It's done this before, but usually doesn't. I bet they're giving it some kind of throttling signal due to high load from today's announcement.

(Yes, I know arch linux is not what you want if you're a "I just want something that works" person switching from windows. That's not me, I'm more of a "I want all the control and responsibility guy". I just don't have four hours to spend figuring out how to get hardware video acceleration working in vlc by trial and error the first time I try to play a video. Twenty minutes though? OK. I'll even learn something in the process.)

It's true that I could accept the plan and hope that it will realize that it can't commit a change that doesn't compile on its own, later. I might even have some reason to think that's true, such as your stop hook, or a "memory" it wrote down before after I told it to never ever commit a change that doesn't compile, in all caps. But that doesn't change the badness of the plan.

Which is especially notable because I already told it the correct plan! It just tried to change the plan out of "laziness", I guess? Or maybe if you're enough of an LLM booster you can just say I didn't use exactly the right natural language specification of my original plan.

You would think.

It would be one thing if it was like, ok, we'll temporarily commit the signature change, do some related thing, then come back and fix all the call sites, and squash before merging. But that is not the proposal. The plan it proposes is literally to make what it has identified as the minimal change, which obviously breaks the build, and call it a day, presuming that either I or a future session will do the obvious next step it is trying to beg off.

I ask my coding agent to do some tedious, extremely well-specified refactor, such as (to give a concrete real life example) changing a commonly used fn to take a locale parameter, because it will soon need to be locale-aware. I am very clear — we are not actually changing any behavior, just the fn signature. In fact, at all call sites, I want it to specify a default locale, because we haven't actually localized anything yet!

Said agent, I know, will spend many minutes (and tokens) finding all the call sites, and then I will still have to either confirm each update or yolo and trust the compiler and tests and the agents ability to deal with their failures. I am ok with this, because while I could do this just fine with vim and my lsp, the LLM agent can do it in about the same amount of time, maybe even a little less, and it's a very straightforward change that's tedious for me, and I'd rather think about or do anything else and just check in occasionally to approve a change.

But my f'ing agent is all like, "I found 67 call sites. This is a pretty substantial change. Maybe we should just commit the signature change with a TODO to update all the call sites, what do you think?"

And in that moment I guess I know why some people say having an LLM is like having a junior engineer who never learns anything.

I haven't a had a good experience since AT&T bought my previous ISP and forced me to switch to a different subsidiary.

Last weekend I finally started dual-booting Arch Linux as a trial. Yesterday I deleted my windows partition.

Too late, Microsoft.

It would seem that the creators of VisiCalc regarded this is a choice that made sense in the context of the limitations of the Apple ][, but agree that a dependency graph would have been better.

https://www.landley.net/history/mirror/apple2/implementingvi...

Edit: It's also interesting that the tradeoff here is put in terms of correctness, not performance as in the posted article. And that makes sense: Consider a spreadsheet with =B2 in A1 and =B1 in B2. Now change the value of B1. If you recalc the sheet in row-column OR column-row order, B2 will update to match B1, but A1 will now be incorrect! You need to evaluate twice to fully resolve the dependency graph.

> Previously, we could @cursor and ask it to modify the code and content, but now we introduced a new CMS abstraction in between. Everything became a bit more clunky. We went back to clicking through UI menus versus asking agents to do things for us.

> With AI and coding agents, the cost of an abstraction has never been higher. I asked them: do we really need a CMS? Will people care if they have to use a chatbot to modify content versus a GUI?

> For many teams, the cost of the CMS abstraction is worth it. They need to have a portal where writers or marketers can log in, click a few buttons, and change the content.

> More importantly, the migration has already been worth it. The first day after, I merged a fix to the website from a cloud agent on my phone.

> The cost of abstractions with AI is very high.

The whole argument is about how it's easier to use agents to modify the website without a CMS in the way.

This is an AI company saying "if you buy our product you don't need a CMS" and a CMS company saying "nuh-uh, you still need a CMS".

The most interesting thing here is that the CMS company feels the need to respond to the AI company's argument publicly.

So do you think this is a misrepresentation of Lee's argument? Again, I couldn't be bothered to read the original, so I'm relying on this interpretation of the original.

(I didn't click through to the original post because it seems like another boring "will AI replace humans?" debate, but that's the sense I got from the repeated mention of "agents".)

Even food is not unregulated! And not because too much food is bad for you, but because bad food can harm you.

A disanalogy with food is that there are natural limits to how much food you can/want to eat at one time. Another is that food is necessary for life. Neither is true of social media.

This is anecdotal evidence for the emerging consensus that social media is bad for you and especially for kids. There's a legitimate question whether the people pushing these products know this and don't care or actively suppress evidence.

Tobacco companies famously did this and it caused a lot of harm. It's about that more than just a chance for a cheap shot "hypocrisy" accusation.

In every case it has struck me as similar to, say, "split infinitives are ungrammatical": some people who pride themselves on being pedants like to drop it into any conversation where it might be relevant, believing it to be both important and true, when it is in fact neither.