My speculative assumption is that these long thinking threads and self-checking tend to produce somewhat better output at the price of huge price increases due to the token burn.

Well, today I gave Fable a try on one of the vibe-coded projects. It simply had to write a couple Python scripts 400-500 lines each. It did and they worked after a few iterations but I decided to look at the code it produced. There were weird constants that might (and will) break the code when the requirements will change. The code itself is unreadable and a total mess. If it would write a well-structured code in the first place, I believe it would be more efficient in working with that code too.

I have serious considerations how far will I be able to go with just the pure vibe coding. My projects are small one-person projects and so far I am able to push through but I hardly see how far will I be able to go before technical debt outgrows the value the code produces.

I fondly remember the times of Opus 4.5 where it was still (to my memory) reasonably fast and malleable.

Maybe it will work in the beginning until non-technical users realize that LLMs hallucinate very often (unless Google solved it somehow, but probably they didn't because they would have said so), they will lose trust in the results and go back to good old indexed search engines.

Maybe I am coping but thinking from my own experience.

Ed Zitron is an analyst. His viewpoint is that AI is bad for whatever reasons and he does his job by trying to uncover those reasons and does a solid work. He presents a lot of insider knowledge that would otherwise be left unheard.

What are his alternatives? To stop claiming that AI is bad and pivot to "AI is good" writing? To quit writing entirely? To continue writing but in the beginning of each article list the things that he was wrong about in the past? What if it's too early for the things that seem to have been predicted incorrectly by him to materialize and in the end he will appear correct?

I think it's a benefit for society to hear the other side. There are plenty of pro-AI advocates.

I guess it's a metaphor for the "hugely successful" trickle-down economics we have been witnessing.

Our AI overlords think that they will be able to just prompt their LLMs to optimize this regime and make it last but their stupid LLMs can't yet figure out whether to take a car to the carwash or to go by foot, so they are not even close to that.

What's bad for us is that they are now wealthy enough to keep dragging us into this dystopia for a while until something changes.

As for the golden ticket metaphor, I agree, but when the country is so economically and institutionally behind than the rest of the EU, this would still benefit them a lot. All Eastern countries experienced big emigration but a lot of the citizens previously having emigrated are now returning.

Putin couldn't let Ukrainians join the EU, start getting all the EU fund money and actually started living like Europeans. Russian population would see that at a large scale and start asking questions. He couldn't get back the influence over the country diplomatically so he resorted to terror.

Edit: I also wanted to add that this was the reason Putin and other Russian propagandists have been calling Ukrainians the brotherly nation (to show them how they care about them), the nazis (to show that their government is harmful) and that Ukraine doesn't even exist as a country (to show that they should all be the same people under the same borders).

My point is, they took all this data for free without paying the authors and crammed it into the models. And once it's inside the model the proof of copyright violation disappears.