But yes, the article can basically be distilled into just Chesterton's Fence.

I visit HN because it's supposed to surface interesting, novel, engaging, challenging articles. LLM output is the extreme opposite of that.

Yeah, nobody took one second to look this over before posting it directly from the slop machine =(

It may very much be, to be honest. The causalities aren't that mysterious.

Slop website indicates vibe-coded software, and I wouldn't let anything like that even look at my code.

Wasn't there a study recently that even found a model's performance was sometimes better when the "reasoning" was nonsense? As in, no clear correllation between what the reasoning says in a human's interpretation, and how the model actually did with the task.

I sometimes read the traces out of boredom or morbid curiosity. My favourite bit with Claude is how, even if you give a very comprehensive prompt in complete sentences, almost every trace will contain a variation of "the user asks me to X, but their thought cuts off mid-sentence."

Fever dream.

My employer let us evaulate all the big providers for a month each before having a vote on which one we'd like to keep. Cursor won almost unanimously. (This was before the xAI takeover was even on the horizon, otherwise I would've voted differently myself.)

How many tech workers can affoard such a homestead? How many will be able to afford it once millions try to go down the same path after the economy crumbles?

Is running a profitable farm so simple that anyone can do it after watching a few YouTube videos? It seems to me that if it were so easy, so many farmers wouldn't struggle and give up farming.

If there are suddenly several times as many egg farms as before because of all the career changers, will eggs still be sold at $5 a dozen?

How will all of these homesteaders compete against the scale of conglomerates in an increasingly automated industry?

And what do we have to show for it? We can localise some bug causes faster, and it takes some of the mindless boilerplate work off our hands. Which affects maybe 10-20% of our actual job, and even there occasionally eliminates the gains again right away because you have to babysit or manually redo it, without always knowing when and where that might happen. That's not what I'd call a revolutionary increase in efficiency.

And this isn't just my impression, it's what I hear from pretty much all of my professional peers, which includes people waaay more experienced and smarter than me.

I live in a fairly rich place and here, taxis were fine, too. When Uber came, they mostly just eroded salaries and protections for taxi drivers, while lowering the quality of service for customers (though also, for a short while, the price). The best I can say about it is that it accelerated the digital transformation of the industry a bit.

On the other hand, I heard from several people from other places in the world that the arrival of Uber meant that they could finally get a safe and reliable ride.

I watched the first Rambo very late, only about two years ago, and I was amazed at how much better the explosions look than in any movie I've seen in the past two decades. You can afford to actually show what's happening when it looks that good.

I've noticed a similar thing in martial arts movies. You can save a lot of effort and money with the quick, frantic editing. The alternative is that the choreography and cinematography have to be really on point. If you just shake the camera around a lot and do a cut every second, you can get away with amateurish fighters doing whatever, nobody will really notice.

Talking about a movie after having seen it, or reading online discussions with different viewpoints on it, like this thread, is my favourite part post-movie-watching. There'd be none of that if everybody makes up and watches their own version.

Also, keep in mind that humans are historically very bad at predicting what of their times might be of interest to future generations. As a representation of the times, even some slop content has its place.