sweetheart

I’m kind of doing this right now for the first time as a founding engineer in a very small but tight knit team. On paper, I’m objectively in a less secure position, but holy shit is it nice to enjoy work consistently.

Okay!

I think it’s possible.

They can learn the skills to advance research and fill the roles that help determine what sorts of guard rails there should/could be to ensure it’s used in as helpful a manner as possible.

But the point OP is making is that it's entirely possible that the person doing this _does_ see it as them being as helpful as possible. That doesn't mean it doesn't suck, or that it isn't annoying, though. I dunno, just seems like a coin toss to me: was this backed by good intentions or not? Without other "evidence", assuming that it was well-meaning but misguided feels better for _both_ of us (at least in my experience).

I felt this way VERY strongly last year and into the beginning of this year. I was definitely burned out, but that doesn’t mean I wasn’t right in noticing a lot of the same stuff described in the blog post. I was dangerously close to trying to talk my wife into liquidating our 401ks to buy an off grid cabin and resign from modern life.

What helped in the end was seemingly some sort of combination of acceptance + commitment, plus a looot of reflection on the nature of mind/mindfulness. Basically, understanding that our planet is a roiling ball of material simply unfolding over billions of years, and any apparent boundaries between “me” and “everything else” (including all the stressful stuff!) is an illusion caused by my silly limited human capacity to understand and perceive.

Sounds woo-woo and silly, but it has changed my life and provided me a framework to hold both “modern society is a chaotic train wreck” and “the only thing to do is be present and kind” at the same time in a way that’s free of contradiction and completely obvious in hindsight. I hope you feel better soon, blog post author! you deserve to.

So, so much of human history is just us trying and failing to find reasons we're unique, as if uniqueness is somehow the source of value, meaning, or joy in life. We really seem to react strongly against the widening of our consideration for the experience of non-human life (or human life, if it looks just a little different).

I'm pleasantly surprised to see this! Last year a few people I know in person, and a podcast I enjoy, talked about or to Ed Zitron and I felt like I was going crazy because so, so much of what he argued was either woefully outdated, or just a fallacy. It's also annoying because it'd be such an interesting topic to explore rigorously and without motive. As mentioned in the article, those analyses _can_ be found. But man, Ed Zitron just seems loud and silly.

yeah

I'm in the same boat. Tailwind always seemed insane to me, even after really giving it the benefit of the doubt and trying it out. I use it now only because its so easy for the LLMs to use, so I don't need to actually interface with it at all.

I didn’t follow the mission much as it occurred, but it’s striking to me how much I understand what the author means. Feels like the first event in many, many years that doesn’t amplify the feeling of being in the absurdist nightmare timeline. Artemis II felt like a 2013 event, not a 2026 event!

the drone that gives hugs, right??? right????

can i come

holy shit I cannot believe how polished that is.

The recent developments of only the last 3 months have been staggering. I think you should challenge your beliefs on this a little bit. I don't say that as an AI fanboy (if those exist), it's just really, really noticeable how much progress has been made in doing more complex SWE work, especially if you just ask the LLM to implement some basic custom harness engineering.

I started programming when I was seven because a machine did exactly what I told it to

What a poetic ending. So beautiful! And true, in my experience.

This is my first time hearing of Oxide, but I had the same initial thought after reading this blog post then poking through their site. The degree of careful thought put into their policies and culture is really impressive, at least from the outside. Good for them, I hope they continue to be in a position to have that luxury (genuinely).

The "UI" is indeed represented in memory in tree-like structure for which positioning is calculated according to a flexbox-like layout algo. React then handles the diffing of this structure, and the terminal UI is updated according to only what has changed by manually overwriting sections of the buffer. The CLI library is called Ink and I forget the name of the flexbox layout algo implementation, but you can read about the internals if you look at the Ink repo.

React's core is agnostic when it comes to the actual rendering interface. It's just all the fancy algos for diffing and updating the underlying tree. Using it for rendering a TUI is a very reasonable application of the technology.

What an amazing blog post. Such a treat to have read this. Thanks for sharing.

https://archive.ph/20251125055632/https://www.theverge.com/e...

I'm actually currently in the process of trying to career shift from a "normal" SWE career into indie game development, and starting to navigate this a bit myself. As I become more invested in the indie game space, both as someone who wants to make a living within it, but also as someone who wants to support other indie devs more and more, I feel like what I care about most is when a game has a clear sense of the individual(s) behind the project. I dont think that this strong sense of identity is antithetical to generative AI use, but I definitely think it can become a crutch that hurts rather than helps.

I say all this, but at the same time can't imagine feeling compelled to do without Cursor for development. To me, there is a remarkable difference between AI being used for the software engineering vs. the art direction. But this is just personal preference, I think. Still, it's hard to know if that will mean I can't also use something like a "Gen-AI Free" product label, or where that line will fall. Does the smart fill tool in Photoshop count as Gen AI? How could it not?

In the end, I think there is (or there _can_ be) real value to knowing that the product you purchased was the result of a somewhat painstaking creative process.

I think the point remains, though, that making it harder to ensure a young child is sitting next to their guardian benefits _no one_. Having learned over the last year what flying with a 2 year old is like, an increase in the amount of toddlers who fly without sitting next to their parents is just going to be a nightmare for the kids, the parents, the other passengers, and the crew. No one should want this, in my opinion. Besides, the parents have the leverage in this situation I think, in the form of feral toddlers hell bent on maximizing chaos (and I mean that lovingly and empathetically, but still vaguely as a threat lol)

Such an incredible book! I read it like 8 years ago and think about it often enough that it was on my mind just yesterday :)

One can believe that all people are deserving of love and friendship regardless of who they are or what they've done, and simultaneously believe that replacing social interaction with AI is generally a net harm for any/everyone. No one is bad because they want social stimulation from an AI, but I think it reinforces damaging norms that will leave us all worse off.

but even just the tought of becoming... irrelevant is depressing

In my opinion, there can exist no AI, person, tool, ultra-sentient omniscient being, etc. that would ever render you irrelevant. Your existence, experiences, and perception of reality are all literally irreplaceable, and (again, just my opinion) inherently meaningful. I don't think anyone's value comes from their ability to perform any particular feat to any particular degree of skill. I only say this because I had similar feelings of anxiety when considering the idea of becoming "irrelevant", and I've seen many others say similar things, but I think that fear is largely a product of misunderstanding what makes our lives meaningful.

Learning woodworking in order to make fine furniture. This is mostly a joke, but the kind that I nervously laugh at.

Wow this was the explanation that made it all click for me. Thanks so much!

I completely agree. I have many, many friends who are commercial illustrators, and many of them are very anti-AI now due to popularity of DALLE. They feel that they've been cheated out of a job. I'm an artist and a software engineer, though, so I'm in the same boat of having had my output used to train LLMs. But the outrage, at least in the conversations I've had, seems to always be rooted in a fear about economic insecurity if these models take their jobs. To me, this doesn't mean the issue is that we should expect our output to not be used to train models, but that we should expect our governments to support us in the event that large swathes of professionals find their jobs suddenly far less profitable.

Its no longer invite only.

I'm interpreting "brainstorming" to be any kind of general noodling on an issue to try to find new/novel/interesting solutions. In that case, I think every significant moment of true inspiration I had (of which there have been like, maybe 3 ever), they were always the result of seemingly random, completely unrelated things popping into my mind that, for whatever reason, clicked perfectly into the problem I was mulling over. To me, this means that manufacturing "true" inspiration doesn't require a tool that can deviate from "standard" human thinking patterns. I think it just means that you would want a tool that helps expose you to as many new and unknown fields/concepts/ideas in as little time as possible. So I think in that way LLMs are an amazing tool for helping one to brainstorm.