mikemarsh

An interesting "conundrum" (at least from my outsider perspective): how many of those bot requests are from agents that utilize Turso on their backends?

I would guess a real human, one with a good sense of humor at that.

Interesting symbolic angle: as LLMs plateau and are more and more ineffectual at replicating real intelligence, perhaps this is an attempt to keep the sci-fi mythos alive from the other direction: "Computers can't seem to create a mind, but the physical part of a mind creating a computer is basically the same thing, right?"

Always interesting how this kind of snark never seems to go to bat for modern man's average patience and self-control, thus actually proving the naysayers wrong, but always just assumes that "everyone knows" modern times are best and those silly past naysayers are thus wrong.

what are those agents actually doing?

Providing material for attention-grabbing headlines and blog posts, primarily. Can't (in good conscience, at least) claim you had an agent running all night if you didn't actually run an agent all night.

I can't imaging writing code by myself again, specially documentation, tests and most scaffolding

Why should I bother to read something someone else couldn't be bothered to write?

Interesting mix of sentiments. Is this code you're generating primarily as part of a solo operation? If not, how do coworkers/code reviewers feel about it?

That's a great idea; a good chunk of interesting software design discussion has been crowded out by "here's how to better beg the machine to do the right thing", rather than discussing amongst ourselves what the "right thing" even is in various circumstances.

A sanctuary from AI and vibe coding, focused on human engineering

Big fan of this project for this reason alone. I hope over the next few years we'll see this more and more not just as an implementation detail, but a public branding sentiment that like-minded coders, consumers or even (if we're living in fantasy-land) business clients can rally behind.

Maybe, just maybe, there's some inkling of truth behind what your political enemies are saying, and you can carefully acknowledge said inklings and even gasp integrate them into your own worldview, if relevant?

Nah, they're probably all just evil and/or stupid for no reason at all. That makes a lot more sense.

Beautiful, living in Southern Michigan and dealing with slightly more snow than usual this year, I feel like a wimp compared to some of my snowy-weather compatriots here from Norway, Canada, etc.

It's a kind of gaslighting, probably first and foremost for themselves before others.

Some people really do think of soft power, propaganda, shady covert operations, etc. as something "the other guys" do (China! KGB-Putin!), but assume the US is somehow above all that.

Basically a neoconservative-esque sentimental view of the USA as "the good guys" on "the global stage" (although many would rightly recoil at the comparison to neocons).

Surely there's a lot of CIA involvement there too ;-)

Is it even worth mentioning that the whole "AI is the reason for layoffs" line is a charade, or does everyone here know that already?

For anyone who doesn't: the economy is bad in general, but saying citing "AI" as the reason for layoffs lets companies reverse their public perception from "company going through a crunch" to "forward-thinking innovator".

The latest "Pivot to AI" pulls together a lot of mainstream financial reporting on this very thing: https://pivot-to-ai.com/2026/01/29/the-job-losses-are-real-b...

Truly the next uncharted, civilization-upending frontier in computing, definitely worth the unlimited consumption of any and all natural resources and investment money.

Presenting this quote without additional commentary is an interesting Rorschach test.

Thankfully more and more people are seriously considering the effects of technology on true wisdom and getting of the "all technological progress clearly is great, look at all these silly unenlightened naysayers from the past" train.

Late to the party, but speaking of "challenge your own biases", have you considered that "Christianity" as a blanket term equally covering

* historical American Puritanism (of the kind you rightly opposed)

* modern "rock concert and a TED talk" Evangelicalism

* Traditional Orthodoxy such as that of the Jordanville Fathers of the linked article

may not be the most accurate classifier? Anything more than a cursory inspection would reveal these are all very different things, even if they all use some overlapping vocabulary from time to time (word-concept fallacy).

Getting your definitions and worldview from 20th-21st century reactions (many justified) against goofy evangelicalism rather than actual theology and history is likewise frivolous and embarrassing.

The technology has a lot of benefit for the faithful

Although written primarily for Orthodox Christians, there are valuable cautions here to consider regardless of your tradition: https://www.jordanville.org/artificialintelligence

Nice job kicking the hornet's nest with this one lol.

Apparently it's an objective truth on HN that "scholars" or "philosophers" are the source of objective truth, and they disagree on things so no one really knows anything about morality (until you steal my wallet of course).

It's not about "Pathologising those who disagree", it's about how demonic influence (which anyone can fall victim to) _actually_ works.

You've highlighted a very real equivalency in spite of yourself.

I wonder if the concern about "civic institutions" as some unique and special thing within society is a generational thing; as a millennial I've almost always viewed "universities, and a free press" ("rule of law" is much more nebulous) as simply "institutions", or rather "the establishment", the key distinction being "the establishment" also includes corporations, banks, big capital, etc.

The "institution" of the AI industry is actually a perfect example of this; the so-called "free press" uncritically repeats its hype at every turn, corporations (unsurprisingly) impose AI usage mandates, and even schools and universities ("civic institutions") are getting in on implicitly or explicitly encouraging its use.

Of course this is a simplification, but it certainly makes much more sense to view AI as another way "the establishment" is degrading "society" in general, rather than in terms of some imagined conflict between "civic institutions" and "the private sector", as if there was ever any real distinction between those two.

Yeah, it's quite unbelievable people are still repeating the "AI everything -> UBI -> everyone comfortable and well-fed" line.

Who's to say the governments won't just let society continue on the exact same trajectory it was before generative AI: "Lost your job? Too bad for you. Here's a gig economy and maybe some minimal food stamps. Innovation marches on!"

If the "author" couldn't be bothered to write it, why should the "reader" bother to read it?

Yep, it never fails. Here's another prediction for "The next two years of software engineering"; AI vendors will start to utilize their senior devs' personal domains to write their advertising pieces to attempt to mitigate scrutiny when such things are posted to social media.

In the sense of LLMs becoming competent enough, no, it's extremely unlikely.

In the sense of "smart tech founders" and C-suite executives in general using AI hype as an excuse for layoffs and understaffing, that's absolutely in the realm of possibility, and already happening in some places.

I'm glad Paul Louth of https://github.com/louthy/language-ext/ is here in the comments.

At this point basically everyone has been exposed to the concept of `Option/Result/Either/etc.`, and discussions typically end up revolving around the aesthetics of exception throwing vs. method chaining vs. if statements etc. without any concept of the bigger picture.

LanguageExt really presents a unified vision for and experience of Functional Programming in C# for those are who truly interested, akin to what's been going on in the Scala ecosystem for years.

I've been using it and following its development for a few years now and it continually impresses me and makes C# fresh and exciting each day.

Since when is a study needed to confirm that enabling a dopamine addiction, especially in developing minds, is a bad idea? Isn't our own direct experience as adults/parents struggling with said addictions enough?

So how do we get from "machines may get really good at faking things to human perception" to "machines themselves can have human-like (or 'better') perception"?

The question is so-called consciousness arising out of machines, not machines deceiving human consciousness.

Even then, that deception still doesn't prove equivalency of simulated and real things, unless we're adopting an extreme and self-contradictory subjectivist epistemology.

Everyone's a practical empiricist until our cherished science fiction worldview is called into question, then all of a sudden it's radical skepticism and "How can anyone really know anything, man?"