21–26 of 26 posts
Author here. The blog argues that the real story from Anthropic's hackathon isn't that domain experts can build AI (they can) but that hackathon demos and production systems require fundamentally different things. A permit app that works on demo day and a permit system that survives when California revises the code, when the builder leaves, when a municipality asks for an audit trail — those are different problems. W…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
to put it another way, writing resilient software is a domain of its own and software engineers are it's domain experts.
Let the LLM write the software. That’s ephemeral and evolves with time. Humans should govern the entire system to resilience. That is fixed with time. Thou shalt not kill has staying power. Weapons, poison, and other methods of death evolve. More governence deals with them over time.
as an analogy, an art museum couldn't paint their own paintings to hang up (or at least they would not be very good) but neither would monet or picasso have done a particularly good job at designing a space to let millions of people a year view their pictures. both skills are necessary to the overall product.
This appears to be an advertisement for a (somewhat inscrutable) AI product they're selling called CANONIC, that also has a cryptocoin bolted on to it somehow.
This is partially true. Thanks for the comment. I’m the developer of CANONIC. It’s an AI GOV framework. But crypto it is not. The opposite. CANONIC is a learning language to fully govern AI. Ask yourself why you are still programming computation with LLMs when they repeatedly outperform humans on such coding tasks. What’s missing is AI GOV. CANONIC is a contract with your AI. COIN becomes an artifact of good AI gover…
I guess it could also be used to communicate that some problems are too difficult for modest resources, if the reward exceeds 255.
Anyway, the only thing worth spending it on is resource upgrades, right?
The AI editing of the article makes it a painful read. A shame because the point they were making is a good one, regarding AI coding apps empowering domain experts.
AI editing? It is completely governed by AI. I thought that was obvious. What’s the problem?
Rather, humans involved have looked at this problem and in a few cases succeeded. And in many cases, shelved it and returned to process cardiology, Ugandan infrastructure, etc.
Maybe it’s just personal deja vu, but in current discussions of vibecoding v software engineering I keep seeing parallels from the debates 20 years ago when blogs began proliferating: the bloggers v “real journalism” arguments.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let the LLM write the software. That’s ephemeral and evolves with time. Humans should govern the entire system to resilience. That is fixed with time. Thou shalt not kill has staying power. Weapons, poison, and other methods of death evolve. More governence deals with them over time.
your LLM prompt is, by definition, underspecified. the code is what describes the actual behaviour of the system, and there are known and understood ways to make that behaviour more robust, correct and resilient, that are independent of the domain the code is modelling, but consistent across different code bases. that's why I say writing code is its own domain. as an analogy, an art museum couldn't paint their own pa…