I've subsisted on photos from the Apollo missions and artistic renditions for so long that seeing the modern, high resolution real thing to be quite stirring in a way I didn't expect. It actually does make me believe that the future could be quite cool.

Fair

But to run with your metaphor, can we, maybe, just ignore the quacking since we all know that's just how you get attention these days and instead focus on that other stuff? Because it seems like asking about the duck mask will never produce a satisfactory answer and instead turn into a debate on the merits of ducks.

Dare I suggest that this debate has become boring and beside the point. Unless someone on HN has been living under a rock they've already made up their mind about ducks.

The problem is there's no beating the slop allegation. There's no "proof of work" that can be demonstrated in this comment section that satisfies, which you can see if you just keep following the entire chain. I'd rather read slop comments than this.

The main engineer of this project is in the comments and all he's being engaged with on is the definition of vibes.

Another way is to just do better isolation as a user. That's probably your best shot without hoping these companies change policies.

If the value of many kinds of labor go towards zero, those benefits also go to the poor. ChatGPT has a free tier. The method of escaping poverty will still be the same. Grow yourself. Provide value to your community.

> "Once I’ve proven to myself that rendering was feasible, I used Claude to create an approximate version of the game loop in JavaScript based on the original DOOM source, which to me is the least interesting part of the project"

This post is about whether you can render Doom in CSS not whether Claude can replicate Doom gameplay. I doubt the author even bothered to give the game loop much QA.

I love this and have a corollary saying: the last job to be automated will be QA.

This wave of technology has triggered more discussion about the types of knowledge work that exist than any other, and I think we will be sharper for it.

My worry is for the business and how they structure pricing. GitHub is able to provide the free services they do because at some point they did the math on what a typical free tier does before they grow into a paid user. They even did the math on what paid users do, so they know they'll still make money when charging whatever amount.

My hunch is AI is a multiplier on usage numbers, which increases OpEx, which means it's eating into GH's assumptions on margin. They will either need to accept a smaller margin, find other ways to shrink OpEx, or restructure their SKUs. The Spotifies and YouTubes of the world hosting other media formats have it harder than them, but they are able to offset the cost of operation by running ads. Can you imagine having to watch a 20 second ad before you can push?

I don't think GitHub's product is at risk, but its business model might.

Its business is underpinned by pre-AI assumptions about usage that, based on its recent instability, I suspect is being invalidated by surges in AI-produced code and commits.

I'm worried, at some point, they'll be forced to take an unpopular stance and either restrict free usage tiers or restrict AI somehow. I'm unsure how they'll evolve.

This is such a rorschach test for AI pessimism and optimism.

Say what you want about my comments, but at least I'm within bounds of comment guidelines: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

First, I appreciate how he implemented auto-update. Not sure if that pattern is original, but I've been solving it in a different-but-worse way for a similar project. NOT a fan of how it's being used to present articles on Garry's List. I like the site, but that's a totally different lane.

The skills are great for upleveling plans. Claude in particular has a way of generating plans with huge blind spots. I've learned to pay close attention to plans to avoid getting burned, and the plan skills do a fair job at helping catch gaps so I don't have to ralph-wiggum later. I don't find the CEO skill terribly effective, but I do like the role it plays at finding delighters for features. This is also where I think my original prompting tends to be strong, which could be why it doesn't appear to have a huge impact like the other skills.

I think the design skills are great and I like the direction they're going. DESIGN.md needs to become a standard practice. I think it's done a great job at helping with design consistency and building UIs that don't feel like slop. This general approach will probably challenge lots of design-focused coding tools.

The approach to using the browser is superior to Claude's built-in extension in pretty much every way (except cookie management). It's worth it for that alone.

For people who don't understand this...think of each skill like a phase of the SDLC. The actual content, over time, will probably become bespoke to how your team builds software, but the steps themselves are all pretty much the same. All of this is still early days, so YMMV using these specific skills, but I like the philosophy.