Maybe it's because I haven't had my coffee yet, but I cannot understand what you are saying.
What do you mean by "be epistemically sound enough"?
You are using it as if to say "if your code is grounded in sound abstractions, you'll be fine and tests will therefore generate successfully" but preface that claim with "the code provides a baseline truth for the tests". The latter does not follow from the former, and it also does not lift the burden of responsibility away from the programmer - which is where my doubts on test generation stem from in the first place.
Additionally, what is "completely solipsistic value generation"?
You reference it like a perk in a skill tree, but to my ears "generating completely solipsistic values" seems like a way of describing AGI with a philosophical wording instead of just saying AGI.
I see this get mentioned a lot but I still am skeptical that AI can generate tests we can trust more than any other code we know we cannot trust.
Yes tests are conceptually isolated and that helps, but I've personally seen unit tests get generated that are semantically incorrect - that is, they test the structure of the code (e.g. they can check function output types and values), but they can't know _why_ the unit tests need to be there, so the really really helpful tests never get generated. Not to mention the obvious issues with generated tests only testing is x = x, or needless redundant tests for the same thing, or them essentially testing basic features of the language.
If your business plan is selling software to people, 98% is not plenty at all.
If your web app crashes one out of every fifty times I launch it, it's not good. The business side of things is reasonable to prioritize right up until it isn't.
Not technology - that's only downstream of politics.
No political administration in my lifetime (!) has made policy decisions against the interests of tech monopolists. The closest we got was Lina Kahn's FTC.
There are other commenters saying this is a good practice they've also done for other injuries. You are saying you are an actual radiologist and immediately clock the problems with its advice.
I have seen this pattern over and over again. Anytime someone is an actual expert at anything, AI output appears insufficient or incomplete or outright misleading. It is only when you do not know what the AI is being asked to do is it likely you will find the output helpful.
This is itself alarming to me, but no one else seems to find this to be quite damning for the AI services being offered, preferring instanced to be wowed by the convenience and speed at which they can be delivered unreviewed and unproven information.
Politics - particularly politics relevant to large democracies - appears to be a function of visible truth, and not truth itself. See all the articles about "X slams Y" or the endless "we're launching an investigation into [thing we cannot prove]".
Anecdotally, from one attempt at chatting with it, Grok is far and away the most obviously dishonest and shifts conversations towards right leaning talking points.
Oh dear. I've been using Omarchy! Had no idea. Thanks for the info.
Was already kind of annoyed at the "manual" not being very comprehensive - think I'll switch to another distro or fully yank control away from Omarchy and just roll my own Arch, I guess. Depends on how much work it'll take.
Disagree. There's a power imbalance between how easy it is to write something by hand and slap a human label next to AI output. "Let the reader decide" is not fair in a world where the reader then sees >90% AI writing in internet search results.
Personally I think it should be optional, but meaningfully optional in a way that's technically sound and easier than it is now. I kind of feel like long term I'd want "professional/public" code I'd put my name on, and separate code I'd work on under a pseudonym/handle.
Yes but Qt comes with the drawbacks of being tied to Qt.
With Electron + React, you'd be able to rip out any components you need and place them in other web apps. The browser is (psychologically) avoiding vendor dependencies to a greater degree than other options.
Man, I've really been falling into his stuff. So refreshing to hear someone speak from a perspective of care. It's good for my soul in this world of slop.
Not a product manager but I habitually try to play devil's advocate as one. I think it's popularity, full stop. You _could_ vibe code a native app no problem - but then you're targeting one set of hardware. If you're already just vibing it, why not make something that will work cross-platform while you're at it? And if an LLM is prompted with that, they'll usually go with the popular choice: web app on Electron.
I don't think we can stop publishers from rent-seeking behavior, I am only trying to get at the idea that we should clearly communicate to a user when something is truly bought and owned vs rented. If that information is clearly and loudly proclaimed to the customer at purchase time, I have to assume consumer behavior would steer the industry in a more positive direction.
I do as well, but I think it's good practice to put something like in a user preference setting somewhere if you are going to stray from default browser/system behavior.
> You're calling for legislating software architecture for a subset of software that is different to how it works everywhere else in the tech industry.
I am not even sure that's true, even in the limited scope of "we've already built this jumble of micro services that our thin client requires to do anything and a rewrite is impossible".
I think the real goal of this would simply be clearer communication with consumers. Therefore if you are selling an inherently temporary access pass to your server, say so. Don't call it the same thing as someone else who is selling a standalone or self-hostable software binary.
I don't see it regulating software architecture so much as it is the beginnings of trying to make legal categories of software, which I'm not opposed to doing.
The classic SKG example is The Crew. Where is the indie recreation of the Continental USA to drive around? Indie games are great, but let's not act like art is fungible.
I don't like the idea of "they will just find loopholes anyway", that seems defeatist. "We've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas."
I wish people started thinking of good regulation as a technical problem as much as it is a social one.