There are a ton of opportunities available right now to make new things. And make them better, more customizable, and more sovereign.

To the replies: be the change you want to see in the world, guys. That may be trite but focusing only on the negative will just make your own life shitty.

Now, my support asks claude about the codebase to answer those sorts of questions. He's better than my memory.

Maybe we've had different experiences.

But it answers the what, how, and allows one-off features.

So the guy that wrote might (or might not) still have the edge with the why. But that's not the moat it used to be.

What's missed in understanding is 'how exactly does this functionality work for this specific case?' or 'can we implement this tiny one off feature in some legacy code base'. Both things are why you keep the guy that wrote it around. And you couldn't really replace him. Because digging into what he wrote was hard.

Now, LLMs can do that stuff better than the guy that wrote it.

Software devs were non-fungible. Now they're commodities. When things become commodities, they lose their value.

I'm not sure why I haven't heard people talk about this aspect. It's the biggest effect on jobs.

1. Mythos uniquely is able to find vulnerabilities that other LLMs cannot practically.

2. All LLMs could already do this but no one tried the way anthropic did.

The truth is one of these. And it comes down whether the comparison is apples to apples. Since we don't know the exact specifics of how either tests were performed, we lack a way of knowing absolutely.

So I guess, like so many things today, we can to pick the truth we find most comfortable personally.

They're more like printing presses or engines. A great potential for production and destruction.

At their invention, I'm sure some people wanted to ensure only their friends got that kind of power too.

I wonder the world we would live in if they got their way.

But at the core of anthropic seems to be the idea that they must protect humans from themselves.

They advocate government regulations of private open model use. They want to centralize the holding of this power and ban those that aren't in the club from use.

They, like most tech companies, seem to lack the idea that individual self-determination is important. Maybe the most important thing.

LLM's are an endless source of bad code ideas. Being able to sift through them and find the gems is the exhausting way to be productive.

I agree with the general premise that it is easy to shoot down ideas without thinking. But it's also easy to propose ideas without thinking.

Both are disrespectful if disproportionate to the effort of the other.

The core is not idea generation versus critique. It's the effort spent on each.

It's been something like 3 years since people have been talking about this being a very big deal.

LLMs are widely used. Claude code is run by most people with dangerously skip permissions.

I just haven't seen the armageddon. Surely it should be here by now.

Where are the horror stories?

The times it works, it works well for the company at great cost to society.

Imagine the world we'd have if comcast got to control your web browsing experience.

If ISPs got started today, they'd sell the open web at API prices that no one can afford. Then sell the ISP's lock-in 'internet' for a low monthly fee.

My question is why people who don't want comcast's internet think other vertical integrated lock-in is fine.

Our markets game only works for the benefit of society if we have fair markets.

VC-backed loss-leader dumping to starve competition model breaks the game.

It's weird that most people in these comments are speculating fraud.

Why aren't companies with real money to gain from stars gaming the system to the same degree? Why do the other metrics - issues and pull requests - match up with its popularity? Why would the bots starring the repo mean that those same bots are not popular? Those bots are controlled by their users.

The project is extremely active because this is what everyone being able to customize their computing looks like. A mess.

But it's a good mess.

Github was the old code sharing model clearly not designed for this. I'm sure a new model for code sharing will come to fix the growing pains.

A ton of people who would have never been able to customize their computing experience are finally able to. And it is magical for them.

This means that those same people will finally value having access to source and use of open protocols.

It was always valuable to us because we had the power to make it matter. It never mattered to them because they did not. Now they do.

The last era of computing was defined by dumbing down computing for the masses. Less information, less customizable, and more metric driven. Control in the hands of the companies.

This new era will look more free/libre, more personal, and less enshitified. Control in the hands of the users.

This is a very positive development.

In the end, society has always existed on human chains of trust. Community. As long as there are human societies, we need human reputation.

In a sense, the identifier company can be an arbiter of the truth. Powerful.

Training people on a half-solution like this might do more harm than good.

I wonder the reason.

Maybe 'do one thing well'? The piping? The fact that the tools have been around so long so there are so many examples in the training data? Simplicity? All of it?

The success of this project depends on the answer.

Even so, I suspect that something like this will be a far too leaky abstraction.

But Vercel must try because they see the writing on the wall.

No one needs expensive cloud platforms anymore.

For the humanity perspective, this doom is very optimistic. It says that these LLMs currently disrupting the platforms cannot themselves be the next platforms.

Maybe no one will have 'the ability to make people do something that they don't want to do' sort of power with this next stage in computing.

Sounds good to me.

This is a very important problem space. Maybe the most important today - we desprately need a digital third place that isn't awful. But I think these attempts are misled.

The core issue seems to be that we want our communities to be infinite. Why? Well, because there is currently no way to solve the community discoverability problem without being the massive thing. But that is the issue to solve.

We need a lot of Dunbar's number sized communities. Those communities allow for 'skin in the game' where reputation matters. And maybe a fractal sort of way for those communities to share between them.

The problem is in the discoverability and in a gate keeping that is porous enough to give people a chance.

Solve that, and you solve the the third place problem we have currently. I don't have a solution but I wish I did.

Infinite communities are fundamentally what causes the tribalism (ironically), the loneliness, and the promotion of rage.

No one wants to be forced to argue correctly. Forcing people into a way to think via software is fundamentally authoritarian and sad.

Regulation enforcement against the anti-market behaviors would bring a lot of good.

Putting too much power in any centralized authority - company or government - seems to lead to oppression and unhealthy culture.

Fair markets are the neatest trick we have. They put the freedom of choice in the hands of the individual and allow organic collaboration.

The framing should not be government vs company. But distributed vs centralized power. For both governance and commerce.

The entire world right now suffers from too much centralized power. That comes in the form of both corporate and government. Power tends to consolidate until the bureaucracy of the approach becomes too inefficient and collapses under its own weight. That process is painful, and it's not something I enjoy living through.

If you see through that lens, it has explaining power for the problems of both the EU countries and the US.

It means normies will finally see value in open source beyond just being free. They'll choose it over closed source alternatives.

This, too, makes a brighter future.

We know that a lack of control over their environment makes animals, including humans, depressed.

The software we use has so much of this lack of control. It's their way, their branding, their ads, their app. You're the guest on your own device.

It's no wonder everyone hates technology.

A world with software that is malleable, personal, and cheap - this could do a lot of good. Real ownership.

The nerds could always make a home with their linux desktop. Now everyone can. It'll change the equation.

I'm quite optimistic for this future.

Price out competitors. Abuse your newfound dominance.

It's the big tech playbook.

I don't think it's going to work this time.

Tools like OpenClaw are an existential threat precisely because it allows the user control over their experience. The value in it cannot be captured by a monopoly.

LLMs don't seem to be a very good moat. At the same time, the software moat is eroding due to those same LLMs.

Telecom tech killed telecom dominance.

With some luck, Google tech will kill Google dominance.