The massive information loss from officials who do not understand tech communicating about this has lead to these outrageous claims. I am super interested into what actually the researchers found, as the summarized headline seems highly unlikely, or at least in need of a lot of disclaimers. Especially given that mythos seemed to be more about scaling test time compute and orchestration rather than leap in intelligence.
What I've finally come to understand is that there is a large amount of people who are now able to write and use software through claude and coding agents. Those people have different needs than more traditional software engineers who have more knowledge because even best llms often need steering, correction, and refactoring suggestions when iterating on code and it's fine to let it lose context because exactly like you said, you tell it to read file and then have to regurgitate the understanding so you can correct or validate it before continuing.
For those where the code is almost entirely a black box and cannot easily recover when something goes wrong. They are much more keen on this context management and planning because recovering from derailments is much harder (and takes longer) because its often a conversation with llm to try to recover to where they were before.
probably all AI slop but I find it hilarious in the blog post they actually posture like they would know how to fine tune a model to sound like them given that what they actually did is something that you could one shot with claude if you knew what you were doing.
This article and ones like it are nonsense, there is really no control group as they try to make like an absolute comparison of things instead of relative to in office work. You don't just take pros and cons with respect to a vacuum. I see no mention of all the pros and cons of in office work of which there are tons obviously.
factors are not invariant under different economic levels though. For example - if you didn't need to work you can spend all the time in the world with your kids. Someone who has no money and relatively low mobility and has to work night shifts at a factory does not even have the option to consider staying home like that.
can someone tell me the actual market size for technophiles who I think are only people who use this stuff? I get lost in fact that people can't really understand that end of day this is just llm calls with like sqlite facade. I see the value is the convenience only of not having to set stuff up, but everyone else claims it does all this extra stuff that is not trivial to reproduce yourself.
they kind of do.. gcp has their lambda equivalent which i believe comes with chromium preinstalled, its how major search tools like jina work, sure thre problaby somethign about session management that they probably neuter to prevent abuse though
Given it was made by cognition (team behind devin flop) who now just got to wait out until claude and gpt5 basically do all of the work for them - not very. When you read about it, the framework is highly subjective. Which very quickly becomes a problem because its based on heuristics that probably change a bunch with a better code model.
In what world or frame of reference would doing TDD have "little" bearing on output quality? If you build a system around satisfying some set of requirements it seems logical that output quality would have pretty heavy correlation.
This is talked about all the time in the US as a huge impending problem with articles about all the time. You have segment of population with higher education and higher wealth that are having fewer children and later in life as it takes more time to get secured financially and also children are very expensive in terms of maintaining what used to be a middle class life style.
why is "solving" the issue somehow the bar? software engineering has more practices rooted in psychology than engineering, its a moving and ambiguous target. Using conventional commits gives you a framework and mechanism that undoubtedly improves contribution semantics.
From my own experience in big tech and various OSS things, the crux of this piece rests on this whole scope not being focal point misses that in general the other practice is making sure PRs have limited scope in general so it's marginalized, i.e. reducing blast radius or too big of a change at once by design is implied.
You are missing the point. Of course people want to live in one of the most vibrant cities in the world. People also want a vacation home at the beach or in the mountains thats private and beautiful and easy to get to. Except if we built giant monstrosities and condos in the hamptons and make all ski homes tenement housing it will be much less desirable to go to them. No ones asking to make more apartments and housing in rust belt cities.
I am a New Yorker, people want more housing but there is still NIMBYism because they want to preserve the charm, and I'm mostly only talking about manhattan. While people are not fans of the low density luxury skyscrapers popping up in places, I've not seen people who currently live in the place think we should add massive housing blocs carte blanche. Sure there few scattered places for a few projects but not like advocating to tear down to build bigger. That mentality comes from people who are definitely not new yorkers or live in fringes.
That only seems plausible if whatever corpse of xAI is around is giving them engineering time. I don't know if they hired a bunch of ex frontier lab staff but its unlikely they have the technical capability to train their own frontier models especially the pretraining. Because the thing is if its not competitive with claude/codex it will be panned.
is that really what people want? The fact that people say why not have 50 story concrete blocks everywhere to get more people feels like exact thing that would destroy what makes living in the city nice... Tenement housing sucked, why add thousands of people to crammed parts of city. We should be incentivizing sprawl and better transportation.