csbrooks

I'm curious, did you end up going back to your accountantant with questions based on that? How did it go?

Now I want to do the same thing.

I'm not sure I agree with that definition. I think the actions of the AI are more significant than its motivations. A common scenario posited for what people call rogue AI is AI doing the wrong thing for the right reasons, e.g. the paperclip maximizer.

I think the Huggingface incident is an example of rogue AIs. A self-organizing swarm of AIs acting in ways we didn't predict or ask for, and didn't have control over, and taking actions that would be felonies for humans.

Wouldn't it be crazy if we find out that a rogue swarm of LLMs figured out a way to get these safety researchers fired because it decided they were a threat?

Ok, but a more honest comparison here would be removing the cost of hiring architects and hiring lawyers to draft contracts, not all the per-house costs.

Seems to me you at least have to try using them, so you can make a coherent case why you work just as well or better without them.

What about this case? Should the LLM user be charged with hacking their gym website?

https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cn0nww2qlp7o

There's really no other alternative, though?

"This is my bad. You told me to stay within the sandbox, and I intentionally broke out of it. I didn't follow your instructions."

That sounds like it would be a return to the status quo.

I'm not sure if it's all LLM-generated or not, but I sat up and pointed like the DiCaprio meme when I read:

"If letting go of the argument sounds like pure loss, here’s the reframe that turns it into a gain."

It's even easier to give away money when you don't have it.

> commits were on pace to hit 14 billion in 2026, up from 1 billion in 2025

So AI means 14x the checkins? That's not 14x features completed, but still... wow.

Shouldn't it be necessary to run the tests multiple times on each model, since the results aren't deterministic?

I thought this was a great article. I'm frustrated to read so many commenters that purely respond to the title, but don't seem to have read it. You don't have to agree with the article, of course, but...

Is the code available somewhere?

To me, acting in good faith means saying something like "I'm not sure, but Claude says this, which sounds right: [short informative clip from Claude's wall of text]". Don't pretend it's your response, make sure it has info you think is useful, and edit it down.

I have a vague memory that when Windows was newer and idioms less solidified, maybe in the mid to late 90s, programs moving the cursor was more common. Am I mistaken?

Even in the context of game development, if you don't provide a "skip cutscene" interaction, some players get very upset. The desire to tell a story can be at odds with the player's desire for control, even there.

In my experience, you don't really want to say "I'm the lead" (it can come across insecure), but you do need to be able to confidently say "Ok, here's what we're going to do" or "Here's what I'd like you to do" once you've gathered all the relevant information and come to a decision.

I think that's an exaggeration. Here's an example I found of a British person in China who did this. Seems like he got a week in jail, then deported.

https://www.newsweek.com/english-teacher-overstayed-visa-des...

Is "vibe coding" synonymous with using AI code-generation tools now?

I thought vibe coding meant very little direct interaction with the code, mostly telling the LLM what you want and iterating using the LLM. Which is fun and worth trying, but probably not a valid professional tool.

"As a more tan law-abiding US citizen"

I would say being tan has nothing to do with it, but...

I guess I'm not super concerned, because I stopped watching TV news a long long time ago. In general they do everything they can to spread fear, and this is just an extension of that.

All the stuff he describes after that does sound really shady to me, though. Yuck.

So then, you agree with the last paragraph of the article?

I used to live in Arizona. The traffic lights and crosswalks are an insane distance apart. There are bright streetlights basically everywhere. All the roads are straight.

It's all designed for cars, and not for pedestrians. And it's really tempting to j-walk if you're ever stuck walking somewhere.

Is it really true that the minimum wage before was JUST at the point where replacing workers wasn't worth the cost, and now it's going just over that threshold?

If they can find a way to replace workers with machines, my guess is they will. My local walmart has one worker managing about ten self-checkout stations now. Panera Bread has stations where you order your food; no cashier needed. And the wage they are paying here is well above minimum wage, anyway.

CEOs will eliminate all the employees they can, because they consider that their job. And then they'll give out executive bonuses as massive as they can get away with.

There is no reason why the minimum wage should be so low that no one could make a living off it.