The Scion project seems like a great example of identifying and addressing scaling issues (just in time, it seems). Just 7 engineers! It makes me think I'd pay Anthropic $300K/year to work on such problems.
But it's a sad example, for open-source and for small engineering companies. Instead of infrastructure being more easily shared with the collective, or valued enough to build a business, now companies can tailor even major infrastructure to their own needs, and avoid all that coordination.
I'm glad they publish their notes to encourage others, but I suspect we're entering an epoch where confidentiality matters most.
Anthropic's problem was merging code at scale, but the scale problem I have with SCM is really merging all the related docs; these get lost in a stream of a forest of comments, PR's, and documentation, all of which (like a wiki) goes rapidly out of date before anyone notices because none of it is automatically correlated.
> Instead of infrastructure being more easily shared with the collective, or valued enough to build a business, now companies can tailor even major infrastructure to their own needs, and avoid all that coordination.
Large companies have always done this. Tons of early 2010s open source projects came out of reimplementing white papers from closed-source Google projects.
It’s also the major downside of this kind of thing. Once someone gets acclimated to how things are done at a large company with custom tools, it’s not always easy to switch to another process, especially a simpler one. There are tons of stories about FAANG engineers joining a startup and being useless.
There’s real value in having consistent tools across an industry. It makes hiring and training easier. Even if you’re convinced that a LLM could crank out a payroll or ordering system that’s perfect for your org, you still have to train the accountants and admin assistants to use it. And you’ve now become the customer support.
The bar is lower with version control, but it’s still more friction than git + GitHub + a well-known workflow.
> They're staffing up and investing in... something
You're suggesting "investing" is like R&D?
Investing is when you buy stocks or bitcoin and hope. Except for 1 year, their "investments" have always lost, last year about 50% of total assets:
-908 -4,374 3,970 -1,946 -10,273
"Investing" is traditionally how money is skimmed: something's sold to a friend at an inflated price that only becomes recognized as such years later amidst some other cover/crisis (if not after a statute of limitations). The other option is sweetheart deals - unneeded property leases, jobs for friends, etc. - but those are a bit more traceable, while investments can have multiple shell-company layers and complex derivatives.
Citation not required; the premise is not required to be true because the conclusion is independently verifiable (albeit overstated): "we’ve built an ecosystem for ourselves that is predatory to every single one of our desires and weaknesses"
But I'm not sure the attention economy is different in this respect from civilization's traditional franchises: the hope and protection rackets run by religion, governments, militaries, businesses, etc. We've been trading beer for labor in the oldest recorded history and probably before. But how would understanding that help?
So: not "citation needed", but back to TFA: can {proposal-x} help liberate people from predation (and self-destruction)? It's fruitless to wish there were no predatory human systems or realize everyone's out to get you; the question is how to cope.
The commenter is suggesting that counter-programming might not be the answer to programming. I would go on to suggest deprogramming, reducing the reactivity of any reward system, and then targeting the deepest values. Traditionally this is occasioned by failure (as a lesson) or getting old (heeding the older wise elders), or breaking the ego (in recovery, severe trauma (war, moral injury), etc.) so it's mostly a no-go zone, but in rare cases of excellent therapy or practice or great relationships one can make progress.
Tracking systems (joyful or otherwise) I think help not in the day-to-day reward hacking (any drug results in resistance) but to give a concrete picture of the value of time and habit: when I well and truly realize how little I do actually contributes to my/y/our future, I am motivated to really look backwards from the future.
To read Ben is to glimpse the AI divide: he's honestly and emphatically choosing based on whether it makes it easier for him to use his AI agents, even if that means ditching Apple for the Zuckerberg's melee. It's that important to his personal productivity. AI-native product streams will separate from what came before, as will the people who master them.
That said, I disagree on Apple: while the UI can be perfect, it has always imperfectly been trying to do the right thing technically in concert with developers and users, which puts it in the position of imposing constraints that developers and users can relax to varying degrees: wearable and home devices (not at all), iOS (somewhat), macOS (mostly).
wrt a hacker's future: I'm still traumatized both by decades of windows reboots and virus scanning, and by decades of squeezing into Linux (just don't sleep, avoid these displays...). I'm glad Apple stuff mostly just works and ordinary people still have access to unlocked, general-purpose computers, but that might not last. Cheap AI coding might remove any financial incentive to support users programming on their own, and we'd be left with locked devices as consumers or work-only access to programmable computers (at least for the latest hardware of note). If a 40% premium for mac hardware is the price we pay for continued access, so be it.
For all of Linux's warts, it's still better than the commercial crap coming from Microsoft and Apple that focuses on 99% of consumers. For many of us at HN, Linux is a blessing and it's only getting better.
It used to be a lot easier to get along with these systems. The calls would be coming from outside the house. Now they're coming from inside, and that is a much worse situation to deal with because there is no amount "basic security diligence" that can help. They are hammering shit into the updates channels.
It really sucks because Windows at the kernel and OS level is a real gem. The Win32 API is great. But I find myself having to migrate F&F off of it because of the attack vectors. Ubuntu and Fedora will have to do going forward.
Then there is the whole issue of Chrome/Google not allowing ABP and other blockers to run anymore which is just a fuck-you to every human who just wants to use the Web.
> the more your job pays the less it exposes you to physical harm.
the high-paying jobs are for reliance under obscurity: part of a very big deal, and if you screw up you ruin everything, and it's hard to know if you screwed up. That's everything from CEO's to investors and researchers, teachers, and yes, some tradesmen.
If you want to reduce wages, increase transparency.
"My family" - a nice anecdotal frame. No worries here. After all, labor savers for production has evolved for millennia. And you should only worry about the impact to yourself, and be glad your lot is better than your ancestors'.
But our society today has very extensive systems with very few deciders, who are largely enmeshed in social and legal constraints to ensure our reliance is safe and effective (at least in the large/long run).
The concern is about that constraint system being displaced - minimally with decider over-reliance on AI (still subject to guardrails?), or maximally with AI itself (no internal guardrails). Slop (in software, medical services, and military targeting) is just the symptom.
That replacement/shift has already been a corrosive side-effect of capitalism, as elites slowly cede loyalty and professional standards to competitive pressure, but even now most constraints allow replacement of bad actors (if demonstrable). AI reliance just makes that shift irreversible. People no longer have incentives or opportunities to spend the decades required to lead effectively, so organizations could never revert the heartless efficient machine elites back to the available incompetent and oblivious humans.
Maybe the result is just wealth transfer, or health, but I'd expect the high-value use to be in a military where very few people can combat many (as is happening in Ukraine now), making the military a preferred option for anyone with resources.
The distribution of (and checks on) responsibility - up, down, across companies and political systems - was intended to constrain agents to organizational goals, but it effectively kills any internal change by requiring near-unanimity and overcoming people's dependence on their jobs. So even if a super-majority of people agreed on some negative projection of AI usage AND had the resources to put work and investments at risk, it still wouldn't be enough to change this trajectory.
huh? Many/most are no-fault jurisdictions with strict rules on dividing community property. Divorce is easy and cheap, unless it's hard to find assets.
But it's a sad example, for open-source and for small engineering companies. Instead of infrastructure being more easily shared with the collective, or valued enough to build a business, now companies can tailor even major infrastructure to their own needs, and avoid all that coordination.
I'm glad they publish their notes to encourage others, but I suspect we're entering an epoch where confidentiality matters most.
Anthropic's problem was merging code at scale, but the scale problem I have with SCM is really merging all the related docs; these get lost in a stream of a forest of comments, PR's, and documentation, all of which (like a wiki) goes rapidly out of date before anyone notices because none of it is automatically correlated.
reply