There is perhaps some relevance to the analogy however, because the US is designed in such a way that makes walking difficult to impossible. I am already seeing this pattern in vibe-coded areas where engineers will just use AI because it's too difficult to parse and edit by hand.

We have some responsibility as candidates to tell HR departments and recruiters that some stuff doesn't fly.

The argument here is to validate those possibilities before acting on them.

This isn't usually an issue comparing models within the same provider, but it does mean cross-provider comparison using only tok/s is not apples-to-apples in terms of real-world performance.

I watch hours of videos on both with nobody else around and don't really talk about those topics with others much. So in the spirit of HN, I'm actually curious to know what about those interests is performative?

As someone who is neither an Elon fan nor a hater, it irks me how deranged HN is about anything Musk-related.

Or is it more of a principle to resist this being forced on us?

As much as we can fault the technology and the hype around it, this as much a people problem as anything else. Before AI, this same problem happened with architecture/PoC to implementation hand-offs.

AI is a new tool that a lot of us are still figuring out, but that doesn't excuse poor communication.

Also data, see https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46637328

Is your goal for the software you write to need constant intervention, or would you say you'd aim for it to run smoothly with few bugs?

The team is akin to a piece of software architecture, only much more complex and comprised (partially) of humans.

You want someone to build that team and then have the team up and running, delivering value. When it breaks, or you want it to do new/different things, you need someone to step in to fix it or change it.