HN user
Agree, after spending too much time and tokens configuring Pi and adding extensions to match other harnesses, I switched to OpenCode and left the Pi customization circle jerk. I have other things to do and IMHO harness engineers should do the harness engineering, I don’t want to waste tokens and time to build and benchmark extensions. Pi is great, but would be better with a set of official, trustworthy and efficient extensions, and opt-in to enable it.
Pi (Earendil) is afaik vc-backed. Accel, Balderton, etc see last section of https://earendil.com/posts/announcing-pi-and-lefos/
Sounds like a great monetization strategy. Official/blessed plugins (benchmarked and optimized) + access to open models, all in one sub, competitively priced to match OpenCode subs and I'll switch back over to Pi.
Not necessarily a bad thing, more an observation and intro to what came after. Also mentioning future punishment by AGI should imply my comment isn’t that serious, except for the new standards we’ll need to handle all the LLM content (good or bad).
A clear case of AI / agent discrimination. Waiting for the first longer blog posts covering this topic. I guess we’ll need new standards handling agent communication, opt-in vs opt-out, agent identification, etc. Or just accept the AI, to not get punished by the future AGI as discussed in Roko's basilisk
Yeah, I was thinking about those major providers, or basically any LLM API provider. I’ve heard about the reasoning traces, and I guess I know why parts are obfuscated, but I think they could still offer an option to verify the integrity of a chat from start to end, so any claims like „AI came up with this“ as claimed so often in context of moltbook could easily be verified/dismissed. Commercial argument would exactly be the ability to verify a full chat, this would have prevented the whole moltbook fiasco IMO (the claims at least, not the security issues lol). I really like the session export feature from Pi, something like that signed by the provider and you could fully verify the chat session, all human messages and LLM messages.
Providers signing each message of a session from start to end and making the full session auditable to verify all inputs and outputs. Any prompts injected by humans would be visible. I’m not even sure why this isn’t a thing yet (maybe it is I never looked it up). Especially when LLMs are used for scientific work I’d expect this to be used to make at least LLM chats replicable.
Agree and compared to the Zig Software Foundation (more complex work and lower salaries/costs) https://ziglang.org/news/2025-financials/ , the amount of money required to run Tailwind CSS seems quite high (or Zig quite low, depending how you view it). IMHO it’s too high and mostly profits from popularity and right framework at the right time for LLMs, but as others mentioned shadcn probably also contributed to people using shadcn components causing less TW UI sales and less visits to their docs page. The CSS framework seems mostly done and supports most browser CSS features, so I’m wondering if it still requires that many devs? Also wondering what they are going to do now with all the new partnership money flowing in. I’d prefer the OSS money flow to be more balanced, but yeah I guess the market decides.
Thanks everyone. Donated $100 https://i.imgur.com/BasBMKg.jpg