That's accurate, for the first draft. Similar to big legal firms - subsequent versions are signed-off and passed up (and if revisions request, down) the hierarchy, each stratum with its own billing rate(s).

Which makes me wonder when the hallucinations got added.

Google ads "extracted" value from traditional advertising in newspapers and magazines, so the "exploitation" (or efficiency gains, if you're charitable) came at the expense of employees at other organizations worldwide.

Perhaps now, but during the Zero Interest Rate era, the received wisdom was founders ought to keep going until there bank account was empty, in the hope that they may salvage returns for investors. Vendors, partners, clients and employees would be screwed, naturally, but it didn't matter because VC preferred it because losing all the money in a desperate gamble was preferable to lending money to startups at 0%

This is the most valuable contribution you had time for, hopefully with a minimum-viable bug reproduction.

Drive-by patches/PRs are usually a net-negative because the maintainer has to reverse-engineer the intent from GenAI code, and then make changes to have it fit in with the rest of project.

> It felt weird to just file issues when my LLM had already spent a lot of time root-causing and fixing the issues

There are countless ways to fix any issue, and only a few right ways (subjectively). The maintainers' role is to decide which ways are right for their project. You shouldn't worry too much about "wasting" code you already generated, GenAI made that step very cheap, but did little for taste and roadmapping.

The lack of humility among tech folk is astounding. Why dont you ask yourself why the 10x'ers/doers/high-impact people aren't setting up their 3-trillion dollar company if they are so darn effective by themselves? Perhaps becaus they'll need the "bureaucracy" to interface woth the rest of the world to get things like "money" and "contracts" and deal with the legal system...as well as ensuring their work is aligned and cohesive.

That's the crux of my point; Apple could have solved this on day zero if they had a consumer-centered threat-model and/or considered user data to be a liability rather than a hook for service subscriptions.

> The problem is the work it takes to solve it isn’t worth the hit to time to market. (And possibly even the cost.)

I don't consider this to be a problem, but the DMA working as intended and preventing gatekeepers from competing unfairly.

Only after the cofounders brought in veteran "adult supervision" who offered guided the company with a steady hand, while Larry and Sergei were safely in their moonshot hobby project play-pens, away from the core products - an arrangement that would greatly benefit shareholders in Musk companies.

1. e.g. lots of smiling, use of superlatives like "great"/"amazing" to describe mediocre items/effort/results

For strongly-typed coding tasks - and I imagine other tasks that have cheap validity checks: agentic harnesses and thinking tokens are an effective foil against hallucinations, at the expense of time. If a model hallucinates an API, compilation will fail and the error fed back into the machine so it can try again, in a two-steps-forward-one-step-back dance that is unreasonably effective. Given the price delta, it is often more cost effective to let the weaker model spiral towards a solution with many "Oh, wait..." turns

I think $0.20 per bullet is far too little, considering the medical expenses the guard will face when getting the bullets removed after they are shot for copper.

It's not a "general theme", it's right there in the name of the economic system.

AMD is selling every MI card it makes, and the market wants more of them.

Was it universally obvious? Hindaight is 20/20 There were many block-chain startups funded, and even FAANG got caught up in the hype. FWIW, I was a crypto sceptic, but I had many arguments with believers online and in my social circles. Side note: a crypto enthusiast colleague bought a house off their crypto gains, it may be a grift, but a small number of crypto-believwrs got really wealthy, and you're not going to convince them.

This is a terrible argument; I didn't need to have had secrets exfiltrated before applying row-hammer mitigations. If rsync is the cornerstone of my backup strategy, and has been for years, I need to trust that on its correctness, and for it to not lose my data. If I wait until I "face any actual bugs or regressions" - that will be far too late.

Stability is another issue not discussed. If the error rate holds steady, but number of significant PRs merged per release goes up from 5 to 200, that would be huge net-negative for my use case.