You should be skipping unit tests, actually, and just plastering the project with e2e tests. Unit tests don't really help, unless you've had them written adversarially by a different model/agent based on the original spec. But if you're also able to be productive, you probably already know this.

That was the old, original business plan. You may not have noticed, but there's not been much talk of an IPO in the past month. The administration knocked down their attempts at regulatory capture (as did much of the industry). They missed the boat.

Not in decades, no. lol

Gemma 4 12B IT is a great model, but I'm increasingly disinterested in both Google's models and cloud models in particular.

I can run minicpm-v 4.7 at 300 tok/s on my local equipment (versus under 150 tok/s on qwen3.8 based models). LFM2.5 just released a 24B model that surpasses Qwen 3.6 in most benchmarks and does almost 180 tok/s on my M2 Ultra.

Local models are coming faster and deeper and it's almost impossible to even keep up with benchmark evaluations.

You're just looking at one axis of their capabilities.

They absolutely have gotten better, remarkably so, in the "desktop and visual use" categories. Coding? Not so much, since GPT5.5/Fable. Being able to create useful 3D models and animate them in blender, or create a fully scripted movie? Very much so.

No, you don't understand the business.

The business is harvesting training data: data that can be used to iteratively improve their models - billions of GB a day sent to them by users, data only they have.

Then they use that data mostly to do more research and create more investments and companies before their customers can make use of it.

If you're not shipping code with AI faster than ever, it's 100% a skill and/or organizational problem.

In fact, it might be the organizations themselves which are the problem. Plenty of solo devs are doing amazing work with AI.

Russian intelligence had agents in Kiev who had assured them that they could stage a coup and take over the country. But the agents mostly turned out to be grifters and double-agents so that plan failed and a lot of high-level Russian intelligence folks got sacked.

They then progressed to forcing Ukraine to the negotiating table, which took a few weeks. Ukraine would have had no choice but to capitulate until Boris Johnson told them NATO would use them as mercenaries against Russia and provide them with weapons and intel.

That then led to the war between NATO and Russia that's been going on for the last four years and is approaching its end. Either NATO sends in troops soon or Ukraine is done because Russia will continue destroying their infrastructure all winter long.

It's a war. Things get blown up.

As I understand it, the Russian military doesn't use civilian data centers. The Ukrainian military does. So Ukraine will just be hit harder in response.

Remember how Russia was defeated only a few weeks ago because Ukraine was blowing up the Russian version of Amazon? How'd that turn out?

The general plan appears to be to tell the AI to rewrite it from scratch after a while.

We have an AI review all code changes for security holes because it's been programmed to be very good at finding ways to break security that make perfect sense but I would never have thought of. But it's purely advisory, I'd never let it have the final say on whether a change is safe.

That's why you have tests to ensure they don't.

Otherwise you pass it a hostname instead of an IP address, the low-level code happily accepts it in code paths that have never been tested and before you know it something explodes.

That is the way we're heading. So don't build your life around relying on software working because nothing is going to be reliable in future.

One of our problems is that we can't make major changes to the software because it invalidates over a decade of use in the field and massive amounts of testing required to ensure it doesn't kill people. Sooner or later that will be replaced with AI testing, so the code will be developed, tested and installed without a human ever checking whether the AI did it right or just hallucinated a lot of crap and then pretended the tests passed.

Turns out it takes longer to review code that no-one understands.

The solution, obviously, is to have the AI review the code too so humans don't need to understand it.

There is zero benefit to responding to a journo who plans to twist your words to fit their Narrative.