I think you're right, but I do wish the formula was more open ended. The super strict regs were supposed to prevent runaway costs, but now we have the cost cap. So like, why not institute a cost cap for the pu manufacturers and let them go nuts.
Then I don't really understand the argument around restricting everything to a very specific PU formula. Like they dropped the MGU-H to make the unit as a whole cheaper "so that new manufacturers could be drawn in", but then, if there's a cost cap anyway, then what does it matter?
I have a chuckle every time the Williams is on the screen with its Claude sponsorship. Why don't they simply ask Claude to make their car fast, are they stupid?
Yes, there are definitely trends in which sectors sponsor F1. Most famously perhaps, the tobacco companies. Cryptocurrency was in vogue for a few years. Now it's AI companies.
I recently had this discussion with an energetic junior coworker who just learned about TLA+ and thought it would solve all the problems. I think it probably did give the LLM that he was using to do the actual implementation a better starting off point, but the obvious gap remains, which is whether or not the spec (TLA) matches the implementation (elixir) which there's just not a good answer for. I encouraged him to put his TLA code in our docs folder, because as far as I'm concerned, it's just a suggestion, and then write (and understand...) some property tests about the feature.
I think there probably is some value in vibecoding TLA specs and not actually understanding the invariants yourself, but it's way oversold by the talking heads of the tech world, and the gaps need to be filled in some other way if you refuse to write your own code.
Just because the market reacts to a piece of information to the tune of 6B, doesn't mean the guy is providing 6b of value. It's just a piece of information and the market reacts to what it may or may not mean. Any other goober with an MBA in that role who quits with no notice may induce the same market reaction, even if they were a shit ceo.
If you think his departure won't impact the company, it looks like you're smarter than other investors and you get to buy MongoDB at a 25% discount. Also there's a job opening at the top spot, although you may be better suited as an investor with this kind of insight.
Yeah this op keeps skipping this point… like this is everyone’s argument boiled down and he just keeps saying well market says he’s valuable. No, market says his departure is indicative of real price being XXm lower than previous, it could have little to do with his value directly
I would argue it's a little new though. I used to write dumb little programs all the time that explored an idea which was probably bad, and in that exploration I often found that there was a better way to do it, or that I didn't know as much as I thought I did, or that another thing already existed that was much better considered than my half baked idea, etc. But there was learning that happened there, so the process was still valuable. Now you can get a working bad idea without learning anything, there is full conservation of ignorance, but a full dopamine hit from "i made this thing". I guess you could argue it's just everything happening at a faster rate, but it feels different to me, and it is pretty eerie.
Yeah that's the other side of it, learning that is.
Before you would pause at overwhelming, now you get to "fail forward" with less at stake because the end result can still be verifiable even if the internals are a blackbox to you.
It's a sort of "deferred" and/or "optional" learning dilemma we now exist.
You could open the box, look inside, ask questions, but you would need to care and feel engaged, which is very hard to do when the result is already there.
This is why I framed it as requiring self awareness and discipline. Very easy to get caught into the slot machine dopamine cycle loop.
Sometimes the end result is good, but the means aren’t. With the “give me something” approach of most LLM usage, often you won’t realize you have bad code full of hidden bugs. Often, the steps are “it works on my machine” follows by an error in prod.
Absolutely, and this is true to handwritten code as well. This is why code review, tests, constraints, and putting effort into the critical pieces of software is paramount to success.
I also would argue that in this case, the end result wasn't good but rather perceived good. It was good enough to pass a smoke test, but not an integration test, and end-to-end test, a runtime edge case, etc.
All of software development lifecycle should still apply and be relevant here, the tool just changes the rate at how it gets written and it is tempting to move faster and continue skipping other steps. Especially so in greenfield work as a solo founder with limited time.
I think at the end of the day, a good metric is your "give a shit quotient". How much do you give a shit about what you are doing is likely the most important thing into how it is going to perform.
It's hard to discuss things seriously when the arguments are comically bad. This whole marketing piece leaves out anything beyond the first order effects, no mention of any sort of class upheaval, no black swan events. All the projections are up and to the right, there isn't even a low confidence scenario where things go poorly. It's hard to discuss an such a deeply unserious thing seriously.
How does that coexist with Capitalism? I just don't see a path.
Regardless of where you fall on the alignment chart, if you are looking backwards from now to the industrial revolution, it's pretty easy to make the claim that from a standpoint of pure technological progress (discounting all other things, like quality of life, environmental impact, etc) that capitalism "won". But going forward, if the need for labor is completely crushed, and capital continues to get concentrated into the hands of the elites, I just don't see how that is viable long term. It seems like for things to shift to the world Keynes (wrongly) predicted, where we all have abundance of leisure time, then there's a massive distribution of the fruits of automation into the hands of the masses, which needs to be controlled by an entity who does not purely exist to acquire more capital, which is sort of the end of capitalism as we know it.
Or maybe AI kills us all before we get there, who knows.
reply