ericyd

I feel like I haven't yet figured out the line to draw between disliking something because it's AI-generated and disliking something because it's lazy.

This line:

> Checked by a guardrail test, not just claimed.

Is such a meaningless statement to include in the marketing page, it immediately makes me feel like the entire effort was lazy because it seems like they didn't proofread their own page. I almost would rather they just have a page describing what they were trying to accomplish and the prompt they used to get there, and skip the ceremony of the generated library.

I thought for sure you meant Chinese as in Volvo. Damn, I sure was wrong.

Could you elaborate? This tactic feels identical to the way apple locks down apps to the app store, which requires paid developer accounts

> What modern production calls “correction,” and mistakes for care, is really a form of epistemic violence against the record of human beings objectifying felt time for our understanding.

I hope this was written as tongue in cheek, otherwise wow, you are taking yourself too seriously.

Lol yes. Though i graduated in 2016 so no idea if that's the current location.

Studying geology in Portland as an undergraduate, I didn't appreciate how unusual it was to have widespread basalt formations. It's super common in the area due to some ancient flood basalt. I appreciate it more visually after leaving and getting some perspective from other landscapes.

I would really love a "why" at the top of the readme

It is important to acknowledge and name corruption for what it is. It's just hard to continue to have novel reactions to it. It reminds me of an article I read once about cartel violence in Mexico, and how people typically become desensitized to the violence.

Isn't the opposite of acqui-hired just... not acquired nor hired?

Hard disagree: 1. Writing every piece of software you want to use yourself is unreasonable, 2. The power to change doesn't make it wrong to complain about valid shortcomings. If my ISP is unstable, I can probably change but it's still a reasonable human reaction to complain. "Never complain" is a nice philosophy but really hard to stick to forever.

Aren't LLMs precisely "very good guessing machines"?

Strange response, do you believe that society has always had access to online gambling, in the same way that alcohol and drugs have been around forever?

Very nice collection!

this is incredible, thank you for your service

I disagree, requiring code review for docs changes sounds great but in my experience it's extremely hard to get a human to review docs changes. Either you get a rubber stamp with no real review (zero added value, adds useless friction) or you spend days bugging people to actually review your changes. All for docs!

The counter-argument i envision is: "update your docs and code at the same time in the same PR!" That works great, until you want to document something that isn't precisely tied to a single piece of code. In fact I think the most useful docs describe high level systems rather than being associated with specific pieces of code. Use comments for that; in contrast, docs should be easily editable by anyone at all times, otherwise they never get updated (an evergreen problem in any scenario).

I remember when mass surveillance was the worst thing the US government did to its citizens

There's some sort of browser automation software that defaults to this resolution and it's used by bots a lot. I used to work for a company that built a bot filter for form submissions largely based around this one data point.

> If it were possible to have such a simple pre-process step why wouldn’t the AI Labs upstream the optimizations themselves?

Not defending these tools, but one reason these might not be upstreamed is because it would negatively impact vendor margins, and they have no incentive to save their users money

I see it now, thank you

> Researchers estimate roughly half of human crashes go unreported, and up to one-third of injury accidents, because drivers hope to avoid insurance price hikes. That potentially skews safety numbers in favor of human drivers.

I am not understanding the phrasing of this section. If humans under-report crashes, and autonomous vehicles accurately report crashes, then that would mean the rates are more favorable towards autonomous vehicles rather than humans, right?

If my tree kept a log of all the activities that led to it being a tree, I wouldn't mind if that log included "Spear and Jackson". To me the closer analogy with software would be if the final web app interface was stamped with "built with Claude".

I'm not sure i see it as an ad. "Sent from my iPhone" is an ad because the iPhone is not a meaningful part of sending the email. Claude is a meaningful part of the commit though if you're using it, so to me it's more like clarity or transparency than an advertisement.

Most comments I read were positive, what kind of negative sentiment were you picking up in these comments?

What's misleading? Wouldn't the session corroborate that it was only used for the commit?

Nice, way to be in both threads

Related to the form of the article rather than the content: what purpose do pull quotes serve in an online publication? Especially on phones they are so goofy, you read the pull quote and then one or two lines later you read it again. I get it for scanability in newspapers but I think it should be deprecated in online publishing.

That is interesting and I didn't know that, though the commenter said air coming out of their vents almost 50 degrees below the outdoor air temp, so I'm tempted to think they weren't referring to the outlet temperature.

Not trying to shame you but...50 degrees? Do you live in Phoenix and keep your home at 60 degrees?

I don't think losing faith in the value of your job is the same a losing your job due to automation.

At least we finally answered the Mad Max question "Who killed the world?"