knivets

This is living in denial. Lots of Ukrainians didn't believe there's going to be war either. There are already Russian drones flying into Eastern European countries, while the US is lifting sanctions on Russia - you don't have to be a fortune teller to predict where this is going.

>Iran is losing its grip on Hormuz

citation needed

2025 Apple is a perfect representation of 2025 America.

Don't worry, it's always ups and downs.

These new AI trends are very tiresome, very similar to 2021 crypto mania - both trigger a lot of FOMO. If we have loops that write code and we don't need to verify anything, why are the devs still here? What's point of even learning this new trick as a dev if you truly believe that this can be used without any intervention? If loops work then it follows that a loop of loop works too - why hire any people at all? Just run a bunch of loops and build a profitable business, but then what's your moat? Any person can now launch loops on top of loops.

He has early access to anthropic models, of course he will hype them up, so that they will keep sharing access to preview models with him (and more traffic to his website). It also does't require him to perform any rigorous analysis of model performance, just share how it feels:

> But it's all vibes, if you want a more scientific comparison you'll have to look elsewhere.

> Software engineering. During early testing, Stripe reported that Fable 5 compressed months of engineering into days. In a 50-million-line Ruby codebase, the model performed a codebase-wide migration in a day that would otherwise have taken a whole team over two months by hand.

How was it measured? How was the output of this magnitude verified over a period of couple of days?

> Over the past six months, there hasn’t been a single day where I’ve checked the HN Best RSS feed without seeing a post about how AI “writes bad code,” “introduces bugs,” “creates technical debt,” or something along those lines.

because it's true

> Users don’t care whether the code was written by AI or by hand, or which framework you used. They care that the product works.

How can you guarantee that it works though? You can verify, but it would be at the same speed as before the AI, or even slower.

> By then, enough real-world feedback would have surfaced to identify the major issues, and tools like Claude Code would make it possible to fix and ship version 2.0 at an incredible pace.

By then you have a blackbox of a codebase which is unmaintainable, or in a worst case scenario you end up losing your data or get hacked or both.

This is not a serious analysis. No mention of open source LLMs and their impact on american AI companies. There’s also no evidence that LLMs can make significant scientific progress on their own.

Some big names in AI made predictions by pulling random dates based on vibes, the author collected this and called this data.

how long until i stop seeing this nonsense shoveled at me from every direction

Stack Overflow provides marginal value when there are LLMs. Great technical books on the other hand still provide tremendous value and complement LLMs in a learning process: a book provides a fact checked, curated set of topics with clear start and finish (a structure) and LLMs help with any blockers or missing context that readers will encounter.

This is astrology for devs.

Bot account - 70 days old, no submissions, all comments are hyping AI

> easier to build your own solution than to install an existing one

seriously?

how do you know the artifact is correct?