I literally just patched an AI-generated API endpoint on a new service at work that shipped without any auth whatsoever, because AI was re-implementing the auth token check method individually in each child controller instead of implementing once in a before_action hook. That's Rails 101 stuff and the app is small. It was so obvious that I saw it right away just reading the code, I didn't even set an agent loose to do an initial inspection. It was a real "yeah I still got it" moment for me.
I'm on board with the idea that agents are going to write most of the code, but not checking it is just insane to me, based on some of the things I've seen committed in commercial codebases recently.
One of the strengths of Rails was that it helped developers who maybe didn't always know the "best way" to build things to build in a standards compliant way – not that you couldn't do things like return a 200 for Not Found if you really wanted to etc.
I'm always pleased when working with a dev who has Rails experience even if they've since moved stack, as often they have picked up and learned the value of these good behaviours. Perhaps it's as much a community thing as a framework thing, or combination of both.
Agentic development definitely still has room to improve, but I suspect that there is some future framework (maybe even language) designed to help minimise these types of mistakes.
Interesting that all the patterns Rails adopted for humans to write better code can't easily be funneled into the LLM doing the job now. Seems like it should be.
I think the issue with Rails, as a long time developer in that ecosystem, is that much of the default assumptions are a) not common (not so far off-piste that a human can't get used to them, but outside the center of the bell curve), and b) not explicit. So it's very common to do things like install a plugin that has across-the-repo effects but that is only documented in e.g. the config directory and the bundle. Unlike, say, NPM, when you install a new package where you explicitly have to e.g. import it everywhere you want to use it.
As time has gone on Rails has gotten better about this, but it still means that "your rails" and "my rails" are different enough that AI could easily get confused.
As you say, the other aspect is the intense dynamism which works against AI, which again prefers to have everything explicit and reasonable about from the text.
So I ended up going back to Javascript after a brief 12 year digression into Ruby. I still love Ruby but it's just not the right language for the current environment and team structures - typescript is "worse is better" in the right ways that it's a much better choice for both frontend/backend being the same and better type systems.
Types are great. No nulls are great. Exhaustive switches are great. Derive macros and Serde are great. Detailed errors are great.
However Rust has one serious problem, BUILDS. It’s slow and it takes up a ton of space and memory. You will be working around this on any sizeable codebase. Using cargo check to ration your compiles, a dedicated build box, etc. Now imagine you're using it for a web application with compiled maud templates... you're potentially waiting minutes to see your changes.
If we accept that over half of the people building with rust are using agents (I'm sure this is much higher in reality), then you should also accept that there is a ton of time and resources spent on building / compiling. Optimizing this should probably be a top priority. They need someone who will be fanatical about shaving time and memory use from the build process.
Sounds like OCaml has the answer then. It has the equivalent of all the great things you described in Rust, plus compile speeds similar to or better than Go. Agents should be able to blaze through changes with it.
Yeah. I'm going through an exercise right now with a large codebase where I'm split some of it up into crates so that iterating on specific parts incurs less build overhead. Literally changing my architecture... which annoyed me a bit, but it does make sense.
> Agentic development definitely still has room to improve, but I suspect that there is some future framework (maybe even language) designed to help minimise these types of mistakes.
Maybe there will be one day, but what are the odds that it will meaningfully move the needle for existing platforms such that manual code review is unnecessary? "Blindly trust the output" is not a feasible security posture today.
I still review PRs, but rarely suggest changes. The most meaningful reviews come from our review bots. I mostly review broad architectural decisions as a way to keep abreast of changes in the codebase. There's a cohort of engineers I work with who I would be perfectly okay with letting the clankers review, approve, and merge their PRs. But there's a larger cohort of engineers who need what I would call a directional code review.
Agile is dead. It presumed writing the code was the slowest part of the cycle. Now it makes more sense to only start writing code when the requirements are known as the code is quick and low cost to change if/when the requirements change later.
Omarchy exists because there's a real demand for a power user OS that's not controlled by Apple and Microsoft. Windows sucks and MacOS now occupies an extra 18GB or something crazy for their internal models that's not an opt-out.
Hard pass on the always-on microphone. I wonder if this is going to backfire spectacularly, as in Apple watches will be banned in offices or at least socially rejected like Google glass back in the day.
I was really on the fence about replacing my Ultra 1 watch, even though it's no longer supported in WatchOS 27. The updates to the Ultra line have been so incremental ever since it released, but watching this has solidly shut the door for me.
Also, help for alcohol abuse is more accessible and socially accepted than ever before. Sober movements overall are having a moment in the US, even though some traditional recovery membership like AA is slightly declining.
It's laughable at this point. It feels like they're drumming up all this fear about imminent AI threats to emphasize the need to slow down, when in reality, the model progress seems already to be slowing down and has shifted to compute allocation (i.e. "how much compute do you want to throw at this prompt?"). All while continuing to tout benchmark records with each new release.
I'm sure people laughed at Oppenheimer when he said perhaps we don't make this atomic bomb thing. They said "of course he's saying that because he knows it won't work".
The same people you believe are just signaling the market have been offering these same warnings for years. Others around them have been saying it for decades. How do you square that?
I’d rather first focus on the reasons why they’re wrong and not first conspiracize why they’re saying what they are.
This take is so old and I am convinced it's appeal is not unlike believing in a conspiracy and feeling like you have secret knowledge
Imagine if the biotech industry had most leaders tell everyone publicly that what they are building has a high chance of killing everyone and that there are huge risks. If there were people online saying the biotech industry is just fear mongering for investor signalling and regulatory capture you'd role your eyes at the online commentators for their Dunning Kruger effect lack of understanding on how dangerous man-made biological agents can be.
I think I agree with the idea that it is better to turn the smartphone into the phone you want, but I think it might require a bit more work than just not installing TikTok :)
Because the iPhone has some ads for Apple services baked in, which is what the article is about. But it's really minor. The people complaining about this don't actually have iPhones, haha.
You might want to check out the Bigme HiBreak phones, they're basically low-mid Android phones with e-ink screens. They work perfectly well for the dull functional things expected of a phone, while rendering all the addictive and spammy patterns pretty ineffective. I've found my one very useful as an intermediate step between a dumbphone and a traditional smartphone.
I tried out dumb.co. Their flip phone supports maps, MFA, Uber, imessage/call forwarding.
I unfortunately didn't use it nearly as much as I thought I would have. It's also significantly bulkier in my pocket than my 13 mini. Loved the idea though.
Disagree, throwing more money at devs hoping it will improve quality while continuing to take away their authority will only perpetuate the slop machine.
It's not that hard: treat people with dignity and take their contributions seriously, not as a disposable meat mass. In fact, not only will this improve code quality, it's likely to improve employee retention too.
As someone who has spent a lot of time trying to configure my iOS/Mac experience to be more intentional/less addictive, I am intimately familiar with Screen Time at this point. And my gut says this isn't an oversight on Apple's part at all.
This is very intentional because in my experience, Apple's attempt at actually managing screen time and device access is mostly theater, and it absolutely tracks that they'd bury this config within Screen Time.
What have you found to be effective for you? I recently heard of this (basically Brick but open source and with any NFC tag or barcode), but I haven’t gotten a chance to test it out yet: https://www.foqos.app/
I immediately thought about the Iran school bombings as well. The really insidious part of this to me is that AI gives the military a way to cover or deflect war crimes.
Does a horrific war crime like My Lai[0] get scrutinized and investigated in 2026 or do people just say "eh maybe AI gave them bad intel" and ignore it?
The law of war is an attempt to have belligerent nations voluntarily set some limits on how far they’ll go when in conflict, in the hopes that the number of non-combatant casualties is reduced. That said, the answer to your question is that a nation that tries to follow the law of war has procedures in place to catch errors like bad intel. That is what a court would adjudicate.
Well, on the civilian side that's exactly what's happening with openai hacking other companies, so I guess it stands to reason that the military wants to get in on that too.
> Does a horrific war crime like My Lai[0] get scrutinized and investigated
Of course scrutiny and investigations are better than nothing - but keep in mind in My Lai - all the charges were eventually dropped except for one guy (Calley), who in the end got 3 years of house arrest.
it's not like they didn't just sweep crap under the rug before AI.
did Colin Powell go to jail for lying to the UN? of course not.
did Colin Powell go to jail for smuggling anthrax into a UN meeting? of course not.
he just blamed it on "being misled by bad intelligence". Did anyone go to jail for that bad intelligence? of course not.
But we had to pay through the nose for decades of this shit in Iraq and Afghanistan (hundreds of billions), all for absolutely nothing. Did anyone even explain why the fuck, or was held responsible? of course not. They don't need AI to just ignore shit.
> AI gives the military a way to cover or deflect war crimes
Huh? Who is accepting “it was AI” as cover for war crimes?
> Does a horrific war crime like My Lai[0] get scrutinized and investigated in 2026 or do people just say "eh maybe AI gave them bad intel" and ignore it?
Of course it does. The girl’s school bombing and strikes on fishermen are scrutinized. Why wouldn’t any atrocity?
We do not suffer from a lack of scrutiny. We suffer from a lack of accountability. AI is only tangential.
I'm on board with the idea that agents are going to write most of the code, but not checking it is just insane to me, based on some of the things I've seen committed in commercial codebases recently.
reply