And even if the assumption turns out to be wrong, they can just scale down and serve dumber and cheaper models. Shrinkflation is not a novel idea.

Actually this could be a side channel to measure the efficiency of automation. If the human operators are just as good in every aspect as before, we know all the money put into automation is wasted.

People die on road more in countries that conventionally don't follow traffic laws.

If the techchurch post is written by a human then I'll take this as an example that humans outslop AI.

What does this even mean?

The malware specifically steals passwords from developers who use AI? From those who develop AI tool? Or it steals API tokens, which serve a similar function as passwords do for humans?

Is this what journalism looks like today? Just slap the two holy letters on the title and you get views?

(Yes, I read the article. No, I still don't think the title makes sense. You can skip this techchurch slop and read the real information here: https://opensourcemalware.com/blog/miasma-reaches-azure)

Either that he's HN mods's favorites or we're experiencing a special case of xkcd 1053[0]: there are always ten thousand people haven't realized how wrong Ed Zitron is.

At this point I don't think even Ed himself believes what he writes. It's just fan service for subscribers. And that is totally reasonable if we view blogging as a business.

[0]: https://xkcd.com/1053/

> To go deeper, I think I need to dig into a systems language

Most of such code is still written in C.

But honestly, if you just need to squeeze a little bit more performance, you should check the non-GC part of C# first (ArrayPool, Span, stackalloc).

If it's something actually novel, no matter how much context you provide it'll still hallucinate.

Let me get this straight, I believe one needs to read a paper to get it straight.

But I fully understand your knee-jerk reaction. That was my reaction when I read the title too. However, it seems to be a surprisingly well-thought analysis where all your points are answered (controlled).

If I read it more thoroughly I'll likely find flaws on the statistical methods. But it's not like the authors didn't have common sense.

Edit: unfortunately, enough people had the same knee-jerk reaction to get this thread flagged. We really need a way to vouch a thread.

Second, after trying heirloom tomatoes myself, I stopped buying the claim that commercial cultivars are that bad.

You: you're saying "it's different this time."

I don't know. It looks like AI really rots people's brains. As if that they just shut down their minds when they see an anything AI-related. Imagine if this article were about anything else, like:

Article: the stock bubble is going to burst because...

Comment: your argument boils down to "the stock bubble is going to burst."

It'd be so stupid. But somehow when it comes to AI this kind of weird comment is tolerated even celebrated.

Is this really the best example the author could come up with? If you want fresh strawberries, you can just go to a supermarket and buy them. In many places you can get a few pounds per for less than the money you earn in one hour. It's pretty much a heaven compared to pre-industrial days.

But I guess the analogy of fracking is pretty spot on, just in a way the author didn't realize -- the cons are often exaggerated.

... and I believe which is happening. I've been advocating for DeepSeek V4 Pro and no one paid me. It's almost too good to be true.

First of all, past trend doesn't predict the future.

And if it did, then the answer would be nothing will matter in 20 years. Not just "no programming language," but nothing.

Nope. Right within the limit.

Why did you leave this part of title out? For clicks?