A pundit starts from a pre-declared conclusion and works backwards to generate the argument. An analyst lets the conclusion be dictated by the analysis.

And the firing of the staff happened years ago and people broadly understood even if they did not agree with it.

The recent decision was to take down an archive that cost $8 in server resources and was still bringing in page views and ad revenue.

A funny story that happened the other day: A friend knew he had to be at dinner at a place across town but he forgot why he had to be at that dinner. While we were waiting for his rideshare to come, he was flipping through every kind of app trying to reconstruct the original context for his appointment.

In theory, this is where AI should shine. He should have been able to say "Hey Siri, pull up all of the info that references tonight's dinner appointment" and AI should be the unified interface into a bunch of app-specific data pools.

But of course he's never in 1 million years would have thought about using Siri to do that because of how bad Siri is.

This was substantially predicted by Fred Brooks in 1986 in the classic No Silver Bullets [1] essay under the sections "Expert Systems" and "Automatic Programming".

In it, he lays out the core features of vibe coding and exactly the experience we are having now with it: Initial success in a few carefully chosen domains and then a reasonable but not ground breaking increase in productivity as it expands outside of those domains.

[1] https://worrydream.com/refs/Brooks_1986_-_No_Silver_Bullet.p...

Eg: I had a product manager say to me that he envisions a future where any meeting with stakeholders that does not result in an interactive prototype by the end of the meeting would be considered a failure. This feels directionally correct to me.

The other thing I expect to see is Vibecoding being the "Excel 2.0" where it allows significant self-serve of building interactive apps that's engaged in a continual war with IT to turn them into something with better security guarantees, proper access control & logging, scalability, change management etc.

But the larger historical point here is that every revolutionary transition produces, in the early stages, "Steam Horses". The invention of the steam engine had people imagining that the future of transportation would involve horse shaped objects, powered by steam, pulling along conventional carts. It wasn't until later developments that we understood the function of transportation as divorced from the form.

I started talking about Steam Horses originally in the context of MOOCs, which was a classic Steam Horse idea.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jordan_Lasker

What would have been actually interesting about this publicity stunt is if it demonstrated if/how AI could have dealt with some of the SF specific, non-sexy parts of running a business. Filing the relevant permits, co-ordinating inspections, negotiating with landlords, interfacing with locals at planning meetings.

Those are things SF business owners report as empirically unpleasant parts of running a business and a sufficient financial drag that they meaningfully affect business success. But my feeling is they had humans clear the way of all these thorny issues ahead of time so the AI could focus on the "sexy stuff".

History has proven the average person has very little ability to discern which products have lock-in.

Everyone was confidently predicting Uber would dominate over all the regional ride sharing apps because ride sharing is a commodity and subsidies were enough to shift user behavior.

The thesis from AI providers about lockin have always been coherent: increased personalization and learning of workflows over time would increasingly make using a new AI much worse than an AI that already knows you. If you look at the human virtual assistant world, stickiness is incredibly high once are happy with your onboarded assistant because onboarding a new person unavoidably sucks.

Is this thesis correct? We don’t know, it took Uber billions of burnt cash to discover their thesis was incorrect.

Fixed civilian infrastructure has never been safe. The way you protect it is diplomatically, by having that region not be attacked in the first place or putting incentives such that certain bits of infrastructure are considered off limits.

Secondly, people whose only experience of war comes from fictional media have a drastically distorted view of the impact of chemical explosives. The science of chemical explosives became a mature discipline pre-WWII. Our best chemical today are maybe 1.7x more dense than TNT and our standard chemical explosives are often sometimes less energy dense because we prioritize safety over explosive power.

The science of rocketry became mature in the 60s, for a given fuel quantity, we can roughly lob X mass Y distance at Z speed.

The only area we've made massive advancements is precision, relevant if you want to put a small bomb through a window to kill one guy, not so relevant if you want to hit an oil refinery that is several square km wide.

The long and the short of it is that there's a massive, misunderstood gap between temporarily disabling something and destroying it. Take the Crimea bridge for example, back in 2022, there was a massive, high profile truck bombing that completely destroyed the center part of the bridge. However, it was fully repaired within 4 months. Subsequent, there have been 3 more attacks, and repaired every time and still transporting vital war materiel [1]. Concrete and steel are heavy. Even if left 100% undefended, the amount of weaponry needed to totally destroy the bridge, such that it could not be used for 3 years+ is a substantial chunk of Ukraine/US weapon's arsenal. Same goes for every power plant, oil refinery, airplane runway, tank factory etc. There's a reason why Ukraine still has reasonably reliable power after 6 years of Russian bombardment and the allies were never able to degrade German production abilities all the way down to zero despite near saturation bombing campaigns over cities like Dresden.

Bombs just aren't that powerful and our ability to produce them definitively peaked at the tail end of WWII. Currently, globally we're about at 1/20th of of that ability to produce that quantity of explosives and we likely never will reach that amount again.

The only way to actually truly destroy civilian infrastructure energetically is tactical nukes but that's an entirely other ball of wax.

In short, any time you see an expert in one field confidently expound in another field, you should be wary because, while they might be high IQ, their priors could be wrong in drastic ways that make any analysis foolish. The entire essay is arrant nonsense and would be laughed at by anyone with any degree of military analysis.

(Disclaimer: I did use AI to help me generate two numbers: the energetic ratio of WWII vs modern day high explosives and estimates of global military explosive production over time. All writing was my own).

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crimean_Bridge#Attacks_after_t...

The V2 was not a hypersonic missile, it was a ballistic missile that had a predetermined flight path that was easy to predict. The distinguishing factor of hypersonic missiles is that they do not require a ballistic trajectory to achieve their speeds (and are hence, much harder to detect) and they maintain maneuverability throughout their entire flight path.

https://www.sipri.org/commentary/topical-backgrounder/2022/m...

> The ancestor of ballistic missiles, Germany’s [...] V-2 was first launched in the 1940s. During ascent, it could reach a speed greater than Mach 5 and could do so again momentarily on its way back down. But, no one would claim that the V-2 was a hypersonic missile. In a similar vein, should one apply this label to modern intercontinental ballistic missiles that reach speeds beyond Mach 20 at ascent and re-entry?

> Certainly not, and there are other characteristics commonly cited when defining ‘hypersonic missiles’. However, while a combination of defining characteristics is increasingly adopted among experts, hypersonic missiles are often not well understood within public discussions in politics and the media [...]. The US-based Missile Defense Advocacy Alliance states that ‘hypersonic weapons refer to weapons that travel faster than Mach 5 (~3800mph) and have the capability to maneuver during the entire flight.’