Here is what Linus actually says in the readme of his project:

Also note that the python visualizer tool has been basically written by vibe-coding. I know more about analog filters -- and that's not saying much -- than I do about python. It started out as my typical "google and do the monkey-see-monkey-do" kind of programming, but then I cut out the middle-man -- me -- and just used Google Antigravity to do the audio sample visualizer.

https://github.com/torvalds/Au...

It is crazy that anyone takes that as an endorsement of vibe coding for production code!

AI is certainly awesome and can be leveraged to do great things and solve important problems, but it does not feel like all of a country's economy depends on AI. At least not yet. We will still need real carpenters to help build houses, real electricians to wire up a house, real mechanics to fix cars.

What they are saying here is that there are software ideas out there today that would not be economically viable to make. But if you could decrease the cost to make them by using AI, they suddenly would be. The additional demand would create more programming jobs than we would lose from AI replacing people on the projects we do today. Article doesn't really say if these new jobs would be just a temporary boom like they were in oil extraction, or if they would be permanent.

This.

It really depends on what comes first—budget or feature. If a company can spend the same budget and get 10x more features, they will. In the end it’s always a race to differentiate. Still, it’ll probably take time before those new ideas start showing up.

I cannot read the main article since it is paywalled. This may not be the intent, but tut the first thought that popped into my mind is that this is a way to rationalize age discrimination. Who cannot be trained for the age of AI? Probably all the oldies that are too set in their ways.

However, if this is the intent, it may backfire. Those same oldies are the people who can judge if the output of the LLM is good. They may not wish to leverage the AI because for whatever reason it is not that useful in their domain.

Taking the blood pressure correctly consists of

• - sitting properly in a chair, feet planted on the ground, and relaxing for a few minutes, maybe deep breathing
• - then the nurse putting the cuff and taking the measurement
• - all in absolute silence, minimal movements

In my experience this has rarely happened in a doctors office. How many people sit on the table with legs dangling and having a conversation while their BP is being measured?

Yes, technically ML is one category of AI by definition. However, when someone says "AI", they are usually referring to LLMs and the potential for AGI in that direction. ML itself has been around for a while now, and in some ways is considered just basic tech.

Adding to that - some companies will post US employees in India to match the timezone. It is almost certain that many software and IT jobs will be lost in the USA because of this.

What a win for India and other offshore IT hubs!

If a person wants to live long, by all means give them the means to do so. This is what is great about modern medicine and evolving medications and treatments.

However, stretching a person's life against their wish just because it is possible even if they are truly suffering is where the problem lies.

I think that statement is saying that the "superintelligent assistant" will assist the human to help the human "create, experience adventures, and become better friends.". I did not interpret the vision as wanting the AI to take away the human's experiences.

Not sure what point you're trying to make, but the tone comes off more combative than constructive. I'm an embedded software engineer, and I agree that a huge portion of programming happens in constrained, low-level environments. That doesn't mean AI tools aren't useful—it just means they have to be used differently.

In embedded development, you can't rely on "vibe coding." You need to understand and verify every line of code. But even in this domain, AI can help with things like documentation, test scaffolding, or code reviews. Ignoring those tools entirely puts you at a disadvantage compared to equally capable peers who do use them wisely.

At this point, *all* developers are using AI in some form. To me, “vibe coding” describes a specific mindset: the developer isn’t trying to understand the code the AI produces—they’re just testing whether it works. In that sense, the term isn’t unfortunate at all. It accurately captures what’s happening.

You're presenting a false choice — either crime or religion. There are plenty of secular individuals with strong moral compasses, and many admirable role models who are neither religious leaders nor criminals.

If you consider that WhatsApp is end-to-end encrypted and markets itself as enabling private chats, the presence of Apple AI in the text input box is inherently a privacy risk—because any text you type could potentially be sent to Apple. WhatsApp might need to add a disclaimer: “Private chats—only if you trust (or disable) Apple AI.”

(Of course, I realize that talking about privacy and Facebook in the same paragraph is already hilarious!)

This seems like a counterproductive way to do a layoff, though. The good employees can and will find alternative jobs, leaving behind a team that is overworked and have reduced capabilities and morale. Of course on the other hand the good employees who quit were probably highly paid too, so maybe the short term savings is higher.

This. Seems to me that Google is shooting its own foot, while at the same time putting influencers into a dilemma. Given this article, I will have a hard time believing any influencers (or even articles in reputed magazines for that matter) that prefer google products over the competition, so the lazy me will simply not prefer Google products.