(edit)

After a quick search the best example is Atlassian. It would (apparently, IANAL) break terms to plan a JIRA competitor using JIRA.

  > Customer must not (and must not permit anyone else to): [...] (d) use the Products to develop a similar or competing product or service

Also Salesforce. Their competitors are explicitly disallowed from using any of their services for any reason.

  > SFDC’s direct competitors are prohibited from accessing the Services, except with SFDC’s prior written consent.

No, it’s an omniscient third person narrator. Yeah, YT is probably the “true” viewpoint, esp if you take diamond age into account. “Chiseled spam” and all that.

> There’s no estimate of the environmental impact of all the extra processing

The “environmental impact” of this data processing is one of the “big two” problems with the proposal? Maybe this was just a backup filler argument but it is such a silly point that it immediately makes me question the entire article. This is a massive tell that someone is arguing in bad faith.

Not running lifecycle scripts by default is eventually going to be the default behavior. Late is worse (edit: I meant better) than not at all. https://github.com/npm/rfcs/pull/868

  > They are not obligated to be truthful here

  > Second, all of us, including those who design them, possess only a limited understanding of their actual functioning. Indeed, current AI systems are more “cultivated” than “built,” for developers do not directly design every detail, but instead create a framework within which the intelligence “grows.” As a result, fundamental scientific aspects — such as the internal representations and computational processes of these systems — remain, at present, unknown.

edit: apologies to __s who posted this before me and I didn’t notice

But a couple of years ago they were crowing about how much work they were doing to prepare for “a billion developers”. If they had actually done that then the actual load from agents should have been no problem.