Post Opus 4.5, this pundit who does not write software has concluded that the case for coding agents has gotten weaker, not stronger, to the point where we might as well declare the debate settled in his favor. It takes him 8,000 words to do so.
"You're not allowed to tell me that the fledgling technology that has been getting steadily better for the past 3 years is likely to continue getting better." ...and there's my cue to close the window.
This page bothered me with two popups and an ad above the content before I got to start reading.
He wants $7/mo to read hot takes like: "Anthropic turned $30 billion into $5 billion. That’s…bad. That’s just bad business."
Is this his first time looking into the tech industry?
Immediate close
Post Opus 4.5, this pundit who does not write software has concluded that the case for coding agents has gotten weaker, not stronger, to the point where we might as well declare the debate settled in his favor. It takes him 8,000 words to do so.
"You're not allowed to tell me that the fledgling technology that has been getting steadily better for the past 3 years is likely to continue getting better." ...and there's my cue to close the window.
> boosters are no longer allowed to explain what’s good about AI using the future tense. You can no longer say […]
I look forward to seeing how author think he’s going to enforce the rules he dreamed up for other people. Honestly wth
he's a smart guy bc his day job is PR for AI companies.
He is single handedly one of the best analyst of this ridiculous AI bubble and the money that eventually will be destroyed.