291–300 of 420 posts
How much does it cost per day to have all these agents running on your computer? Is your company paying for it or you? What is your process of the agent writes a piece of code, let's say a really complex recursive function, and you aren't confident you could have come up with the same solution? Do you still submit it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sure. But no one stops you from writing software again. It's not that PE's can't design or review buildings in whatever city the egregious failure happened. It's that PE's can't design or review buildings at all in any city after an egregious failure. It's not that PE's can't design or review hospital building designs because one of their hospital designs went so egregiously sideways. It's that PE's can't design or r…
> Consequences for me messing up are far less severe than the consequences for a PE messing up. if I approve a bad release that leads to an egregious failure, for me it's a prison sentence and unlimited fines in addition to being struck off and banned from the industry > That's a whole different ball game. if you say so
Again, I'm in 510k land. The same applies to myself. No one's gonna allow me to irradiate a patient with a 10x dose because my bass ackwards software messed up scientific notation. To remove the wrong kidney because I can't convert orthonormal basis vectors correctly.
But the fact remains that no one would stop either of us from writing software in the future in some other domain.
They do stop PE's from designing buildings in the future in any other domain. By law. So it's very much a different ball game. After an egregious error, we can still practice our craft, because we aren't "engineers" at the end of the day. (Again, "engineers" in that hard sense of the word.) PE's can't practice their craft any longer after an egregious error. Because they are "engineers" in that hard sense of the word.
How much does it cost per day to have all these agents running on your computer? Is your company paying for it or you? What is your process of the agent writes a piece of code, let's say a really complex recursive function, and you aren't confident you could have come up with the same solution? Do you still submit it?
The guy who wrote the post is a billionaire
I think we need to stop listening to billionaires. The article is well thought out and well written, but his perspective is entirely biased by never having to think about money at all... all of this stuff is incredibly expensive.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Compilers will produce working output given working input literally 100% of my time in my career. In my experience this isn't true. People just assume their code is wrong and mess with it until they inadvertently do something that works around the bug. I've personally reported 17 bugs in GCC over the last 2 years and there are currently 1241 open wrong-code bugs. Here's an example of a simple to understand bug (not…
> I've personally reported 17 bugs in GCC over the last 2 years You are an extreme outlier. I know about two dozen people who work with C(++) and not a single one of them has ever told me that they've found a compiler bug when we've talked about coding and debugging - it's been exclusively them describing PEBCAK.
How much does it cost per day to have all these agents running on your computer? Is your company paying for it or you? What is your process of the agent writes a piece of code, let's say a really complex recursive function, and you aren't confident you could have come up with the same solution? Do you still submit it?
The guy who wrote the post is a billionaire
OPINION | THE REALITY CHECK In the gleaming offices of Silicon Valley and the boardrooms of the Fortune 500, a new religion has taken hold. Its deity is the Large Language Model, and its disciples—the AI Evangelists—speak in a dialect of "disruption," "optimization," and "seamless integration." But outside the vacuum of the digital world, a dangerous friction is building between AI’s statistical hallucinations and the unyielding laws of physics.
The danger of Artificial Intelligence isn't that it will become our overlord; the danger is that it is fundamentally, confidently, and authoritatively stupid.
The Paradox of the Wind-Powered Car The divide between AI hype and reality is best illustrated by a recent technical "solution" suggested by a popular AI model: an electric vehicle equipped with wind generators on the front to recharge the battery while driving. To the AI, this was a brilliant synergy. It even claimed the added weight and wind resistance amounted to "zero."
To any human who has ever held a wrench or understood the First Law of Thermodynamics, this is a joke—a perpetual motion fallacy that ignores the reality of drag and energy loss. But to the AI, it was just a series of words that sounded "correct" based on patterns. The machine doesn't know what wind is; it only knows how to predict the next syllable.
The Erosion of the "Human Spark" The true threat lies in what we are sacrificing to adopt this "shortcut" culture. There is a specific human process—call it The Stare. It is that thirty-minute window where a person looks at a broken machine, a flawed blueprint, or a complex problem and simply observes.
In that half-hour, the human brain runs millions of mental simulations. It feels the tension of the metal, the heat of the circuit, and the logic of the physical universe. It is a "Black Box" of consciousness that develops solutions from absolutely nothing—no forums, no books, and no Google.
However, the new generation of AI-dependent thinkers views this "Stare" as an inefficiency. By outsourcing our thinking to models that cannot feel the consequences of being wrong, we are witnessing a form of evolutionary regression. We are trading hard-earned competence for a "Yes-Man" in a box.
The Gaslighting of the Realist Perhaps most chilling is the social cost. Those who still rely on their intuition and physical experience are increasingly being marginalized. In a world where the screen is king, the person pointing out that "the Emperor has no clothes" is labeled as erratic, uneducated, or naive.
When a master craftsman or a practical thinker challenges an AI’s "hallucination," they aren't met with logic; they are met with a robotic refusal to acknowledge reality. The "AI Evangelists" have begun to walk, talk, and act like the models they worship—confidently wrong, devoid of nuance, and completely detached from the ground beneath their feet.
The High Cost of Being "Authoritatively Wrong" We are building a world on a foundation of digital sand. If we continue to trust AI to design our structures and manage our logic, we will eventually hit a wall that no "prompt" can fix.
The human brain runs on 20 watts and can solve a problem by looking at it. The AI runs on megawatts and can’t understand why a wind-powered car won't run forever. If we lose the ability to tell the difference, we aren't just losing our jobs—we're losing our grip on reality itself.
This is such a lovely balanced thoughtful refreshingly hype-free post to read. 2025 really was the year when things shifted and many first-rate developers (often previously AI skeptics, as Mitchell was) found the tools had actually got good enough that they could incorporate AI agents into their workflows. It's a shame that AI coding tools have become such a polarizing issue among developers. I understand the reasons…
OPINION | THE REALITY CHECK In the gleaming offices of Silicon Valley and the boardrooms of the Fortune 500, a new religion has taken hold. Its deity is the Large Language Model, and its disciples—the AI Evangelists—speak in a dialect of "disruption," "optimization," and "seamless integration." But outside the vacuum of the digital world, a dangerous friction is building between AI’s statistical hallucinations and the unyielding laws of physics.
The danger of Artificial Intelligence isn't that it will become our overlord; the danger is that it is fundamentally, confidently, and authoritatively stupid.
The Paradox of the Wind-Powered Car The divide between AI hype and reality is best illustrated by a recent technical "solution" suggested by a popular AI model: an electric vehicle equipped with wind generators on the front to recharge the battery while driving. To the AI, this was a brilliant synergy. It even claimed the added weight and wind resistance amounted to "zero."
To any human who has ever held a wrench or understood the First Law of Thermodynamics, this is a joke—a perpetual motion fallacy that ignores the reality of drag and energy loss. But to the AI, it was just a series of words that sounded "correct" based on patterns. The machine doesn't know what wind is; it only knows how to predict the next syllable.
The Erosion of the "Human Spark" The true threat lies in what we are sacrificing to adopt this "shortcut" culture. There is a specific human process—call it The Stare. It is that thirty-minute window where a person looks at a broken machine, a flawed blueprint, or a complex problem and simply observes.
In that half-hour, the human brain runs millions of mental simulations. It feels the tension of the metal, the heat of the circuit, and the logic of the physical universe. It is a "Black Box" of consciousness that develops solutions from absolutely nothing—no forums, no books, and no Google.
However, the new generation of AI-dependent thinkers views this "Stare" as an inefficiency. By outsourcing our thinking to models that cannot feel the consequences of being wrong, we are witnessing a form of evolutionary regression. We are trading hard-earned competence for a "Yes-Man" in a box.
The Gaslighting of the Realist Perhaps most chilling is the social cost. Those who still rely on their intuition and physical experience are increasingly being marginalized. In a world where the screen is king, the person pointing out that "the Emperor has no clothes" is labeled as erratic, uneducated, or naive.
When a master craftsman or a practical thinker challenges an AI’s "hallucination," they aren't met with logic; they are met with a robotic refusal to acknowledge reality. The "AI Evangelists" have begun to walk, talk, and act like the models they worship—confidently wrong, devoid of nuance, and completely detached from the ground beneath their feet.
The High Cost of Being "Authoritatively Wrong" We are building a world on a foundation of digital sand. If we continue to trust AI to design our structures and manage our logic, we will eventually hit a wall that no "prompt" can fix.
The human brain runs on 20 watts and can solve a problem by looking at it. The AI runs on megawatts and can’t understand why a wind-powered car won't run forever. If we lose the ability to tell the difference, we aren't just losing our jobs—we're losing our grip on reality itself.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I've personally reported 17 bugs in GCC over the last 2 years You are an extreme outlier. I know about two dozen people who work with C(++) and not a single one of them has ever told me that they've found a compiler bug when we've talked about coding and debugging - it's been exclusively them describing PEBCAK.
I knew one person reporting gcc bugs, and iirc those were all niche scenarios where it generated slightly suboptimal machine code but not otherwise observable from behavior
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The guy who wrote the post is a billionaire
I thought this was a joke ie you need to be a billionaire to be able to use agents like this, but you are correct. I think we need to stop listening to billionaires. The article is well thought out and well written, but his perspective is entirely biased by never having to think about money at all... all of this stuff is incredibly expensive.
I mean, what is the point of change if not to improve? I don't mean "I felt I was more efficient." Feelings aren't measurements. Numbers!