Then the rye code "needs more meat" too yes, but not that much changes, |fix { code } already does the fixing and provides an alternative, |^check { failure construct dialect }, already wraps received failure into a new one you construct, and exits to caller. There are other such functions but these two are most common.
Additional benefit I see, they already express intent. Like map, filter, reduce express intent better than foreach loop.
But sometimes you must act on exceptional situations, recover, take alternative route, provide default, or translate exception from lower level one to a higher level one. From cause based to more intent based. Err, file not found setup.txt -> Couldn't read your setup -> ...
Which its great if this also doesn't loose lower level information, but just wraps it, so end user could dig into the error.
Thanks! But words with dots vs. Pipes dont work that way.
All functions, user level or builtins (written in Go) (or generic methods that dispatch on the Kind of first arg) have exactly the same calling conventions/rules. Dot vs pipe is a matter of evaluation priority, that works the same on all of them.
I agree, if you don't have a clear view on what you want to do on certain exception, or you are adding information or translating/wrapping error into a higher level one, then it can be cleaner to let program fail naturally in that specific case. Catch, print error and panic makes no sense in many cases and can make the exception less clear when it happens.
Generated images moved even faster than generated code in a way through it's cycle, so maybe there is a lesson there we can observe and that you also touch upon.
Well i would be very happy if i could write that instinctively (at least the feel/flow makes it seem like that) in english, but i can't even by a long stretch.
The article is me coping with my existential crisis, trying to explore and accept my fears by writing it. And by exploring ideas I think I found some vision for my stance in all this - or hope if you will. I hope these feelings will be real, and I can write a positive blog post also, but I can't be certain if the feelings will survive the scrutiny at this point, or are just warm fuzzy delusions and next level of cope (I had these periods few times in last year).
I'm just trying to say, I am definitely not trying to deliberately spread FUD to hinder the open web -if that was your impression :P
And it's not just that the execution is faster now. The competition saw the "outer shell" of your idea. But LLM platforms (the forest) - they see the internals, if you used them to explore and develop it. They also see all similar ideas across the globe.
And they own - not rent the compute and models - as you do from them. If we want to extend this, they could "pre-cog" your idea and build it even before you do.
I'm not talking about what is happening now, I'm just playing out the thought experiment.
The dynamics at least with the space dark forest is different than when we live on the same planet. It has to do with lack/slow communication over vast space (that you can't trust anyway).
It relied on two principles "the chain of suspicion" and "technological explosion", which don't hold true if we are on the same planet. You can google it (or llm it) :)
When I read if for the second time, trying to understand it - maybe even better match for the low orbit flying garbage would be "enshitification"? As the time goes on, more and more garbage is produced, and we have no clear way or specific motivated entity to start removing it so it just grows.
As the first line of the post says - it's a thought experiment, so comments like yours that open new options and ask new questions are the best outcome.
I have no other comment other than - very interesting. I thought about how the overlying model will change for us, but haven't considered that the underlying model (what you proposed) can change too ... if that makes sense.
Interesting irony :). If you don't produce the idea in fear of just feeding the forest, someone else will, so it might as well be you. It's true that this is very similar as current dilemmas some people have about their ideas.
The difference is that now people see just the outer shell of your ideas - but if you use LLM-s to search, explore, code your ideas, the system "knows" it all, or even more than you, given that it can "cross-pollinate".
I seem to get into sort of existential crisis every few moths with the progress that llm-s are doing. I probably fool myself for a while that "it's not real", then at some point I can't fool myself any more - then I accept it somewhat ... then the new progress happens and it cycles again.
But as it's written at the top, this was a thought experiment, not a prediction. And while I tried to put all the bad scenarios on the table (with the theme of the dark forest that is), I think I again found a sense of optimism, because I also think this thought experiment has flaws.
So I hope, that after a while I will be able to write the contrary, I've already written down some points about it - I already have a title. But we will see. I am more optimistic after I wrote this than before. :P
> This was the same before, if you had a novel idea and make a product out of it others follow. Especially for LLMs, they are not (till now) learning on the fly. Claude Opus 4.6 knowledge cut off was August 2025, so every idea you type in after this date is in the training data but not available, so you only have to be fast enough. Especially LLMs/AI-Agents like Claude enable this speed you need for bringing out something new.
You have a point about the update intervals and the higher speed they provide to developers. But you are talking about now, and I was making a thought experiment - about a potential future. LLM-s are not learning on the fly, but I suspect they do log the conversations, their responses and could also deduce from further interaction if a particular response was satisfactory to the user. So in a world where available training data is drying up, nobody is throwing all this away. Gemini even has direct upvote/downvote on responses. Algorithms will probably improve, and the intervals will probably shorten.
Given the detailed information that all the back and forwards generate - I think it's not hard to use similar technology to track underlying trends, get all the problems associated with them and all the solution space that is talked about - and generate the solution before even the ones who thought of it release it. Theoretically :)
I think the open development will become less open. I don't like it - but I think it's already happening. First - all the blogs and forums moved to specialized platforms (SO, discords, ..) and now event some of those are d(r)ying. If people (in extreme cases) don't even read the code they produce, why would they read about the code, discuss the code, that's not even in their care. That is without the theoretical fear of the global Borg slurping all they write.
I hope the open source models / crowdsourced approaches to training will also be an important part of the ecosystem, keeping it honest and providing an exit. Similarly, as it does for operating systems and other important software.
But I don't see a trend of big companies really opening up. They usually open only if it benefits them (which can also happen and did happen in various scenarios). Everybody is accepting and open when it's trying to grow and is closing once it can reach a monopoly.
Well, I didn't know for this book, so I suspect or hope the exact points that I make won't map to the ones from the book.
It is true that the original "The dark forest" book made an impression on me, so I was thinking about its theories often and trying to apply them to various situations.
Platforms cherry-picking successful ideas and stealing them isn't new. Platforms could do this because they had the capital and the platform (distribution).
What is different is, is that LLM platforms literally have world's thoughts, ideas, conversations and a big part of the code/can generate it. It's like "pre-crime" ... they could copy your idea, or capture a trend brewing and replicate, before you even released it.