I'm not here to hype AI. After decades wielding terminals and IDEs I'm being forced to use it. I still want to write code that I don't because it will hurt my AI use metrics that count toward my performance. This is what it's like at a major tech company in 2026. But the picture has changed. AI can search through our codebase and find real bugs. Subtle ones.

Posts like this are unhelpful because they paint a picture that there are these limitations that really aren't there anymore. If you're not getting the same results, frankly, you're using it wrong. My guess would be that you've tried one-shotting a bug hunt with no real context.

Instead of comparing AI's output to compiler warnings ask CC (or whatever you like) to build with warnings as errors and fix the build. Then ask it to generate a list of suspected errors, and when the list is trash, tell it which the ones you don't care about and why, then ask it to try again. That's one way you can start to build up context about what you do care about.

How is AI any less authentic than a game? Both are simulations of reality.

A recording of a singer is a "simulation of reality", but it started out with a real person. Knowing that is part of the recording's power. If you replace the singer with something generated by technology and a listener knows it, it's much harder to create the same emotional connection, even when it "sounds good". People want to feel there's a connection with other people. Why would games be so different?

It's easy to fall behind the state of the art on AI tools. I tried various coding assistants over the past few years and never found them helpful until suddenly last November, Claude Code crossed over to being legitimately useful. I now use it throughout the day, occasionally giving it tasks could easily go to a low-level engineer.

An LLM may not be able to reason, but the combination of an orchestrator, agents and MCP tools certainly can. Not at a human level, but if I can ask it to do something, and it decides whether and how to do it based on the knowledge trained into the model, combined with the current state of the codebase, and then gives a valid reason for the choices, I don't know what else to call that if not reasoning.

...Anthropic's CEO sees the purpose of his role to do everything he can to sell the company for many billions, as quickly as possible...

I really doubt this. Anthropic is not some startup. They had $14 billion in revenue in 2025, with worse models than they have now. They're projected to have $70 billion in revenue by 2028 and that seems entirely reasonable for the path they're on. The kind of growth they are having would make them one of the largest tech companies in the world in 5 years. Why would they sell..? And to who..?

If every AI agent needs a license then the question becomes: Is it cheaper to just ask the AI agent to write the software needed to do the job? The problem for the current business model isn't the measurement of the licenses, it's that as the cost of creating software drops the value of the licenses is also dropping.

I was at a Q&A with an Anthropic engineer and he said they have all ditched their IDEs and just use Claude Code now. That alone seems like a radical step (and possibly naive if true) but there is a direction this stuff is going in. The leading sign won't be that they ditch software engineers, it'll be that they stop hiring low-level engineers.

They have a real job, which is to produce Irish culture. Without Irish artists, Ireland becomes the same as everywhere else. How can citizens care or want to invest in a country that has no identity?

I work at a major tech company and we have access to several models with unlimited tokens. Nearly everyone chooses Claude and uses it daily now. I wouldn't be surprised if the favorite model changes, but anyone who thinks this technology isn't the future is toast. English is going to be the new language for writing code, and hand writing Python, Rust or C++ is going to be like writing assembly. Respected and in rare circumstances useful, but extremely niche. That's been the direction of the abstractions for computers since the beginning and it's not stopping now.

Apple's software quality has been sinking for years and long before AI got involved. I wouldn't be surprised if Claude actually helped Apple root out problems, since Opus 4.5 is better at Swift than it has any right to be considering there's much less training data for the language.

And if you were planning to do that, it would be good to get the workforce onboard by ginning up stories about 4-day work weeks, because you need that current workforce to get the AI systems in place.

I'd bet Microsoft real goal here is not to rewrite their codebase in Rust for safety (which is going to introduce whole classes of new bugs like any rewrite does), but to create a project that requires their engineers to use AI to complete it. This will onboard reluctant engineers to AI tools, weed out anyone who can't work with AI tools, internally get everyone to hit AI use metrics and create a dataset of prompts where engineers explain how the codebase works. Rust is a perfect candidate for this because it's a language that's super-nitpicky, so AI can effectively go back and forth in a conversation with the compiler every time the AI code contains some kind of basic mistake.

Their misstep is letting the future of technology get away from them. With new products and technologies they usually let others go first and later buy up the winners to get back in the race, but with AI the winning companies are not going to be for sale. Apple still has technology, but their conservative nature is because they're fundamentally a headphone and TV show company now. That's why Apple is telling developers that they made some UI translucent and that's the "big new thing", while on the other side of the industry Claude and Gemini are literally poised to start doing developer's jobs.

Childhood is all about learning how the world works. Whether that's why you don't play with sharp objects or how to handle your own boredom and channel it into something useful. Every minute spent on a screen is a minute a child doesn't spend in the world experimenting, discovering and understanding. If I took 7 or more hours out of my work week, I'd be behind at what I'm doing too.

Watching the video, the chance that these are two people having an affair is basically zero. It's obviously a joke. If you want to overthink it and tie it to technology.. People don't need fake AI generated videos to spread disinformation, they can just make up a fake story for video that already exists and the internet will run with it.

They have a mountain of parts for the original model that were never assembled because demand wasn't there. Swapping in the M4 is a way to build a "new" model with mostly the same parts, so they can generate some demand to clear those out.