>Despite the quick spread of agentic coding, institutional inertia, affordability, and limitations in human neuroplasticity were barriers to universal adoption of the new technology.
Blaming lack of adoption purely on regressive factors follows the same frame that AI firms set. It isn't very effective satire for that reason.
It couldn't be that there is something essential and elementary that is wrong with the output, no... all these experienced experts are just troglodites and wrong and we should instead tag along with the people who offloaded the parts of their work they found tough to a machine the first chance they got.
There's no such thing as ape coding. There's still just coding, and vibe coding.
I enjoyed reading it. Whether one believes the future will look like this fictional/hypothetical one, it encourages the reader to think about what would need to become true for this future to be plausible.
Who knows? 5 people? 10? Only those who actually read it, and still not sure. Did they read it? Or did they also believe it's written by AI? I tried to believe it's written by a human when noticed its footer's note. It was hard to believe knowing my fear of today's trends, where many read is an empty dark where human time is voided. Yet, what is the main idea behind it then, nowadays, when just a few will actually read it?
Considering, how some modern attitude works for certain people, and how much power of trends and socials may offer, such terms get boosted over... and you just hope and keep believing in people...
Related: https://medium.com/@nathanladuke/b56da64a09ee (To Those Who Comment Their Opinion Without Reading the Whole Story... I was shocked at how many people simply read the title and then posted their opinion on the whole article...)
Yes, I understand what you're saying perfectly. And I had similar thoughts while I was writing this. I do not want to talk too much about the process of writing it, or the content itself, because I feel it's not right for me (the author) to talk about it. But I'd like to make it clear that I wrote this myself, and that many of the questions and points people have raised here have also been in my mind, and it was my intention to elicit this type of thinking. Thank you and all others for the comments - I really appreciate it, even the very negative ones. This is the first time I published something online and I'm very happy that it resonated with people.
If that's the case, why do we have to suffer through an AI-generated article? Just give us the prompt.
This topic interests me but I stopped reading as soon as I noticed the slop. I'd much rather read a couple of human-written paragraphs with your personal experience.
> I like how Google AI Studio allows one to delete sections and they are then no longer part of the context. Not possible in Claude, ChatGPT or Gemini, I think there one can only delete the last response.
I have the same peeve. My assumption is the ability to freely edit context is seen as not intuitive for most users - LLM products want to keep the illusion of a classic chat UI where that kind of editing doesn't make sense. I do wish ChatGPT & co had a pro or advanced mode that was more similar to Google AI Studio.
the trouble with compact is that no one really knows how it works and what it does. hence, for me at least, there is just no way I would ever allow my context to get there. you should seriously reconsider ever using compact (I mean this literally) - the quality of CC at that point is order of magnitute significantly worse that you are doing yourself significant disservice
if you actually hit the compact (you should never be there no matter what but for the sake of argument) more often than not you'll see CC going off the rails immediately after compacting is done. it even doesn't know what it did let alone you :)
I've been using Valkey simply because after I updated to the latest Fedora version, it dropped redis and pointed me to Valkey instead. I assume as more distros do this and more people update their systems, the Valkey user base will grow. But perhaps with the AGPL redis that will no longer be the case.
Yeah Pix lets you choose limits. There's decent granularity for those, you can pick max $ per day, per transfer, per period, and per device. There's a caveat that when you increase a limit it takes a day or two to come into effect (basically to avoid people being forced to increase their limits by criminals).
It was a few months ago, but when X was banned in my country I tried Bluesky for a while. It took a lot of effort (adding blocklists, muting words and blocking individual accounts) to cleanse the timeline of k-pop and furry content. I am not interested in either type of content and didn't follow any such accounts, but still, the "Discover" feed kept showing that stuff to me. It was the strangest onboarding experience I've ever had in social media.
reply