In september he burned through 3000$ in API credits though, but I think that's before we finally bought max plans for everyone that wanted it.

There is a big difference between:

> Build plugins

and:

> Add 3px padding in line 5

if you claim "No code is written by humans anymore"

So there isn't really a way to avoid this trade-off you can either have a useless agent with no info and no access. Or a useful agent that then is incredibly risky to use as it might go rogue any moment.

Sure you can slightly choose where on the scale you want to be but any usefulness inherently means it's also risky if you run LLMs async without supervision.

The only absolutely safe way to give access and info to an agent is with manual approvals for anything it does. Which gives you review fatigue in minutes.

Some tells that you might wanna look at in your writing, if you truly did write it yourself without Any LLM input are these contrarian/pivoting statements. Your post is full of these and it is imo the most classic LLM writing tell atm. These are mostly variants of the 'Its not X but Y" theme:

- "Not whether they've adopted every tool, but whether they're curious"

- "I still drive the intuition. The agents just execute at a speed I never could alone."

- "The model doesn't save you from bad decisions. It just helps you make them faster."

- "That foundation isn't decoration. It's the reason the AI is useful to me in the first place."

- "That's not prompting. That's engineering"

It is also telling that the reader basically cant take a breather most of the sentences try to emphasize harder than the last one. There is no fluff thought, no getting side tracked. It reads unnatural, humans do not think like this usually.

Which is oddly close to how investment advice is given. If these techniques work so well, why give them up for free?

I mean thats not a new game concept but I definitely think that levels up the experience.

Also the post is definitely AI written partially, but still useful I suppose.

Of course sometimes this is useful if you only use your chatbot to ask personal things like: "What should I eat today?".

But if you use it for anything else you're much better off having full control over the prompt. I can always say: "Hey btw I am german and heavily anti surveillance, what should I know about the recent anthropic DoW situation?" but with memory I lose the option of leaving out that first part.

I think there is significant value in making people second guess content and look at it critically. Especially in a time where it is so easy to fake expertise. We all need to train that skill anyway these days for all online interactions.

10 years ago it was clickbait titles that we needed to learn to ignore, today it is LLM generated content. We will get there, but by not calling it out publicly we are making it easier for adversaries to fool everyone.

And yes I don't want to falsely accuse anyone of LLM slop either but they can defend themselves and making mistakes is part of the learning process for all of us. Writers and commenters will learn how to not sound like an LLM and we will more finely atune to the nuance between polished human writing and AI.

What they are actually trying to force you to do is to pay for the tokens that you don't use in their applications to increase their revenue and/or give their in-house tools an "unfair" advantage. But this is bad for the consumer because it means that there is less competition between coding agents and unless I'm willing to pay per token I have to take one of the model labs agents.

Anticompetitive behaviour imo they could just ban reselling tokens or something like that instead of locking your subscription in like this.

1. It puts more effort on me as a user to report the spam via email because I have to open my email, compose one by hand and add the reasoning. The offending user in comparison probably automatically spams. Can't we have a button at least?

2. It doesn't make the community aware of the ongoing issue. Other community members could be primed that currently they need to read comments more critically. At the moment that seems like the only detection that somewhat works but if I silently send an email instead of commenting here it doesn't inform anyone else of my suspicion.

If I want to read AI stuff I go to Clawdbook or OpenAIs Sora app.

is telling

didn't win... It won ...

Look at their other comments they are also fishy

I know you guys don't want us to call it out because of negativity. But there needs to be awareness in the community, this is the top comment somehow right now. It feels like it happens every other thread. Please do something more rigorous than manually deleting accounts.