A lot of people are going to do the math on migrating. Bugs happen everywhere. Leaving the community out in the cold and only supplying the corporate sponsors doesn't.

I found that a slightly-modified firefox for more stealthy remote-control works fine and gets a pass on all automatic captchas I tested. but I don't do it at scale, I just wanted something to automate a particularly stupid website that I have to use.

Would love to see if my browser is detected -- any recommendations for tests to run?

linkedin-drivel.

Maybe they'd care if the account was using a stolen credit card and there was a chance they wouldn't get their money, but they definitely do not care otherwise for normal people like me. I'm sure that'd be different if it's a multinational or a country-level government body is reporting something, but I can't get those to do my bidding.

Very understandable, you can't store all 15000 pages of any random website and update them etc etc, but that makes them pretty useless for indirect scraping because you usually don't want a tiny taste, you want everything.

That's obviously not the issue with that -- you don't see those comments on Google's AI announcements.

It's currently the rage in blackhat SEO: just say you're John Doe from Doeville and competitorsite.com is infringing on your copyright. Google will remove that specific URL from the SERPs and there's a 50/50 chance whether the target gets a notification from google or not.

If they do, they can counter claim directly and it takes 12-48 hours to be reinstated.

If they don't, they have to figure out what's going on by using the Lumen Database (the only way to receive that information because Google is horribly bad at basic legal matters) and finding the notice, which will contain the exact URL (because fun fact: the claim and counter-claim are case-sensitive, the removal-from-serp is case-insensitive), and then do manual counter-claim, and it takes anywhere from 3 to 30 days.

During that time, your competitor will just be gone from the SERPs.

Why would it "quickly compete"? What if AI gives you a 100x leverage but not a 100000x leverage?

With the 100000x leverage, you could spin up a full browser and compete, but not with the 100x. With 100x, you could use fewer people or do it in less time, but the amount of effort that goes into browsers still doesn't make it "an afternoon for one person".

I think it's undeniable that an excavator is ridiculously more powerful than a human at digging holes. Let's say it's 100x more efficient.

But if you had 1000 people work on a big hole every day for 5 years, the excavator wouldn't manage to do the same in a day, but it would allow you to do the same with 10 people and 10 excavators in 5 years, or with 50 people and 50 excavators in one year.

I don't think it scales linearly the more complexity grows, but "it hasn't been done, therefore it isn't possible" seems wrong. Maybe the big labs could build a browser, but they'd much rather spend the attention of 50 engineers on something else.

My usage might be much simpler than what you do, but it went from "but I gave a list of things to do, you only did 5 of them" - "okay, here are the other 7, oh btw, I skipped the verification rule because nobody has time for that" to good compliance, the orchestrator starts the sub agents, tells them exactly one thing to do, and makes sure they've done it afterwards.

makes sense on planning as well, I think. spend your tokens on the best model to explore the problem and design the solution, but the implementation and testing/verification cycles don't need the strongest model you can get.

and suddenly things work again, it's magic!

For one role we got ~70 applications and all CVs looked obviously AI-written. I don't know whether the people did actually do any of the things mentioned and I don't have the time to find out, so the AI-written CVs are a discard-signal for me. (Either those people delegated a very important task to AI and didn't even bother to check, or they are bad using AI and don't know -- I want neither)

Any CVs that signal they were actually written by a person I will actually look at.

Or, put another way, you spend hundreds of dollars a month on not having to learn russian and live as putin's peasant.

Seems like a good deal to me.

I think the part you can't easily clone will turn out to be the institutional processes that allow you to run at scale, onboard new people, deal with common requests that AI cannot on its own (e.g. legal compliance), the relationships you have with partners and vendors, the legal setups you have in place etc.

I'd assume that plenty of developers feel capable to building a better jira, and some try, and few/none succeed despite atlassian doing everything in their power to drive clients away, because cloning the project isn't the hard part with that type of product.

In my experience, the people who actually wanted to improve the presentation of their messages are upfront about it and clearly say they're using AI to organize their thoughts or polish their english.

The search is entirely gone and will straight up not list regular content that was made by humans, but it will absolutely surface the cheap AI-voices that can't say HVAC fluently.

Makes sense for youtube, too. For the average person, that seems to be enough, the ads are the same value, and people who dislike that probably have a large overlap with people who use adblockers and don't impulsively spend money on the latest browser-game, miracle cure for cancer, or financial advice from random scammers.

I suppose that would be very close to "you've come to the experts for advice and I probably shouldn't be here because I'm not one of them", which nobody wants to admit.

For many, an honest look at themselves would end with "I don't contribute anything". They have the opposite of impostor syndrome - they don't belong, but they feel like they should, and AI helps them pretend.