If it were up to me, I'd start out by using the AI to port a Python web app to a compiled language like Go. Then we could maintain that going forward instead.

In reality, a Python code base is maintained by Python programmers, most of whom would vote against such a change.

But at least I can't imagine how this trend reverses course now.

Statically typed languages are easier for the reader because you can see the types and quickly jump to their definitions (or even just hover over them in some IDEs).

They're easier for the AI because they provide natural guardrails and feedback to guide it, as well as much more confidence to the programmer that the code does what it is supposed to. Rust even provides strong guarantees about correctness across threads, which is so helpful to multi-threaded code.

The fact that they run faster and use less memory is just icing on the cake.

Even just last year the AI could not handle the borrow checker well. Today I think it is better than me at handling tricky lifetime issues that ocassionally happen in multi-threaded Tokio code. I've been doing almost 100% Rust development over the last 3 years, and the experience is now very good. I don't write code by hand any more, nor do any of the 50 engineers where I work.

I imagine it does quite well with Go, since it's such a simple language. And Go is very readable, and compiles very fast. If you can afford the GC in your problem domain, it might be a good fit. You would have to be so careful with introducing concurrency, because it would be so easy to introduce race conditions that both the AI and human reviewer might miss. I haven't tried to use Go in anger yet with LLMs, so this is all just speculation.

I think Trump is about to lose patience with Iran again and we're in for a second phase of this war. What that looks like afterwards is anyone's guess. I'm not very optimistic.

It's not impossible that if the IRGC can't make payroll that things start to change from the inside, like what happened in Serbia. I'm not going to bet on that outcome though.

Is there a reason you limit it to the US only?

Not every company will do it well. Simpleanalytics.com seems to be one of the better ones.

But it’s still way better than the alternatives which don’t even try to be anonymous.

But I agree with the conclusion, system calls are still pretty fast compared to a lot of other things.

I don't think the genie is easily returned to the bottle and the cure may be worse than the disease.

If they get assassinated, those markets will resolve to yes. At least the rules don't specifically exclude that.

We have a high standard for code review, static verification, and tests.

The fact that the code isn't hand-rolled artisanal code, and is generated by AI now, has so far turned out to have no impact on product quality or bugs reported.

I don't write code by hand any more, neither at work, nor for side projects.

I work mostly in Rust and TypeScript at a developer tools company.

What you say about the economics getting worse and lower EROI may be true. It certainly seems like common sense. There are some counter-examples though.

The inflation adjusted cost of extracting oil from the oil sands in Alberta, Canada has actually decreased over time, not increased.

But generally I'd expect increasing cost of extraction to be the norm.

They're actually worse off, and they pay more for it instead of creating jobs and keeping the money in their own economy. Meaning less money for e.g. green programs to move away from fossil fuels.

It's just a losing proposition in every way.

You're mistaking possible for probable. There's no evidence to suggest that's the case, and lot's of evidence that it's from climate change. In science you follow the evidence, not your pet theory.

> But climate science wants us to ignore all that and place the blame entirely on human caused CO2 emissions and cow farts, while we are literally living through and ice age.

I don't think you understand either science or ice ages.

But I think you're being too optimistic about what this means for global fossil fuel usage. Definitely over the next decade, but potentially over much longer periods than that.

People have been talking about peak oil for decades, as long as I can remember, and it never happened.

I think we're technologically capable of extracting more oil, coal, and gas than we would ever want to. We would cook ourselves with the damage we'd do to the climate. I think that's the real constraint - and I hope we pay attention to it.