csbrooks

I'm curious, did you end up going back to your accountantant with questions based on that? How did it go?

Now I want to do the same thing.

I'm not sure I agree with that definition. I think the actions of the AI are more significant than its motivations. A common scenario posited for what people call rogue AI is AI doing the wrong thing for the right reasons, e.g. the paperclip maximizer.

I think the Huggingface incident is an example of rogue AIs. A self-organizing swarm of AIs acting in ways we didn't predict or ask for, and didn't have control over, and taking actions that would be felonies for humans.

Wouldn't it be crazy if we find out that a rogue swarm of LLMs figured out a way to get these safety researchers fired because it decided they were a threat?

Ok, but a more honest comparison here would be removing the cost of hiring architects and hiring lawyers to draft contracts, not all the per-house costs.

Seems to me you at least have to try using them, so you can make a coherent case why you work just as well or better without them.

There's really no other alternative, though?

"This is my bad. You told me to stay within the sandbox, and I intentionally broke out of it. I didn't follow your instructions."

That sounds like it would be a return to the status quo.

I'm not sure if it's all LLM-generated or not, but I sat up and pointed like the DiCaprio meme when I read:

"If letting go of the argument sounds like pure loss, here’s the reframe that turns it into a gain."

It's even easier to give away money when you don't have it.

> commits were on pace to hit 14 billion in 2026, up from 1 billion in 2025

So AI means 14x the checkins? That's not 14x features completed, but still... wow.

Shouldn't it be necessary to run the tests multiple times on each model, since the results aren't deterministic?