luc_

I think some definitely are. Especially if there is a system that sits on top of that and pokes and prods the binary to see if it behaves like it's supposed to.

Where is that written..? Not on the S-1 from what I see.

I read this as "let's address our shareholders' concerns with something that will increase shareholder value" mixed with "there's no such thing as 100% secure".

If such hardware were to work... It should almost certainly be open source, and not controlled by a single entity.

Let's watch the stock.

Seems more like AI-in-the-loop more than AI-native.

I feel like this post didn't teach me anything I didn't already know or have an intuition about.

Why do you need to review design decisions with a team anymore?

I get the impression that Fable, when well directed, is better than maybe 80% of SWEs. Maybe more.

[edit: Yes, I'm maybe baiting other users, but I want to know your honest opinions on this.]

I think we definitely need to have alignment, and documentation to support it. I think this can be at the PRD level, mostly.

For many systems, I'd argue technical documentation to understand how the internals are working can simply be handed off to the robots. Or generated on the fly. And if a requirement on the product level is not met, that can be changed under the hood.

As the other commenter said, "code is cheap" now.

Can you summarize your thoughts into a single prompt that, with the context of the codebase, gets expanded to something that makes sense?

For an entire project? Yes I agree. For a feature or a submodule? I think when you work with claude to develop a plan, it's generally pretty good.

I guess my question stems from being rigid how a design doc should be defined, argued over, and then executed by humans. I think some of the details simply don't matter, and if they do, they often can be changed relatively quickly in order to adhere to the new requirement.

Try the claude-mem plugin.

I think in the age of AI coding, these rationales are a bit outdated. And if you think they're not - I'm curious to know why you think so.

Top 2 comments fail to acknowledge the elephant in the room.

It's not about the tech. We have a corrupt administration gatekeeping two powerful models for companies set to go public soon.

I bet the models are powerful.

I also bet there is a lot of money being exchanged, too, for keeping the bubble big, so certain people will profit.

Trump doesn't care about the people. He cares about himself.

How we learn has gotta change...

Imperfect example, but nuclear. We regulate that. Sure the US and other nuclear powers build it, and we have side effects of mutually assured destruction to keep us at bay, and other countries off the table.

Maybe this shows that there are indeed simply more variable in the calculus of how we optimize towards things as a society.

And that indeed we can feel now that certain variables, antithetical to the continued success of many people, are at risk.

Capitol Reef is ridiculous. There's no fish.

I don't think they are, I think they're not talking about that... "It's all about the spec."

Fits with the origin story of Claude Code...