afavour

No, that’s why there is a concern. They’re replacing human relationships with things that superficially look like human relationships but have no depth.

Sending an AI to close the deal doesn't tell the other party that you're there to make sure the deal happens

But they’ll have an AI CEO too. They will discuss and make a deal.

Awful choice for themselves and their futures. They may think they are making a rational choice but they’re not thinking about the future. Just like teenagers have always done.

Not that any of it is gender specific. The women on /r/myboyfriendisai are making the exact same mistakes, in many ways it’s worse because many are fully grown adults.

The site is satire… I don’t think it’s a serious pitch for “replace your CEO with AI”, it’s “hey, CEOs, if you disagree with this, why don’t you apply the same logic to all the parts of your business and all the employees you’ve confidently stated will be replaced by AI?”

Same goes for software development projects. I think the point of the satire is “why does it apply to X but not you?”

I think there are parallels here to software development.

When starting a brand new project it’s better to have a lot of human involvement to make sure the AI is creating a foundation that actually matches requirements, both spoken and unspoken. But once the project reaches maturity it’s more realistic to imagine an AI working on top of that concrete layer.

So goes management. Bootstrapping a new company? Needs human involvement. A company just ticking along? I’m less convinced. Or to be more specific, as a developer who is told my work is obsolete by CEOs, I’m interested to know why they don’t apply the same logic inwards.

But how much of a CEO’s job requires 1:1 human interaction? If I as a software developer am to be told I can do fine without human meetings to discuss product requirements, why can’t CEOs?

If CEOs are going to start claiming that a core role of their job is emotional inspiration as a result of all those all hands meetings they’re going to be surprised how much laughter they get in return.

Wow, look at that, teenage boys making awful choices, who’d have guessed

Think you’re going to need to elaborate on that

Airing two entirely separate objections to a project is not “moving the goalposts”. The original objection still stands! You’re using a phrase you’ve heard in an inappropriate context.

I’m sorry but this is a nonsensical debate.

Now, /you/ are trying to move the goalposts into an entirely different argument.

You said something and I responded to it. That’s invalid too now? There can only ever be one single objection in a conversation? I’m not permitted to react to the things said? Like I said, nonsense.

you just can’t win

You could! You could not release a “pile of vibe coded slop” onto people’s machines. There don’t even appear to be any particular advantages to Claude upgrading early. If there are no one has been made aware of it.

before unleashing it upon the public

…but they have? Claude users are public, no? If they were dogfooding internally I’d agree with you.

I think your perception of events is pretty heavily affected by personal bias here. Objecting to a hasty AI rewrite of an entire runtime and objecting to violating the spirit of FOSS is “very social justice warrior”?

What?

I wouldn’t use language as strong as OPs but it is against the spirit of FOSS for a corporate owner to use a private prerelease version of their open source software.

I think it’s valid to object to. If 1.4 is good enough to be used by Claude, why not us?

That seems illogical to me. We’re only allowed to have one objection to a project and once that’s used up we can’t air another? FWIW I don’t think people have forgotten the original objection either!

No? I think OP’s comment was very clear:

The most recent release of Bun on GitHub is currently v1.3.14 from May 12th, so that v1.4.0 version number in Claude supports them shipping a preview of a not-yet-released Bun version.

And so, the FOSS project "Bun" silently dies

There’s no implication that it’s because of the switch to Rust.

The objection isn’t to the language. It’s to Claude using a version of Bun that is not available to us. We don’t know what’s actually in it.

Aren't you just trusting that Apple handles your data better than TP-Link?

I am, yes. Ultimately you’re going to need to trust some hardware, somewhere. No matter what you’re doing you have to trust that your home router doesn’t have an externally accessible SSH port with no password set.

Personally I trust Apple more than I trust TP Link with this stuff.

It would be a no-go for non-techies.

There are better solutions, like Apple’s HomeKit. I’m able to watch a camera that has no internet access because it passed through my Apple TV, which serves as a home hub. I didn’t have to set any of this up, it just works when you have the required hardware.

Well I think a critical difference is that, unlike Apple, OpenAI and Anthropic have taken on so much VC funding that a 20-something % market share is not going to be enough for them. So open models could kill them, not because of the techonology but because of the way they're financed.

Android has market share, but Apple makes all of the money!

So? The benefit of open source is that you don’t have to worry about making a ton of money. You just need to be viable.

Apple: premium product a minority is willing to pay for

Android: standard product the majority use

I’m sure there will continue to be iPhone equivalents in the AI world, premium bespoke models. But the vast majority of people will be happy with a cheaper offering.

[citation needed]

Historically speaking a lot of inventions have come about without things like VC investment. Either way, there’s probably little point in debating it, just because VC funded companies control the market now doesn’t mean they should indefinitely.

I’m not exactly sure on the “how” but it only makes logical sense for (non-AI) companies to band together to fund the training of a shared model. Apple is a great example, AI is not their core business but they still require it.

The only thing that took us down a different path is the vast sums of VC funding pumped into the AI companies.

You still need to stay on top of requirements as time passes though. Will game X run on my machine? By comparison a console game is for a generation of a console or it's for the next.

How far we’ve sunk! Back then we got irritated by attempts to use open systems, nowadays a system like this would use a closed proprietary system from day one.

The early web was filled with experimentation. “What if chat rooms looked like comics?” That question sounds wonderfully unreasonable. And yet it was built, shipped, localized into 24 languages, and bundled with Windows 98.

This really resonated with me. Too much development work today feels like colouring in predefined boxes. Love to see some software that thought way out of the box and got institutional support.

No win scenario. We need to install updates because of security vulnerabilities. But we shouldn’t install updates because they might introduce bugs.

If you’re looking at win vs loss you also need to look at what you got in return for what you gave. A ton of casualties and further international isolation aren’t really worth the middling gains Russia could negotiate for peace today. Which is probably one of the reasons they still haven’t, sunk cost fallacy and all that.

AI, baby!

It's good that there are some companies, that ban android/apple car since that's an ugly experience for the user.

Absolutely nonsensical. Both Android Auto and Apple CarPlay are better experiences than any first party car interface I’ve experienced.

In many ways the auto industry stumbled when they allowed this connectivity, just like phone networks stumbled when they let Apple dictate the iPhone from top to bottom. Good news is those stumbles worked out great for users. We get iPhones without bundled crapware apps and we get cars that don’t require monthly subscriptions for basic functionality your phone provides.