JeremyNT

Before checking the comments I read a couple of paragraphs, but ultimately just closed the tab without finishing it. This was not because I specifically suspected an LLM, but because it just wasn't "working" for me, for reasons I couldn't articulate.

Is this because it's slop? Or because it's a (possibly bad) translation? I can't really say, but regardless this piece was not resonating.

I really appreciate that you articulated this.

Before checking the comments I read a couple of paragraphs, but ultimately just closed the tab without finishing it. This was not because I specifically suspected an LLM, but because it just wasn't "working" for me, for reasons I couldn't articulate.

Thanks to your hints I'll just see it for what it is in the future. I wish people didn't feel inclined to waste our time by posting this sort of slop.

Cost per token is going to tank; it's a race to the bottom. The frontier model providers have no moat between each other and eventually even the open weight models will be "good enough" for almost every purpose.

Right now the market is expecting something a lot more than "sells a lot of tokens" out of these things to justify their valuation.

> Intel reports PC sales are down. That's likely related to RAM costs, which made price/performance of new PCs drop.

How is this not related to "AI cost fears"?

The amount of cash being dumped into AI datacenters has driven up the cost of a lot of other things in adjacent industries.

The binance link still works for me? Maybe it's region blocked.

If this isn't a damning indictment of Cursor, I don't know what is. Perhaps it will be the death knell.

What value is this VS fork actually adding given today's advanced harnesses? Surely whatever benefits it offers are not worth the risks going forward.

Direct link to Binance assertions you mentioned [0]

The Binance post should probably be the root link for this topic not this blog post - IMO

[0] https://www.binance.com/en/square/post/10-30-2026-claude-cod...

I use Fastmail which has been a very boring and high quality product. The company is not American, it is Australian, but any country with close ties to the US probably offers little in the way of surveillance avoidance.

It's best to think of email as fully public information anyway, use Signal for anything you care about.

I reproduced it about 10 hours ago, but it seems they've "fixed" the issue so it now generates the correct results.

You could imagine a sane policy regime to unwind the "look the other way" approach to illegal immigration and the under-the-table low wage labor market that it created.

Instead we get... well, whatever the fuck this gestapo shit is.

I guess regulatory reform doesn't really play with the kind of people who will gleefully vote for mass deportation on the grounds that they just want immigrants gone.

PXE boot enabled and attempted by default on an internet-facing network interface is certainly a... choice.

This is something that shouldn't be possible in the real world because any sysadmin should know not to do this, but guaranteed there are at least some small time operations with a couple of colo'd servers that only have single interfaces serving public traffic, and the intern who set them up didn't know what a boot order was or what "PXE" even did.

> Realistically there were only ever two possible outcomes: you do more work for the same amount of money, or you’re one of the ones who were laid off and your work was transferred to the former.

Workers need an answer to this problem and we shouldn't wait until all the deleterious effects stack up to make the demand.

A 32 hour work week would be a really good start.

We need to remember that there is a mechanism to address this kind of corruption, which is impeachment and removal, and by failing to even consider it Congress has endorsed the behavior as well.

If there is ever any reconciliation they also need to be held accountable.

I don't! I think it was a great idea. But I think people commonly misunderstand the way the program operates, assuming Parton herself was funding it, and I'm glad somebody highlighted its structure.

Really glad to see this as the top comment.

Parton did a lot of very nice things and was a great contributor to society in good and decent ways that many of her wealth peers totally fail.

But there has since her passing been an element of myth and folklore that has elevated those accomplishments beyond reality.

Her library is a great idea and her support was notable, but the funding in large part comes from government grants and other donors.

To a large degree, the library program is also your tax dollars at work.

You're right but the trick LLM-backed tools have is that they can just write traditional code on the fly.

There are usability and performance problems right now which is why we have this interregnum. But as these systems evolve, the tools can offload "expensive" operations to traditional compute by writing the glue code on demand, and persist the code for future use (so regenerating it won't be required again later) when the user confirms it's doing what it's supposed to do. You can A/B test it in real time and ask the user to pick the "better" result.

Same is true for e.g. GUI elements, widgets, etc. Write it the first time, have your user verify it, persist it, retrieve it.

And maybe you have a couple of people in your org who work through the process of generating a bespoke app that processes data with a GUI optimized for whatever they're doing, but it's all mediated directly through your vendor. The users run through the process all in the web UI of whatever LLM vendor the org's data is silo'd with, the output is a mix of traditional computation and LLM contexts that anybody can maintain via asking the tool to change itself.

There's a huge cohort of people who are convinced they're somehow immune to right wing propaganda and continue posting information exclusively to sites owned by reactionary oligarchs. Sometimes that information is useful or important, which is why nitter and its ilk are sorely needed.

Access to models will trend towards zero, nobody has a moat, open weight models already exist, and inference is getting cheaper all the time.

Ultimately the value will be in the data.

We're in a window here where the data is silo'd and we can use agents to vibe code / glue it all together and create traditional apps that people will still use, but I think that window is narrow.

Eventually today's LLM providers will incorporate direct access to more data sources, and the data won't be silo'd for them - it'll all be available. And instead of third parties vibe-coding apps, the LLM companys' web UIs will become the apps that link everything together directly.

Yeah I think people just don't quite understand what's happening yet.

There's no reason for OpenAI/Google/Anthropic/etc to start other software businesses because "LLMs" will be the only software that anybody will ever pay for.

Why would you have a different "app" to do something when you can just do it all in Claude or Gemini or ChatGPT? We'll be there soon enough.

> in the absence of a public exploit people can play with, it's more fun to do the truther debate about the vulnerability

I don't think anybody is asking for the code, but it would be nice to see the claims of working exploits that you're referring to.

A claim can be worth a lot, depending on who is making it and in what context.

Most of my old defects fall into tradeoffs I knowingly made at the time: well, this edge case is really unlikely, not worth pursuing a fix, the remediation won't be bad, some jank isn't going to annoy users too much, etc. But LLMs don't care: a bug is a bug, and they'll happily surface it for you.

Being able to take an old code base up to 100% test coverage alone is incredibly eye opening.

The difference is that instead of spending half your time understanding the business requirements and half your time writing code, you'll spend half your time understanding the business requirements, 5% of your time typing these requirements into a chatbot, and the rest of your time doing... ????

The unspoken prerequisite for a functional society in which human labor has ever decreasing "economic value" is the end of capitalism itself.

It's hard to see the path forward from this nadir, but Le Guin offers some words of hope:

> We live in capitalism. Its power seems inescapable. So did the divine right of kings. Any human power can be resisted and changed by human beings. Resistance and change often begin in art, and very often in our art, the art of words.

The tech right would convince us we only need robot-remixed content, and that the future is slop all the way down. We have to prove them wrong.

> Wild that they devoted so much effort to an economically completely infeasible model. I wonder if the combustion version will even break 3 figures sales.

It's staggering to consider how many resources we've diverted from people who could use them into building this novelty.

If ever there was a sign of a society of decadence in decline, it's that the most powerful person on earth is free to create toys like this exclusively for others in the ruling class.

I think this just highlights how absolutely basic / predictable "rationalist" posting is.

To parody it, all you have to do is substitute clearly stupid theses for the plausible seeming theses that they normally use.

Instead of reading like pretentious horse shit, it suddenly reads like biting satire.

> Before we try to rehabilitate "DEI" let's not forget what it was and is: universities and employers grouping people together based on skin color and treating them differently based on it, by applying wildly different standards.

One of the major problems with "DEI" as used in the vernacular is that people have trouble agreeing on the meaning of the term.

This results in partisans inventing their own fantastical definitions of it, which they use as bogeymen to encourage misogyny or race baiting.

But the remote jobs are the canary in the coal mine.

Return to office (or tacking on an in person requirement to a posting) is just one sign that the market has shifted in favor of capital and away from labor. That's driven by AI reducing the value of developers.

> People take their jobs too seriously.

This is an easy thing to say when you've got money in the bank and some kind of health insurance that isn't tied to your employer.

If I flip a coin to decide whether to do something, I can't blame the coin.

The act of delegation to chance is the decision.

Why do you think there will be a human in the loop on any of these tasks, and why do you think that you will be that human?

I've watched the robots become better/faster software developers than I ever was over the last year. I've got a lifetime of esoteric knowledge that's completely obsolete now. I can ask robots to do things, but so can any other random person.

What, exactly, do you think we are going to be prompting these things to do? And why would anybody pay us to do that, rather than just prompt them directly?