staminade
I think if there is a major change in code review culture, it's not going to happen first in established engineering teams. It'll happen in startups that adopt a no-human-review policy from jump and then maintain it as they mature. I'm sure that's happening, but it's likely invisible to most studies and surveys at the moment. If it proves successful, and such companies start shipping significantly faster, the rest of the industry will be forced to adopt.
https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2023-09-26-wind-and-solar-power-co...
For example, I recently came across Hucre, https://github.com/productdevbook/hucre, which is a JS spreadsheet library apparently developed entirely in the past few months and which has already gained 2.2k GH stars.
Is it any good? Who knows, but the alternatives for spreadsheet handling in JS aren't great, either being limited, semi-commercial, or unmaintained. And creating a new one without LLM-assistance is a huge, painful, mostly thankless undertaking. It's not surprising that a zero-dependency option that promises to do everything this can do would be popular.
Everyone has had the experience of butting their head against functionality limitations of open-source libraries. Fully vibecoded libraries will be able to add functionality at a rate that human-authored ones can't. Code quality might suffer, but if a library has a feature you need, and you've got a deadline to hit, are you going to avoid using it? Is the average developer? Or the average LLM?
I think we're about to hit an interesting period of human-only projects competing with vibecoded ones, and it'll be an acid test as to whether the pro and anti claims about AI-coding bear out in terms of code reliably.
We need universal childcare services, provided by the state and available to all, and other childcare-enabling reforms like automatic right to work from home and other flexible working arrangements for those with children.
These won't be popular with everyone, but you'll won't solve the demographic crisis without them.
Also, the idea that AI leadership seized on and amplified these concerns purely for marketing purposes isn't plausible. If you're attempting to market a new product to a mass audience, talking about how dangerous and potentially world-ending it is is the most insane strategy you could choose. Any advantage in terms of getting people's attention is going to be totally outweighed by the huge negative associations you are creating in the minds of people who you want to use your product, and the likelihood of bringing unwanted scrutiny and regulation to your nascent industry.
(Can you imagine the entire railroad industry saying, "Our new trains are so fast, if they crash everybody on board will die! And all the people in the surrounding area will die! It'll be a catastrophe!" They would not do this. The rational strategy is to underplay the risks and attempt to reassure people. Even more so if you think genuinely believe the risks are being overstated.)
Occam's razor suggests that when the AI industry warned about AI risk they believed what they were saying. They had a new, rapidly advancing technology, and absent practical experience of its dangers they referred to pre-existing discussions on the topic, and concluded it was potentially very risky. And so they talked about them in order to prepare the ground in case they turned out to be true. If you warn about AI causing mass unemployment, and then it actually does so, perhaps you can shift the blame to the governments who didn't pay attention and implement social policies to mitigate the effects.
I don't think the AI industry deserve too much of our sympathy, but there is a definite "damned if you do, damned if you don't aspect" to AI safety. If they underplay it, they will get accused of ignoring the risks, and if they talk about it, they get accused scaremongering if the worst doesn't happen.
Building something like this was certainly possible before, but it was a lot of effort. What's changed is simple: AI. It seems clear this library was mostly built in Cursor using an agent. That's not a criticism, it's a perfect use of AI to build something that we couldn't before.
https://www.london.gov.uk/programmes-strategies/environment-...
The main takeaway is that yes, urban air quality (including fine particulate matter) has improved massively over time, but most of it had little to do with road traffic, as for decades it wasn't a significant contributor to the overall mix. The important change was the move away from burning solid fuels like coal for household heating and in power stations within cities, to using gas and electricity with larger, out-of-town power stations.
As other sources have declined, road traffic has indeed become the largest contribution to urban air pollution, but even here there has been progress. Fine particulate emissions have continued to decline as car manufacturers have adapted to more stringent regulation (cheating scandals notwithstanding). A bigger problem now is higher non-exhaust emissions caused by larger and heavier vehicles. This is something else that will need to be solved via regulation. Other policies like Low Traffic Neighbourhoods can also help to restrict the worst pollution to major roads and away from where most people live.
Urban air quality is never going to be as good as that in the countryside, but it's not true to believe that no progress has been made, and that it's simply been a switch in the type of pollution.
I just went to crates.io and picked a random newly updated crate, which happened to be pixelfix, which fixes transparent pixels in pngs.
It has six dependencies and hundreds of transient dependencies, may of which appear to be small and highly specific a la left-pad.
https://crates.io/crates/pixelfix/0.1.1/dependencies
Maybe this package isn't representative, but it feels pretty identical to the JS ecosystem.
So, the legal reasoning might be to cut their losses litigating to defend rulings they think they'll lose due to the administrative error. I also suspect that being seen to roll back some regulations likely gives Lee Zeldin (the EPA admin) some political room to maneuver. He's historically be associated with anti-PFAS efforts (in Congress he represented a district with contamination problems and he voted for anti-PFAS legislation), but he's also part of an administration with a strong anti-regulation agenda, so he needs to walk a fine line.