Yeah same tho, that 5k looks to be pissing in the wind. He even knows for a fact he's not paying the actual costs yet never mentions how he's going to maintain that stack of code if costs per token ever get tightened up.
I've used AI chat for coding, but with the caveat that I need to be able to "manually" edit the results. I like the process and am ready to maybe spend a little money on tokens but am still pretty far from using agents, although I'm starting to peruse peoples claude.mds and spending some hugging face tutorials plus I guess that means python bah
He's really focused on the software factory aspect, and talks about the future and how he's living it but lets see how the code base he's accumulating is maintained, because thats the one question about the future that I rarely see answered.
I don't doubt what you're saying, but I still hack on things mainly for fun tho. In the OPs case, he's even paying below cost, how long is that deal going to go on? On the other hand, his current working code base might be so valuable that he can afford future maintenance help, in whatever form that would be.
The better takeaway is that marketing is important and the technical details, don't always matter as much (https://xn--gckvb8fzb.com/a-word-on-omarchy/) as having a complete package. Similarly to how Apple often packages existing tech into an appealing package for the mass market and there's nothing wrong with that.
DHH has the gift that he's both a good technologist, but also a good marketer.
It was not my intention to say that, I'm actually following it very closely and think Omarchy is a great way to get more people on Linux. A user friendly, pre-packaged and opinionated setup will convince more people than "Install Ubuntu and then learn how to administer Linux").
more like DHH is worth that much. unlike the sister comment, i don't think it is marketing alone, if at all, but rather DHH networking and connections. it might be marketing in the sense that the people funding this believe that DHH is able to attract a lot of people. which is interesting given that he also has attracted some controversy recently.
maybe I'm missing something, I'll admit I haven't made it through the whole smug article, but critiquing knowledge work, especially IT work, just a few years after that field yielded it's...what, fourth?... major contribution to society in the last say 40 years is pretty funny imho.
I'm counting:
1. the pc (80's)
2. the web (90's-early 2000's)
3. the cloud (early 2010s)
4. the computers that speak natural langage (early 2020s)
a big chunk of gdp in the most prosperus nation on earth is dedicated to knowledge work but sure, it's abstract so I guess it doesn't feel as useful.
I think there's some nuance here that a lot of these convos dont make plain - are we talking about just using 'ai' in the military broadly, or are we specifically talking about fully autonomous weapons systems?
In the former case, I would agree with you completely, I havent heard any arguments beyond 'I dont like working on military stuff'. But if we're talking fully autonomous weapons, that's a different story. And further muddying the waters is the fact that the former is obviously a step along the path to the latter.
> I am
also dealing with a number of emergencies, including a lockdown at the Minneapolis
courthouse because of protest activity, the defiance of several court orders by ICE, and
the illegal detention of many detainees by ICE (including, yesterday, a two-year
old).[1]
Federal district judges in mpls are releasing dozens of illegally detained individuals per day. You may not be hearing about it, but it is absolutely happening. Your not hearing about is part of the problem.
This is a trust issue. If someone I trust hands me a big pr, I focus on the important details. If someone i dont trust hands me a big pr, i just reject it and ask them to break the problem down further. I dont waste my time on this kind of thing, regardless of whether it was hand written or generated.
Nowhere in here does it indicate that the generated plan was wrong or broken. I dont care if you use ai to write. I care if you write well. If the author trusted the other person, then it shouldn't matter. If the author didn't trust the other person, then they'd have to validate their output anyway. Granted the tech allows people I dont trust to generate a lot more bs, a lot faster. But i just reject and move on with my life in that case. I am no ai booster but a lot people are expressing distaste for tools when they should be expressing distaste for fools.
> It used to be that a well-written document was a proof-of-work that the author thought things through (or at least spent some time thinking about it).
I think you hit the nail on the head here. The problem isn't so much that people can do bad work faster than ever now, its that we can no longer rely on the same heuristics for quickly assessing a given piece of work. I dont have a great answer. But I do still think it has something to do with trust and how we build relationships with each other.
> Granted the tech allows people I dont trust to generate a lot more bs, a lot faster. But i just reject and move on with my life in that case.
But even a rejection is work. So if they're generating more bs faster, they are generating more work for you. And, in some organizations, they will receive rewards for occasionally pressing buttons and inundating you with crap.
> a lot people are expressing distaste for tools when they should be expressing distaste for fools.
I'm pretty sure that the original article, and most of the derogatory comments here, are expressing distaste for fools rather than tools. Specifically, tool-using fools.
you would do well to note that this page links directly to an entire wikipedia entry for 'US War Crimes': https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_war_crimes