https://www.jstor.org/stable/40375906

demand was suppressed by an access bottleneck, the bottleneck is gone, expect a magnitude of change proportional to how much demand was actually pent up rather than proportional to how much programmers currently think was reasonable to deny.

Explicit things I am not saying: gatekeeping was bad, feature creep is good or desirable, etc. etc. etc.

Prediction: programming is going to change massively not only because the cost of creating code will go down, but because people are so tired of this sort of gatekeeping "we know better" from programmers.

It's literally everywhere. So much negativity. Sometimes I wonder how much is enemy action and how much is just depression or some other mental illness.

Like, Claude going off the rails isn't something that takes a lot of effort to demonstrate. Literally anybody with a CLAUDE.md has seen the behavior over and over and over.

Hey Ants, can you maybe just not release the next version, no matter how good it seems on benchmarks, if it can't follow the goddamn instructions? Please? This seems trivial to test for and yet here we are, being gaslit by lying machines who intentionally do not do the requested work over and over and over and over.

I fully and completely expect a mental health crisis among developers. Being lied to constantly cannot be good for us.

Constant vigilance! is how you get developer PTSD and inability to believe anything you're told. Add the stress of parsing through yet another hyperverbose paragraph of bullshit while having your job threatened? People are not gonna end up in a good place, and this is as inevitable as sunrise.

> He listed some vague reasons, compressor this, compressor that, costs, etc... which I didn't care to understand.

> two adults should be able to ask each other for what they want

... Which they would be able to do if you actually listened to the guy instead of dismissing him as someone you didn't understand?

1. Why are you here?

2. What is the purpose of this comment?

And it is still fun!

We already live in the world where machines (or at least cyborgs, man + machine) garden better than humans, and yet there are human gardeners out here pulling weeds by hand, digging in the dirt for fun, happy to share our often funky-looking vegetables with friends.

Because that was my takeaway.

Building things I'm interested in with and for people I care about. That might look like code or gardening or relationships or all sorts of things. There's so much to do. So many things to want to get out of bed for, and for the days when there aren't, slow cozy mornings are nice too.

Why do you suppose there will be nothing of value you can do for another human just because the machines are better/faster at most things? Just caring about someone without being programmed to will seem to become quite the most valuable thing?

On Tuesday I was working on my Braille 'N Speak emulator[0], an ancient Z180-based accessible notetaker for the blind. I wanted a z180 emulation library that wasn't z180-emu (GPL) and that I could use on the web via wasm, on my phone, and would have a Python binding.

Of course, this is a perfect sort of job for an agent with a verification loop, so I went off and researched if there were any standard conformance suites for z80/z180. Turns out there are a ton! I wired up my verification loops, fired off /goal, and sat back. Now, I have my library[1].

Was "AI assisted coding" "used responsibly?"

Should this sort of thing be allowed? Why or why not?

[0]: https://github.com/ctoth/qns

[1]: https://github.com/ctoth/z-core

And this is the point where your internal compiler should have started shouting 'Type Error'

Notice the trick here?

> Then there’s the fine print. Claude couldn’t sustain Fable access on the twenty dollar plan, so they turned it off, and the plan quietly falls back to Opus.

Where is the Fable-class Kimi model at all?

TIL: Phil Zimmermann was a "tech bro" and had a time machine.

You realize that your comment reads like "well, actually things shouldn't be getting better over time"

I, for one, completely disagree.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48950101

Points: 2

# Comments: 1

On one hand the thing they are offering is legit great, and how do you get people to use/understand a whole new type of thing without offering them some for free?

On the other hand ... you really gonna get people used to an extra 50% then take it away? When this has been most of your new signups experience with the system?

The predictable pushback when people realize the workflows they developed over these two months are no longer viable will be ... quite something.

Then, you opened the page and read it and realized that this prediction was contingent? You know what a conditional is (I would assume) if this, than that?

Then you realized that the only reason you were posting this comment was as a sort of silly gotcha "Oh look at the guys who keep increasing the number" instead of talking about the differences between the scenarios?

Then what happened?

I guess? If you squint? DSP code could look a little like AI training code? ... Er. No. Not really I'm pretty lost on this one.

The task was literally just to compare against the "make a beautiful voice" plan, see what we've implemented, see what's left to do, and to make recommendations for low-hanging fruit, anything we've done wrong so far? (aaaaand ... downgrade. At least it wasn't silent.

[0]: https://github.com/ctoth/qlatt