It is also clear AI will bring even worse poverty levels and skew the wealth disparity even further.

The latter isn't the fault of AI itself, its the fault of the humans who will control it.

Many people claim its going to become a tool we use alongside our daily work, but its clear to me thats not how anybody managing a company sees it, and even these AI labs that previously tried to emphasize how much its going to augment existing workforces are pushing being able to do more with less.

Most companies are holding onto their workforce only begrudgingly while the tools advance and they still need humans for "something", not because they're doing us some sort of favor.

The way I see it unless you have specialized knowledge, you are at risk of replacement within the next few years.

You could even isolate it down to every function and create a harness that provides it a chain of where and how the function is used and repeat this for every single function in a codebase.

For some very large codebases this would be unreasonable, but many of the companies making these larger models do realistically have the compute available to run a model on every single function in most codebases.

You have the harness run this many times per file/function, and then find ones that are consistently/on average pointed as as possible vulnerability vectors, and then pass those on to a larger model to inspect deeper and repeat.

Most of the work here wouldn't be the model, it'd be the harness which is part of what the article alludes to.

I get the security aspect, but if we've hit that point any reasonably sophisticated model past this point will be able to do the damage they claim it can do. They might as well be telling us they're closing up shop for consumer models.

They should just say they'll never release a model of this caliber to the public at this point and say out loud we'll only get gimped versions.

But I do not use extra high thinking unless its for code review. I sit at GPT 5.4 high 95% of the time.

There are tasks worked on at large enterprises that have 5+ year horizons, and those can't all immediately be tracked in terms of monetary gain that can be correlated with AI usage. We've barely even had AI as a daily tool used for development for a few years.

They do "attempt" to measure productivity. But they also just see large dollar amounts on AI costs and get wary.

My company is also wary of going all in with any one tool or company due to how quickly stuff changes. So far they've been trying to pool our costs across all tools together and give us an "honor system" limit we should try not to go above per month until we do commit to one suite of tools.

At my F500 company execs are very wary of the costs of most of these tools and its always top of mind. We have dashboards and gather tons of internal metrics on which tools devs are using and how much they are costing.

They're also churning with enterprise customers because for lots of customers on next contract renewal their pricing is increasing like 4-8x (depending on usage patterns but this was what we calculated for most of our devs) because they are slowly moving enterprise customers to usage based only plus a surcharge per million tokens, which they already did with personal sub customers, and all of the latest models are becoming Max mode only. My company is currently going through this and we've committed to way less spend with Cursor for our renewal and are signing with Anthropic and telling devs to prefer using claude code instead. I wouldn't be surprised if next year we cancel altogether and tell all devs to go back to VSCode or some other preferred editor.

I don't see a world where Cursor continues to be viable for 5-10 more years. Lots of people were originally saying "the moat is not in being an model provider" for agentic tools and thats turning out to be very much false in my opinion at least if you care about being a business.

This along with the tons of other paper cuts they've slacked on is tarring their brand.

Its trivial to setup and you could literally ask claude to do it for you and never have any of these issues ever again.

Any and all "I don't want it to ever run this command" issues are just skill issues.

Just setup a hook that prevents any git commands you don't ever want it to run and you will never have this happen again.

Whenever I see stuff like this I just wonder if any of these people were ever engineers before AI, because the entire point of software engineering for decades was to make processes as deterministic and repeatable as possible.

I really don't care and I'm definitely on your side where I think people should be allowed to do what they want in this regard.

The crossing of line for me though is that this is now being advertised on TV and practically everywhere and being normalized for children and teenagers.

Call me a cynic, but I think the real goal in the long term for these companies is to get people addicted to it and to normalize it from a young age while they're more impressionable and thats where I believe the true harm is.

And then to compensate they should be paid more in terms of salary, even if that salary seems absurdly large it would be less than most of them gain from the insider info they use to make deals.

Take the median income, multiply it by 5-10 and thats their salary.

The odds are too low of anybody getting meaningfully punished while they get to openly setup their entire family for generations using means and information not available to any normal citizen.

And while not guaranteed they are statistically more likely to suffer age related cognitive decline while still in office.

Almost none of them treat these consistently (if they consider these at all) and all require you to work around them in strange ways.

It feels like there is a lot they could help with in the web world, especially in complex UI and moving computation off the main thread but they are just so clunky to use that almost nobody tries to work around it.

The ironic part is if bundlers, transpilers, compilers etc. weren't used at all they would probably have much more widespread use.

Rather the issue is they believe they are GOOD at the "journey" and getting to the destination and could compare their journey to others. Another take is they could more readily share their journey or help their peers. Some really like that part.

Now who you are comparing to is not other people going through the same journey, so there is less comradery. Others no longer enjoy that same journey so it feels more "lonely" in a way.

Theres nothing stopping someone from still writing their own code for fun by hand, but the element of sharing the journey with others is diminishing.