You did claim this.

> self identify as autistic. (...) then software employment is full of self-indulgent and highly neurotic people

This is hateful and wrong. Autistic people aren't necessarily self indulgent, and not self evidently neurotic, though it happens to be the case that autistic people have a higher incidence of neuroticism, which is partially due to people describing them, for example, as "self indulgent".

You've shifted your claims, you're not supporting your claims by either argument or reference, and you've added hateful rhetoric. This is very regrettable.

Firstly, in the Big five model, which you seem to be referencing, openness and neuroticism are separate factors- Low neuroticism isn't correlated with high openness. Yes, since neuroticism is a negative trait, one would expect people low in neuroticism to do better than people who are high in neuroticism. This does not equate to "the most creative people" though.

Secondly, I'd push back that people low in neuroticism would be "least concerned by" surveillance. While strictly technically true, that's not a helpful framing, as it seemingly implies surveillance would have a negligible negative impact for people low in neuroticism. If that's what you're implying, I'd like to see references.

I'm not able to comment at all on the conclusing about "degree of disclosure" being moderated by trust level in social environment, especially how "creative people remain equally creative but do not openly expose their creative output". If true, this implies that trust in society doesn't impact primary (unshared) creative output at all- that's a very strong claim in my opinion. I'd very much like references on this.

You're presumably joking? If not, could you elaborate?

I'd turn it around- this is the reason asking questions does work! When you don't know what you want, someone asking you for more specifics is sometimes very illuminating, whether that someone is real or not.

LLMs have played this role well for me in some situations, and atrociously in others.

Github's cli tool `gh` is great for interacting with github in the terminal, e.g. opening PRs, checking workflows, PR status, etc). I do PR reviews on the site, but you can read comments in the terminal with `gh` (it does require internet access)

My day to day requires internet regardless of github, so there's no need to go for disconnected solutions, I think that's a different situation for the author. I quite like the idea of only turning the internet faucet on at select times!

[1] https://climate.mit.edu/explainers/freight-transportation

You've chosen a strategy, broke down the solution into small easy to code parts, validated business logic, noted traps to avoid, searched for all relevant code, set up a context packing document particular to this section of the code base, experimented with multiple agents, reviewed each version of the code to see if you understand it-

That sounds like a lot of work!

And why, so the AI can do the last 10% of actually coding it up? Is there even a speedup here over doing it yourself? There's some evidence against AI speedups [1]. Of course some of these steps are themselves AI enhanced, and some of them are part of the work regardless of whether you use AI.

I still feel skeptical on this workflow and how big the gains could possibly be. I feel more for the alternate approach of writing it yourself, but using the AI for the boring parts (e.g. copy this section, but use those functions), or for sparring / research. I have however no data to show which approach takes less time.

I can however tell you from experimenting with full on vibe coding- you can do it with half the attention you'd give the task yourself. Is that what I'm gaining, that I can read a book during code generation? (https://xkcd.com/303/)

[1] https://metr.org/blog/2025-07-10-early-2025-ai-experienced-o...

Yes technically he did circle the squirrel from his reference point, what of it? that wasn't the point. The point was he couldn't see the squirrel, and this question is only tangentially related.

I also really liked the game designer rule;

> People are very good at noticing when things suck. Not as good at figuring out why (...) If you want to address people’s concerns rather than win an argument, then it is you who must identify and state their concerns accurately.

I'd compare this to the concept of "steelmanning"- not easily dismissing a statement based on some small detail, but trying to adress the statement fully.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46373323

Points: 3

# Comments: 0

Surely you meant the latter? The boring option follows previous experience. No technology has ever not reached a plateau, except for evolution itself I suppose, till we nuke the planet.