May just be a person by person thing though, not saying what you have is bad per say.

Very rarely did anything actually get discussed of any meaning. Ive always found them to end up just being another annoying meeting in my calendar.

https://investors.palantir.com/news-details/2024/Anthropic-a...

https://www.cnbc.com/2026/03/12/karp-palantir-anthropic-clau...

https://www.reuters.com/technology/palantir-faces-challenge-...

Any company of Palantir size is not just gonna have people using personal subscriptions to use Claude on mission critical software or it's development.

They have no values that align with humans prospering.

At the top level of anything there is almost no such thing as a non-asshole.

None of them care genuinely about you they just want your money.

If I wanted to read something that wasn't written by another person, you might as well swap out the from field for "Claude" or "gpt-5" or w/e and stop pretending you had any valuable input.

Sure there's something to be said about having an AI help. But I'd rather that be an attachment clearly labelled and for the content to be strictly reserved for a human.

This is already how I think PRs and such should be written. There should be a field or section of the description reserved for the AI generated content, with the rest being for the human to clearly describe their intention.

But instead we're living in a world of AIs masquerading as humans. And it's only getting worse.

https://code.claude.com/docs/en/model-config#adaptive-reason...

> Opus 4.7 and later always use adaptive reasoning. The fixed thinking budget mode and CLAUDE_CODE_DISABLE_ADAPTIVE_THINKING do not apply to them.

It just hurts competition among those who have an internal motivation to go above and beyond. They will feel they are being held back and either lose motivation or go somewhere where they feel a union isn't holding them back.

And the downside of that is companies losing their most hardworking/motivated people.

Edit: the above was written before the edit adding the cat and mouse game.

Added: I agree as well that when implemented wrong unions have pretty annoying affects on peoples motivation or work ethic. People who are qualified for things aren't allowed to do things outside of their explicit job description/contract. Etc. Some argue this is good, others argue it just wastes tons of time and hurts progress.

Philosophically unions benefit the majority and are probably a net good on a social construct level. But they are likely a net loss to the top percentage of workers who are extremely motivated to move up and probably hurt innovation overall.

Unions exist to benefit the median and bring up the floor, but it stifles competition among those who really do desire to be at the top. And in doing so while it brings up the floor, it also brings down the ceiling because people who would normally be motivated enough to move up would not have much incentive to do so anymore.

Additionally most companies arguments against unions make the assumption that EVERYONE wants to be part of that top percentage, that everyone is extremely motivated to move up the ladder, etc. Also they bank on convincing everyone they could be part of that top percentage that moves up.

But statistically only so many can, and there is no universe where everyone can be that top worker who is successful because only so many can move up anyways.

Edit: Adding that this is from my perspective on US views of unions. I don't know much about how it differs elsewhere since many point out it seems to be done differently here vs elsewhere.

They also offer grants you can apply for as a researcher. I'm sure other labs may have this too but I believe OpenAI was first to this.

Think what you want but even when hosted in the US, at the enterprise level going all in on that would be a legal and/or political death sentence.

We need better open source/cheap but high intelligence western models that are proven to work well in agent if tooling and have strong legal agreements for enterprise to even consider it.

Thus far most of the buzz and marketing has been entirely negative from people who are against AI.

My take is that most of the buzz is also tied to recent negative opinions of Anthropic themselves due to some of their recent decisions.

This is entirely disingenuous. Jarred has already made it clear what value they get out of moving off of Zig. Yes they used AI heavily to attempt this goal but I don't see what the big issue is. They haven't even released it yet and Anthropic themselves have said 0 about this.

The "headlines" thus far are really just people completely uninvolved with Bun and with all to gain by perpetrating "AI BAD".

My honest take: the big issue isn't "what if it goes wrong" its the fear that a migration of this size works out of the box and being done almost entirely by AI.

In fact using the word "rewrite" itself is pretty inaccurate.

As has been mentioned the goal was a port so they "could" eventually rewrite most of it to be idiomatic rust. The main benefit of this now is the compiler and being able to use these tools to fix issues that were already being hidden when it was in zig.

If you go into this codebase expecting to see idiomatic rust and get angry when it's not there, you are going in with the entirely incorrect attitude.

It's understandable how people see it as AI slop or whatever given the division among developers at the moment. But please see it for what it is instead of just jumping to conclusions.

I just hope it's noted when this is eventually marketed how much human effort went into designing and curating the test suite that even enabled this speed in the first place.

A test suite sort of functions exactly like the ideal scenario for current gen llms. A comprehensive enough test suite essentially forms the spec for agents to implement however they see fit - in this case rust.

You could probably throw away the entire actual source code in certain cases and reimplement the whole thing from scratch just giving an agent access to the tests when it's as well crafted as a project like bun.

But there is a clear pattern emerging. There's no reason to turn down the heat when a company of this size and influence is allowed this level of absurdity time and time again.

But my best guess is they don't want to put a firm line down because they want to be free to shift it around however they'd like.

My guess is this response was entirely written by an LLM that is instructed to never to offer refunds or compensation.

Of course I want the best of the best who are top notch and rigorously trained working on mission critical software.

Engineers are accredited and in some countries even come with a title.