Pretty much any claim by any company that they've somehow "figured out AI" and that's why they're cutting jobs has been proven as unsubstantiated by various financial firms. Most of these companies can no longer grow and are starting the dying process. AI is eating all their investment money so they're trying to pretend they're an "AI first" company while simultaneously gutting themselves.
I think people overestimate the general population's ability and interest in vibe coding. Open source tools are still a small niche. Vibe code customized apps are an even bigger niche.
Maybe so. I guess I feel that in a couple of years it may not be called vibe coding, or even coding, I think it might be called 'using a computer'. I suppose it's very hard to correctly estimate or reason about such a big change.
My entire career has been building niche software for small business and personal use. The current crop of AI tools help get that software into my clients' hands quicker and cheaper.
And those reduced timelines mean that the client has less opportunity to change scope and features - that is the real value for me as a developer.
He has control over city agencies, budgets, personnel. Has little or no power as it relates to laws or infrastructure (like the MTA)--that's all state level.
So the TechCrunch headline should be "Waymo hits child better than a human driver would"? Not sure if the details reflect how the general public actually interprets this story (see the actual TC headline for exhibit A).
That’s why they purchase goods and services (from others) and then cry about things they don’t and probably never will understand.
And why they can be ignored and just fed some slop to feel better.
I could lie but that’s the cold truth.
Edit: I'm not sure if the repliers are being dense (highly likely), or you just skipped over context (you can click the "context" link if you're new here)
> So the TechCrunch headline should be "Waymo hits child better than a human driver would"? Not sure if the details reflect how the general public actually interprets this story (see the actual TC headline for exhibit A).
That is the general public sentiment I was referring to.
So if they were 100% self-sufficient and understood everything they'd be smart enough to interpret a child being hit at 6 mph as progress? Fun how "general public" is always a "they" vs "you".
Your comment sounds like subconsciously you're trying to come off as stronger than the general public, which begs the question: Why? Why do you need to prove your strength over the populace?
are you being dense on purpose, or you just don't understand how context works? hint, check out the "context" link
look at what I was replying to. if you still don't get it, then yeah I'm just proving my point and you can keep crying about it.
> So the TechCrunch headline should be "Waymo hits child better than a human driver would"? Not sure if the details reflect how the general public actually interprets this story (see the actual TC headline for exhibit A).
That is the general public sentiment I was referring to.
The fact that you go around asking dumb questions in bad faith to people is enough for me, last time I engage with you.
I think this is part of their circular financing "magic". The "customers" are likely OpenAI and Anthropic, who Microsoft is paying to use their infrastructure (so the "customer" who is paying for the AI capacity is Microsoft).
I have absolutely no idea what the current frontline treatment drugs are for literally any form of cancer, and would bet the same is true for almost everyone else here. Most of the exceptions are people who know the frontline treatment drugs for one or two forms of cancer that impacted them personally. "And then you never hear about it again" is subtly implying that the drugs behind headlines never proceed beyond that point, but I didn't hear about it when the current frontline became the frontline treatment for any form of cancer. Most people just aren't in the loop about the evolution of the field of oncology, beyond pop-sci headlines.
And yes, most headlines like this don't result in changes to the care provided to anybody outside of clinical trials, but some do, and you and I probably won't hear about those either.
It's not funny how people make judgments like this without any factchecking, just by their gut.
Talk to any actual healthcare worker from an oncology ward. (A nurse will do.) With most cancers, your chances of survival are non-trivially better now than even in 2010. Immunotherapy absolutely exploded in the meantime. For example, the vast majority of monoclonal antibodies (not just for treatment of cancer) were only approved in the last 15 years.
There are some notable holdouts like glioblastoma and pancreatic cancer, and these tend to draw attention. But there is real progress.
The stories are written for a general audience and often lack detail or nuance. "Promising" doesn't mean "likely". "Possible breakthrough" is not a breakthrough. And it may just mean we learn something that we don't know today.
I lost my wife to metastatic melanoma a few years ago. Words used in reference to cancer are often terms of art that have a distinct meaning from the general meaning. Her particular cancer was pretty awful and lacked mutations that allowed for the use of targeted therapy that buy time. Even still, her chances of survival were about 65% in 2023 as compared to 0% in 2013. Unfortunately, the odds didn't end in her favor, despite the incredible efforts of a team of doctors at a national cancer center.
Anything with cancer research and treatment is an testament to standing on the shoulders of those who came before. Many people suffered to give my Molly those odds - she had hope where many others had nothing. And today, we have trials of custom vaccines that will offer others more hope and perhaps safer treatment. Perhaps in some small way her journey and ideal helped those or other developments. That's all we have.
I think this is one of the expected outcomes of "Science by Press Release" (universities motivated to maximize their grants and IP), combined with media/press that wants clicks (articles that talk about cures for cancer get clicks).
As a rule of thumb, if you’re not a researcher in the area ignore any media reports of a study that include the words “in mice”.
Also, there’s a tendency on HN for commenters (mostly software engineers) to think that they are smarter than the scientists who work on this stuff day in, day out. Let me tell you, you, random HN reader are not smarter than random biomedical scientists.
It's interesting that the AI is taking job story is so prevalent in these sorts of posts even though there's zero indication of it in any financial analysis. Amazon and big tech companies like it are using AI as the smoke screen to cover up the obvious, which is these companies have lost their ability to grow exponentially. Since their stock price and debt demands this impossible growth, they are now starting the dying process. It will probably take years and maybe even decades, but they will continue to cut costs until they become the next Sears.
I agree and I also think a lot of what used to require the cloud is now becoming local and private.
Cost structures are changing everywhere, not just in big tech. Hiring has stayed about the same everywhere else and the job descriptions for an SWE in the normal corporate world seem focused on getting off AWS, GCP, etc.
P/E isn't a future projection. There is literally no analysis that asserts Amazon will achieve the same growth rate in the future that it achieved in the past. It will retain stock value by eating itself for a while (could be a long time), then die.
Relative to their competitors who also have comparable models, Anthropic's design choices in effectively managing context with a very well thought out and coherent design, makes them stand out.
If you enjoy working out of the terminal and CLI/TUI's then it's not even close. Gemini, Codex, CoPilot, and every other CLI I can think of are awful. Stumbling, bumbling and you'd be lucky to keep your file tree in tact even with tight permissions (short of a sandbox).
Claude Code feels like my early days when pair programming was all the rage.
If you have the time OpenCode comes the closest and lets you work across providers seamless.
(i.e. competitors can still use Claude models but haven’t achieved the same DevEx as CC so far, at least in my opinion and many others)
also while I was initially on the “they should open source” boat, and I’m happy Codex CLI did, there are a ton of benefits to keeping to closed source. just look at how much spam and dumb community drama OpenAI employees now have to deal with on GitHub. I increasingly think it’s a smart moved to keep it closed source and iterate without as direct community involvement on the codebase for now
They could open source it and not even have a Github project associated. Just provide a read-only git repo on anthropic.com or drop a source tarball every release.
Then a ton of vibe-coded Claude Code forks out of their control would pop up on GitHub and people would be even more frustrated at Anthropic for not fixing their issues.
Honestly this got me to subscribe. The back catalog is pretty stellar with pretty much every major writer of the twentieth century making a contribution. Zooming in on PDFs just wasn't how you wanted to read them.
reply