i'm saying all positive claims need to be justified, not that priors are exempt. there is one claim with a vast body of evidence supporting it, and a competing claim that must meet the same standard. the world is not so magically different now that we can't look at software engineering and computer science the same way we look at real (credentialist, regulated) science and engineering disciplines. really all i was implying is "peer review WAS vital" is jumping the gun
likewise, taking a wrecking ball to systems refined over centuries should come with some burden of proof for the positive claim that a tool can replace an institution. most times this has happened before, we've had to strengthen credentialing requirements to stop people from dying
OP says "you want to select a whole Markdown document built from SwiftUI primitives", but who wants that? what sort of product thinking tells us we want that? that sounds like a document editor, which has been hard to build for decades and sounds out of scope for an llm chat ui. everyone has landed on only supporting selection within each contiguous block, with a copy button for the entire message
last week with claude i saturated a team premium seat at day 6 of its cycle, and a max 20x seat at day 4, plus ~$150 extra usage spend, with a 60hr work week where i am not even primarily an IC, as well as a codex 20x plan at day 3 with a personal project
any serious scraping service these days will fail over to a headless browser when it fetches an asset referencing a js bundle that isn't verifiably a vendor script
papers are always coming out saying smaller models can do these amazing and terrifying things if you give them highly constrained problems and tailored instructions to bias them toward a known solution. most of these don't make the front page because people are rightfully unimpressed
i don't think all sides of this discussion agree on what a "new idea" is. i am a very creative person but i've never had a truly original thought and i don't know how having one would be possible
we are the ones qualified to say what needs to be cut to provide reasonable certainty for the deadline. it is not the job of non-technical stakeholders to mitigate risk in technical projects
one of them must be to blame! readers and publishing engineers famously sit atop corporate decision-making hierarchies, and no one else in a mass media enterprise ever did anything wrong, certainly not before the web was a thing