pry these tools away from the few who currently control them.

Whether they succeed is a different question, but the pressure to keep improving will not stop anytime soon and will continue to force frontier labs to keep throwing money into the furnace. And for as long as that remains true, excluding training costs from expenses is disingenuous.

I don't understand the logic around excluding the training costs and pointing to that as profitability. FOSS models are not that far behind, the day that OpenAI announces that they're done training models is the day that everyone focuses their energy on getting as close to SOTA output on free models.

These companies have to keep training because that's their moat, hyping the next big model is only thing keeping the market from asking the real questions about growth capability.

And this article doesn't even dive into whether the 50% of planned capacity currently under construction is even on schedule (my guess is that it isn't).