If you ever wanted to climb the senior technical ladder, this is now the quickest way to experience it. Except instead of other people you get to work with agents which, while a very different experience, requires largely the same skills.

So yes, your job is not what it was before, but with career growth it typically was not anyway.

Even if a lot of the improvements we see today are due to things outside the models themselves -- tools, harnesses, agents, skills, availability of compute, better understanding of how to use AI, etc. -- things are changing very quickly overall. It would be a mistake to just focus on one or two things, like models or benchmarks, and ignore everything else that is changing in the ecosystem.

2. You're stance is equivalent to "show me concrete evidence that the advent of the automobile will have a positive impact on horse-drawn buggy coachmen" while I'm saying, "the automobile is coming, we all better get off our high horses and learn how to drive."

But now you don't need their money, and so the capital class lose their power over you.

As an example, I'm iterating on a niche product based on computer vision -- something I had no background in when I started -- that in the past would have taken a team of 2 - 3 and at least a semester or two of an advanced course in computer vision. Instead, I'm solo bootstrapping this project.

There are multiple accounts like mine, and you can find many comments on HN or other forums to this effect. Now, I know this is a very tough path for most people because, well, now everybody needs to be an entrepreneur, but a path exists.

AI is a double-edged sword, and more people need to become aware of the edge that is available to us.

I'm a bit more optimistic about democratized access to AI. Even today's weaker open source/weight models are plenty powerful enough to supercharge our individual capabilities, and based on current trends, they won't be more than 3 - 6 months behind the frontier models. This may not bode well for the AI labs because their moat is always evaporating, but it's a huge boon to us plebs.

Radical changes bring radical opportunities too, so "having the time of their lives" is not necessarily incompatible with "adapting to profound disruption."

Consider that the traits that make them optimistic about this technology are exactly the traits required to navigate this Brave New World.

Would you rather feel justified in the knowledge that the Luddites were principally right and resist, or would you rather learn the lesson of their fate and adapt?

How would you even resist? Say the entire US population pushes back and gets protectionist regulations passed; there will always be hungry people just a few 100ms ping away willing to outcompete you using AI.

Really, at this point there are only two choices: change society to move beyond Capitalism, or adapt to the new economic reality. Either choice is valid, and I suspect eventually one will lead to the other, but there is no putting the genie back in the bottle.

If I understand correctly, the primary philosophy of the platform is edge computing with dedicated infra (workers, DB, etc) per-user. While that may be an under-leveraged niche and CloudFlare excels at it, it is still a niche.

On that open/close aspect, however, this case is interesting because the leaked code was for a product that was shipped to users' machines in the wild. I'd say that while Anthropic, to your point, absolutely does not want this code leaked, they'd also know very well that any software released this way cannot be considered a competitive advantage for long.

Like, the ability of LLMs to reverse engineer software is well known by now. In fact this blog describes how, even before the leak, they reversed the CLI to patch bugs that Anthropic wouldn't! https://dev.to/kolkov/we-reverse-engineered-12-versions-of-c...

Which may be why other tools in this space have been open sourced. Yet Claude Code hasn't been, so clearly Anthropic wants to protect some rights there. I am very curious about these labs' decision processes when considering what functionality to put in the CLI versus on the servers. That could be a hint about their IP strategy and how they're thinking of moats.

Like, from the users' perspectives they were interacting via text messages both before and after PMF, until later down the line they were migrated to an app. At this point, the change was largely aesthetic, the core idea was the same.

Maybe we're using different definitions of terms like "PMF" here?

https://epic.org/documents/linkedin-corp-v-hiq-labs-inc/

> HiQ has created two specific data products targeted at employers: (1) “Keeper,” which informs employers which of their employees are at “risk” of being recruited by competitors; and...

My hunch is that HiQ simply looked for spikes in activity on LinkedIn as a signal for a job hunt: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47566893

In any case, this lawsuit was discussed a few times on HN at the time, and IIRC there were a fair bit of support for allowing free scraping of "public information." Interesting how the sentiment here has turned these days...

I think the crux here is the OP means the "quality of code" doesn't matter until PMF, only the utility matters (to the extent it helps you find PMF), in which case you're both in violent agreement.

But even then you don't need code. I briefly worked for a startup that found PMF by calling people, sending text messages, creating social media posts, measuring engagement to create reports, and sending invoices... all manually. The "code" as such was a bunch of templates in a doc for each of those. Once they actually started getting paid they moved to writing code.

I suppose "data centers in space" is the current answer but again, I'm suspicious about its feasibility.

Barring that, until we have another "killer app" besides Starlink, like a giant orbital space station or a moonbase, I'm curious whether there is enough demand.

That's basically a UX trick to entirely sidestep being held accountable for the results, but seems sufficient to notify the user about the provenance of the answer to adjust their grains of salt.

It's been fun seeing the cognitive dissonance in anti-LLM tech circles as technical giants that they idolized, from Torvalds through Carmack all the way up to Knuth, say something positive about AI, let alone sing praises of it!

Otherwise it's straightforward to say that the mathematics is being applied to achieve a practical goal via execution on a computer. (You'll see the term non-transitory computer-readable media" a lot in claims.) You now have a method and system. Now, caselaw frequently changes things, like the "Alice" decision in the US made it much harder to just patent things done "on a computer" but the underlying principle holds.

I'd also guess if your approach makes something faster or cheaper, it should be possible to show it is non-abstract, because resources like time and costs are not abstract quantities.

Standard disclaimer: I'm not a lawyer! I've just worked with patents extensively.

Unfortunately, that would be considered heresy on forums like HN, and people will continue to rail against AI and whatever it's causing and patents, instead of realizing that one is the only available leverage against the other.

Probably even more valuable than code that just worked, because evidently we have enough of that and AI code still has issues.