There is an obvious shift in sentiment amongst users, at least here in the US.
I feel it myself, even as a proponent of AI tools, the bloviating and language that these companies use in these release articles are starting to wear thin on my patience.
Its possible we might just be witnessing a shift in fashion, where this type of sentimentality was more acceptable when it was novel and new, but now it just appears out of touch.
I think there is an exception for tooling around the models/integrating the models with tooling. That seems to have been very well received in this last year.
I am noticing a shift here too, those that were its biggest critics have gotten more silent, I guess they do have some small amount of self awareness and shame left, which is always a good thing.
My take from going through comments on HN is that many people are being mandated to use them, not that they are just giving in. Maybe I'm misreading, but that was my impression.
For example, it's being pushed pretty hard where I'm at, though not quite on the tokenmaxxer level. I started skipping related meetings cause it was nauseating. I can only tolerate so many platitudes.
At the same time, I just used the ever living snot out of Opus 4.6 for hours, grinning like an idiot throughout. Automated a whole bunch of enterprise cross-system drudgery away.
So much so that if you re-read my comment, you may notice that I was automating away exactly my own work there. Work that sucked and was grossly high overhead. It's just nice when things stop sucking, and even nicer when it doesn't require one to act a hero for that to happen. Not sure what else do you expect to hear.
Would you rather e.g. your doctor prioritized their wealth over your health? Popular conspiracy, but I'm not sure many health professionals follow in it. Not sure why you think this field would be much different. If this job is gone, it's gone. I can enjoy recreational programming on my own time, I don't feel entitled that my interest remains a money maker.
What worries me - and it does - is a further and accelerating shift in wealth (and thus capability) asymmetry. But for that, I look out for the performance and requirements of self hostable models instead, rather than reenact some sort of luddite, or lie to myself and others about the state of this technology.
If you want safety for country sovereignty, get a nuke. If you want safety for knowledge work, get a local model.
Having your career automated away and being okay with that is a massive luxury most don't have. The rest of us need an income to get by. If you look at the history of other people losing their careers to automation, the average person never gets even close to their previous peak.
Which will suck for me all the same, I have a very finite amount of that luxury too, probably less than most on this forum. It just doesn't sit right with me to expect the world to act as a job programme for me instead. Maybe it should, and this is really not the time for pride, I don't know. Even then, asking for that so dishonestly would and does still leave a very poor taste.
Aside from the aforementioned local models path though, this whole productivity angle (which the above poster loves to shit on btw) also serves to retain jobs. Current data suggests that rather than letting people go, companies are banking on extracting more productivity out of workers, partly because the models are admittedly way overhyped, partly because it's the sane other option to mass layoffs, and partly since these models still need and strongly benefit from in-context steering. And they forever will: the human experience is human by definition, we're the "oracles" to it. How much that will continue to justify employments is still out there though, of course. I do expect a crunch phase, provided there was any actual productivity gain realized to begin with, which in itself is very loosely supported if at all.
Regardless, I don't see the point in not using these, or lying about how good they are, or willfully hating on them. Never helped anyone. Early and quality information however, very much so. If I know the time has come or is actually coming, I can take action accordingly. If I listen to every random social media thread I come across instead, not so much. According to social media, software engineering has been over for 3 years now already. The wolf was not only cried, but turned into a whole musical outright. The extremely dissonant clash of the sentiments "LLMs are pure shit, actually" and "it's like, literally taking our jobs" is not lost on me either.
Watch Christopher Olah bloviate at the Vatican during the Magnifica Humanatis launch. It's truly nauseating. I've never seen such a ridiculous speech in my life. Between him and the CEO, I'm starting to understand the level of arrogance these people are capable of.
Strongly disagree. He sat in front of a room full of Archbishops and told them, straight faced, that the worlds about to have mass layoffs and starvation and that the Church should feel responsible for doing something about it. The guy's a complete sociopath.
He's not wrong. Mass layoffs and starvation are a problem society needs to solve collectively. The other side of the singularity will be great but we all bear a collective responsibility to get there in one piece.
> Mass layoffs and starvation are a problem society needs to solve collectively.
Very much disagree with this. This is capitalizing the profits and socializing the debts. They do not get to profit off of the suffering of others without repercussions, that is supposed to be what free markets prevent. This crony capitalist economy we have today with an explicit caste system in place, just pushes their debts onto you and I.
Destroying the economy and job market is the stuff of dystopian nightmares. If people do not have purchasing power they can't afford the product. The whole thing is destined to collapse.
But that is exactly his point. By "collective responsibility" he is saying that it's the public's responsibility to regulate and tax AI companies as needed, vs expecting them to self regulate. This has been Anthropic's stance the whole time.
They make some incredibly outlandish claims over their total addressable market, one can only wonder where $26 trillion dollars in expected AI revenue would even come from, with 22T of that being from "enterprise" when they have no real products yet.
The whole thing looks to be proped up by Starlink which seems to be a genuinely solid business. xAI looks to be costing twice as much as it produces, and we dont even have good numbers for this yet since the deal is so new.
This feels like WeWork but if WeWork also owned a successful coffee shop.
Wealth and Power are linked, but power is the goal for the wealthy, not the wealth itself. The moment the relationship of wealth and power is uncoupled, they will discard it in favor of whatever comes next in their accumulation of power.
It is incredibly naive to think that the way things currently are is the way things will be. There is significant reason to believe that after enough concentration of power, there would be no reason for them to continue to participate in traditional economics as we know them.
On the bright side, history shows us that powerful people tend to concentrate power up to the point in which they start to believe themselves as some sort of god-like being. At which point they are reliably proven they are not. The Sword of Damocles hangs above all of them.
After the many years, there have been insider voices indicating that success was despite Musk in many ways.
Musk bought his way into cutting edge tech, it succeeded despite him due to the already amazing people working in the industries.
The projects that have his actual involvement are pretty regularly seen as mistakes or flops.
I personally hold to the idea that whoever at SpaceX crafted the team used to pre-occupy Musk and keep him entertained while the rest of the company worked, is largely responsible for its success.
AMD does a lot of work to ensure their support for Linux is first-class.
With the kernel now natively supporting their systems, you can expect good support.
It's earned them some good will over Nvidia
which has gotten better recently with the rise of AI, but still requires users to jump through a couple of hoops due to their attempts to protect their IP.
It is more than that, I really like openbsd as a desktop system. This is niche enough that I have zero expectation for any sort of support from the hardware vendors. However, because the amd drivers are opensource. Heroic people in the obsd dev community are able to make it work there. I don't strictly need a gaming gpu for my desktop work, but it is nice to have a setup I can boot linux on to play games with.
Heroic because the amdgpu driver is strangely huge, more code than the rest of the obsd kernel combined, It has something to do with gpu's having no isa stability and the generated code for each card present in the driver.
The biggest question on my mind is how the use of Cider V is being affected by the officially ordained Antigravity.
Is the trendline starting to show that its adopting more Antigravity style tooling? or is this causing some sort of rift?
If you are very into agentic coding then in 2026 you're using Antigravity. But if you are less into it Cider-V has a slightly less powerful (e.g. no web browser harness, no multi-agent parallelism) version that is backed by the same implementation. Since both are built on VSCode this is ~ trivial.
In my experience, antigravity IDE is much less seemless compared to Cider-V. I completely moved to using web-based antigravity for the agent and using cider-v to make manual changes and viewing code.
ah yes, the "deep state." The formless, nebulous, rhetorical tool that is always infinitely liquid enough to fit into or over any container necessary that the user can satisfy their immense personal problems disguised as eternal doomerism.
I thought it was just an overdramatic term for the unelected bureaucrats that make up the majority of the government, and who have their own institutional momentum.
It used to be that the thought process of receiving a portion of sale money before delivering any product allowed the company to pay suppliers and keep afloat as they drove towards the finish line of delivery.
Now it seems the grifting-meta is to make promises around a product with no plans on delivering it, take in pre-order money, and then just park it in an investment account to grow during a bull market.
By the time the grift comes due, your "investment" will have grown to a magnitude where even if you are forced to pay it back, you will have made a tidy profit.
Yes a lot of scams basically are elaborate ways to get interest-free loans. The only way to discourage these types of scams is to require the claw-back to include high interest. Which probably feels very punitive, so we don't do it. Generally we award the damages and then that's it. But like... damages 2 years ago don't equal damages now, that's not how money works. I guess our courts don't know that.
> Now it seems the grifting-meta is to make promises around a product with no plans on delivering it, take in pre-order money, and then just park it in an investment account to grow during a bull market. By the time the grift comes due, your "investment" will have grown to a magnitude where even if you are forced to pay it back, you will have made a tidy profit.
There's never been a time where that would work. A damages theory can't make you cough up your stock market gains, but unjust enrichment will do it.
Put into an example, it's always been black-letter law that if I misappropriate $1,000 from you, put it on red 27, and turn it into $36,000, I owe you all $36,000. If I'm less lucky than that and turn it into $50, I owe you all $1,000.
> it's always been black-letter law that if I misappropriate $1,000 from you, put it on red 27, and turn it into $36,000, I owe you all $36,000.
Only if you "stole", and only if you get caught. If you asked $1,000 for an "investment" with the intention of putting it on red 27, then win, you can repay your investors and they'd be none the wiser.
Are you sure? I'd have guessed that the debt is created when they generate the $36 000. Getting caught would just make it easier for the victim to collect.
> Put into an example, it's always been black-letter law that if I misappropriate $1,000 from you, put it on red 27, and turn it into $36,000, I owe you all $36,000. If I'm less lucky than that and turn it into $50, I owe you all $1,000.
Instead of ending this sentence in a period, I would have ended it:
Some people have argued that Sam Bankman Fried just had unlucky timing. If his Anthropic investment had an opportunity to mature everyone would have been happy.
I don’t subscribe, but I have seen the argument a few times.
Only civil, though, right? IIRC criminal law seeks restitution, which would be the original $1000. Civil law is where unjust enrichment would come into play, to my understanding.
>Michael Jackson did this with concert tickets, sort of. You had to pay hundreds of dollars for the chance to buy a ticket to his mega tour, to be refunded if you didn't manage to get one. People send their money in and have to wait like three months to find out if they managed to get one. Meanwhile, he's making money by the dump truck on the interest from all this.
This doesn't pass the sniff test. If we assume that "hundreds of dollars" is $500, and the risk free rate is 5%, and they hold it for 3 months, then you get $6.25 per victim. Hardly a huge sum. If you factor in credit card processing fees, they might even be losing money on it.
Tour attendance: 2.5 million
Only 1 in 10 purchases were honored, so purchase for 25 million tickets were attempted.
$750 million in Money market at 7% for 6 to 8 weeks.
So, 6 to 8 million in interest depending on the weeks (6 to 8) in money market.
I had some of the details wrong btw, you had to mail in $120 for the chance at 4 tickets, and he only held it for 6-8 weeks. Part of what was so shitty though was that very many of his fans couldn't really afford what was about a months rent but scrapped it together anyways. Maybe it was a poor financial decision on their part, but he took advantage of those people for his own profit, when he didn't even really need the money.
>Maybe it was a poor financial decision on their part, but he took advantage of those people for his own profit, when he didn't even really need the money.
Your own article contradicts your narrative that Jackson was somehow doing it for evil/greed reasons:
1. The scheme seems to have been cooked up by the promoters, with Jackson himself being against it
2. The "he filtered by zip code" allegation was entirely unsubstantiated, and seemed to be a side effect of making the tickets expensive.
3. Jackson donated his earnings to charity, so the "... for his own profit" claim was also questionable.
> Then when the ticket winners were selected, he filtered by zip code so he had an almost entirely white audience
How did that work in the 80s? Did he spend days and weeks poring through (paper) census data and correlating it with ZIP codes? Did he use VisiCalc on an Apple ][ or Lotus 1-2-3 on an IBM PC?
Whatever his other misdeeds, I never got a racist vibe off MJ.
If I want to create a furnace into which I can shovel tokens (ie: money) I dont think I can do it quite as elegantly as Gas City.
Its novel and funny, but the hype around agentic coding is bad enough for some engineers to think this represents the pinnacle of current software development practices.
Its possible we might just be witnessing a shift in fashion, where this type of sentimentality was more acceptable when it was novel and new, but now it just appears out of touch.
reply