wmeredith

No. You are on to something here. The utopia I see programmers lamenting the loss of, the one where human code review was perfect and never let any bugs slip through, never existed. I see people on this board and others complaining all the time about LLM generated spaghetti code and bug-ridden codebases. Well, I've been working those code bases for 20 years. We didn't agents to make them. LLMs are a new tool, but the problems that come with them are nothing new.

The flip side of that is as someone who got into software development 20 years ago because I love to design and make products... Well this is pretty great. I feel for my colleagues, though. And it's not like the "coding problem" is solved, much to the dismay of the hype machine.

They had $67 billion in revenue last year, which was up 7% from the previous year. Not exactly out of business.

Well, it says it cover info from 29,000 website. I'm not sure that list would be helpful. Which is the point of this.

Oh it applies to him. He just doesn’t care.

This is not how social media used to be. Without the algorithm there is no social media. What the author is describing/experiencing is a social network. There's no editorial voice/algorithm deciding what to broadcast to your eyeballs. It's just people who you've opted into consuming their content.

Social Networks seem to be pretty great while social media tuned for maximum engagement (rage) is what's driving addiction and polarization.

Seriously. Can AI build a web page I can read?

A manual operation wouldn't shock me at all. A friend used to work on Apple.com and as recently as 5 years ago the product pages were still hard coded. No CMS.

I am a volunteer coach in a rec soccer league for 6th graders. Bluetooth jamming could literally kill one of my diabetic (type 1) players during a game because of this scenario.

This is also a core tenant in Ender's game.

No. Just because I am not against people golfing, does not making me a golfer.

> one has long wondered what this government actually considers NOT to be terrorism

Anyone willing to line their pockets, it seems.

I'd also be curious about the provenance of that statement. Why would they buy all copies? What would be the purpose of scanning multiple copies?

"Anthropic said that heavy editing, paraphrasing, translating, or mixing Claude's output with other writing can make its watermark undetectable. Plus, finding a watermark doesn't prove Claude originally authored something, since even proofreading or translating with its AI can leave a mark."

This seems worthless.

This doesn't pass the smell test. On the home page they claim a consistent 1.28% return on 5 days of trading. This would mean you could make $1 into $67,000,000 in one year.

Tell me: if you figured out how to do that would you make a website about it or would you spend a year turning $1,000 into $67 billion?