mactavish88

Agreed. Having used OpenSpec extensively for a few months now, long-lived specs in the repo are useless, but the OpenSpec change process is super valuable for keeping agents on track across a single complex project (e.g. developing a single complex new feature in a large codebase).

Not "open" as such, but Kobo sells this title.

> I still have one pillar standing, though: code quality and software architecture - what's now being reduced to being called "taste".

Genuine question: what exactly is "quality"?

It's something I've been trying to understand for a very long time. It seems like it's entirely contextual, and it has both subjective and objective facets (the latter only for quantifiable things, and still entirely contextual).

Recursive self-improvement towards what exactly?

Living organisms evolve towards some notion of "better", and "better" is an incredibly multifaceted notion (many facets of which we simply cannot even capture in language).

Have you read Cory Doctorow's "Enshittification" yet? He describes the process quite well.

Not sure how to address it though. I suspect keeping companies small and focused on quality, sustainability, and free of VC influence would be a solution. It'd take continual work though, like tending to a bonsai.

The absolute last thing I want in the filing of my taxes is non-determinism.

I don't think we're going to be able to have rational conversations about this with C-level folks for quite some time. They mostly seem too wrapped up in copying each other to think clearly, and it's only when the bottom line starts suffering that we might be able to start asking some questions about their strategy.

Play stupid games, win stupid prizes.

Isn't one of the core problems here a lack of "healthier" alternatives?

(Not only in terms of tech, but also in terms of ways of living popularized by celebrities, thought leaders, etc.)

Great example of how to set boundaries. The open source community is slowly healing.

> Their whole skill set

This is the fundamental problem with how so many people think about LLMs. By the time you get to Principal, you've usually developed a range of skills where actual coding represents like 10% of what you need to do to get your job done.

People very often underestimate the sheer amount of "soft" skills required to perform well at Staff+ levels that would require true AGI to automate.

Can't they just leave it alone?

I hear this perspective a lot in relation to open source projects.

What it fails to recognize is the reality that life changes. Shit happens. There's no way to predict the future when you start out building an open source project.

(Coming from having contributed to and run several open source projects myself)

Pizza parties and "unlimited" vacations?