While people have varying stances, I understand the policy at least for the main Haiku repo code. Allowing AI-written contributions means you will get code that neither the contributor nor the teammembers fully understand, and asking questions about the wider context becomes futile. It would require a lot of distrust to get consistently acceptable results.

I think the fact that there are multiple people who have deep understanding of what they are working on and of the system's structure goes a very long way to establish this trust and ensure quality.

In this environment, I think (as I said, the opinions are varying), having the contributor learn about their contribution (even asking AI as a starting point, if they want to) and then (re-)write it themselves is a really minimum gate to make sure everyone knows what is happening.

New versions ship daily and I seem to hit brand new issues every day. They disappear after a few more updates, but it's damn annoying to keep up instead of doing work, and the direction of changes is lacking at best. The underlying technology otherwise seems nothing short of a miracle, but the contrast is eye-opening.

In industries where this is acceptable, that's the future. In ones that can't tolerate it, it isn't. I hadn't expected software engineering itself to be one of the former but it's kinda obvious in retrospective.

This says nothing about the wider economy nor about what the tax rate should be, and on its own it doesn’t seem too controversial to me.

The only modification is that I pin containers to an IPv4 address so I can limit the forward rule to that address.

Not much to disagree about generating energy at home though.