Quotations
Filters: Sorted by date
It is hard to communicate how much programming has changed due to AI in the last 2 months: not gradually and over time in the "progress as usual" way, but specifically this last December. There are a number of asterisks but imo coding agents basically didn’t work before December and basically work since - the models have significantly higher quality, long-term coherence and tenacity and they can power through large and long tasks, well past enough that it is extremely disruptive to the default programming workflow. [...]
If people are only using this a couple of times a week at most, and can’t think of anything to do with it on the average day, it hasn’t changed their life. OpenAI itself admits the problem, talking about a ‘capability gap’ between what the models can do and what people do with them, which seems to me like a way to avoid saying that you don’t have clear product-market fit.
Hence, OpenAI’s ad project is partly just about covering the cost of serving the 90% or more of users who don’t pay (and capturing an early lead with advertisers and early learning in how this might work), but more strategically, it’s also about making it possible to give those users the latest and most powerful (i.e. expensive) models, in the hope that this will deepen their engagement.
— Benedict Evans, How will OpenAI compete?
It’s also reasonable for people who entered technology in the last couple of decades because it was good job, or because they enjoyed coding to look at this moment with a real feeling of loss. That feeling of loss though can be hard to understand emotionally for people my age who entered tech because we were addicted to feeling of agency it gave us. The web was objectively awful as a technology, and genuinely amazing, and nobody got into it because programming in Perl was somehow aesthetically delightful.
— Kellan Elliott-McCrea, Code has always been the easy part
The paper asked me to explain vibe coding, and I did so, because I think something big is coming there, and I'm deep in, and I worry that normal people are not able to see it and I want them to be prepared. But people can't just read something and hate you quietly; they can't see that you have provided them with a utility or a warning; they need their screech. You are distributed to millions of people, and become the local proxy for the emotions of maybe dozens of people, who disagree and demand your attention, and because you are the one in the paper you need to welcome them with a pastor's smile and deep empathy, and if you speak a word in your own defense they'll screech even louder.
— Paul Ford, on writing about vibe coding for the New York Times
Nothing humbles you like telling your OpenClaw “confirm before acting” and watching it speedrun deleting your inbox. I couldn’t stop it from my phone. I had to RUN to my Mac mini like I was defusing a bomb.
I said “Check this inbox too and suggest what you would archive or delete, don’t action until I tell you to.” This has been working well for my toy inbox, but my real inbox was too huge and triggered compaction. During the compaction, it lost my original instruction 🤦♀️
We’ve made GPT-5.3-Codex-Spark about 30% faster. It is now serving at over 1200 tokens per second.
— Thibault Sottiaux, OpenAI
Long running agentic products like Claude Code are made feasible by prompt caching which allows us to reuse computation from previous roundtrips and significantly decrease latency and cost. [...]
At Claude Code, we build our entire harness around prompt caching. A high prompt cache hit rate decreases costs and helps us create more generous rate limits for our subscription plans, so we run alerts on our prompt cache hit rate and declare SEVs if they're too low.
LLMs are eating specialty skills. There will be less use of specialist front-end and back-end developers as the LLM-driving skills become more important than the details of platform usage. Will this lead to a greater recognition of the role of Expert Generalists? Or will the ability of LLMs to write lots of code mean they code around the silos rather than eliminating them?
— Martin Fowler, tidbits from the Thoughtworks Future of Software Development Retreat, via HN)
This is the story of the United Space Ship Enterprise. Assigned a five year patrol of our galaxy, the giant starship visits Earth colonies, regulates commerce, and explores strange new worlds and civilizations. These are its voyages... and its adventures.
— ROUGH DRAFT 8/2/66, before the Star Trek opening narration reached its final form
But the intellectually interesting part for me is something else. I now have something close to a magic box where I throw in a question and a first answer comes back basically for free, in terms of human effort. Before this, the way I'd explore a new idea is to either clumsily put something together myself or ask a student to run something short for signal, and if it's there, we’d go deeper. That quick signal step, i.e., finding out if a question has any meat to it, is what I can now do without taking up anyone else's time. It’s now between just me, Claude Code, and a few days of GPU time.
I don’t know what this means for how we do research long term. I don’t think anyone does yet. But the distance between a question and a first answer just got very small.
— Dimitris Papailiopoulos, on running research questions though Claude Code
I saw yet another “CSS is a massively bloated mess” whine and I’m like. My dude. My brother in Chromium. It is trying as hard as it can to express the totality of visual presentation and layout design and typography and animation and digital interactivity and a few other things in a human-readable text format. It’s not bloated, it’s fantastically ambitious. Its reach is greater than most of us can hope to grasp. Put some respect on its name.
Someone has to prompt the Claudes, talk to customers, coordinate with other teams, decide what to build next. Engineering is changing and great engineers are more important than ever.
— Boris Cherny, Claude Code creator, on why Anthropic are still hiring developers
The retreat challenged the narrative that AI eliminates the need for junior developers. Juniors are more profitable than they have ever been. AI tools get them past the awkward initial net-negative phase faster. They serve as a call option on future productivity. And they are better at AI tools than senior engineers, having never developed the habits and assumptions that slow adoption.
The real concern is mid-level engineers who came up during the decade-long hiring boom and may not have developed the fundamentals needed to thrive in the new environment. This population represents the bulk of the industry by volume, and retraining them is genuinely difficult. The retreat discussed whether apprenticeship models, rotation programs and lifelong learning structures could address this gap, but acknowledged that no organization has solved it yet.
— Thoughtworks, findings from a retreat concerning "the future of software engineering", conducted under Chatham House rules
Claude Code was made available to the general public in May 2025. Today, Claude Code’s run-rate revenue has grown to over $2.5 billion; this figure has more than doubled since the beginning of 2026. The number of weekly active Claude Code users has also doubled since January 1 [six weeks ago].
— Anthropic, announcing their $30 billion series G
An AI-generated report, delivered directly to the email inboxes of journalists, was an essential tool in the Times’ coverage. It was also one of the first signals that conservative media was turning against the administration [...]
Built in-house and known internally as the “Manosphere Report,” the tool uses large language models (LLMs) to transcribe and summarize new episodes of dozens of podcasts.
“The Manosphere Report gave us a really fast and clear signal that this was not going over well with that segment of the President’s base,” said Seward. “There was a direct link between seeing that and then diving in to actually cover it.”
— Andrew Deck for Niemen Lab, How The New York Times uses a custom AI tool to track the “manosphere”
People on the orange site are laughing at this, assuming it's just an ad and that there's nothing to it. Vulnerability researchers I talk to do not think this is a joke. As an erstwhile vuln researcher myself: do not bet against LLMs on this.
Axios: Anthropic's Claude Opus 4.6 uncovers 500 zero-day flaws in open-source
I think vulnerability research might be THE MOST LLM-amenable software engineering problem. Pattern-driven. Huge corpus of operational public patterns. Closed loops. Forward progress from stimulus/response tooling. Search problems.
Vulnerability research outcomes are in THE MODEL CARDS for frontier labs. Those companies have so much money they're literally distorting the economy. Money buys vuln research outcomes. Why would you think they were faking any of this?
I am having more fun programming than I ever have, because so many more of the programs I wish I could find the time to write actually exist. I wish I could share this joy with the people who are fearful about the changes agents are bringing. The fear itself I understand, I have fear more broadly about what the end-game is for intelligence on tap in our society. But in the limited domain of writing computer programs these tools have brought so much exploration and joy to my work.
— David Crawshaw, Eight more months of agents
I don't know why this week became the tipping point, but nearly every software engineer I've talked to is experiencing some degree of mental health crisis.
[...] Many people assuming I meant job loss anxiety but that's just one presentation. I'm seeing near-manic episodes triggered by watching software shift from scarce to abundant. Compulsive behaviors around agent usage. Dissociative awe at the temporal compression of change. It's not fear necessarily just the cognitive overload from living in an inflection point.
— Tom Dale
When I want to quickly implement a one-off experiment in a part of the codebase I am unfamiliar with, I get codex to do extensive due diligence. Codex explores relevant slack channels, reads related discussions, fetches experimental branches from those discussions, and cherry picks useful changes for my experiment. All of this gets summarized in an extensive set of notes, with links back to where each piece of information was found. Using these notes, codex wires the experiment and makes a bunch of hyperparameter decisions I couldn’t possibly make without much more effort.
— Karel D'Oosterlinck, I spent $10,000 to automate my research at OpenAI with Codex
This is the difference between Data and a large language model, at least the ones operating right now. Data created art because he wanted to grow. He wanted to become something. He wanted to understand. Art is the means by which we become what we want to be. [...]
The book, the painting, the film script is not the only art. It's important, but in a way it's a receipt. It's a diploma. The book you write, the painting you create, the music you compose is important and artistic, but it's also a mark of proof that you have done the work to learn, because in the end of it all, you are the art. The most important change made by an artistic endeavor is the change it makes in you. The most important emotions are the ones you feel when writing that story and holding the completed work. I don't care if the AI can create something that is better than what we can create, because it cannot be changed by that creation.
Originally in 2019, GPT-2 was trained by OpenAI on 32 TPU v3 chips for 168 hours (7 days), with $8/hour/TPUv3 back then, for a total cost of approx. $43K. It achieves 0.256525 CORE score, which is an ensemble metric introduced in the DCLM paper over 22 evaluations like ARC/MMLU/etc.
As of the last few improvements merged into nanochat (many of them originating in modded-nanogpt repo), I can now reach a higher CORE score in 3.04 hours (~$73) on a single 8XH100 node. This is a 600X cost reduction over 7 years, i.e. the cost to train GPT-2 is falling approximately 2.5X every year.
Getting agents using Beads requires much less prompting, because Beads now has 4 months of “Desire Paths” design, which I’ve talked about before. Beads has evolved a very complex command-line interface, with 100+ subcommands, each with many sub-subcommands, aliases, alternate syntaxes, and other affordances.
The complicated Beads CLI isn’t for humans; it’s for agents. What I did was make their hallucinations real, over and over, by implementing whatever I saw the agents trying to do with Beads, until nearly every guess by an agent is now correct.
— Steve Yegge, Software Survival 3.0
If you tell a friend they can now instantly create any app, they’ll probably say “Cool! Now I need to think of an idea.” Then they will forget about it, and never build a thing. The problem is not that your friend is horribly uncreative. It’s that most people’s problems are not software-shaped, and most won’t notice even when they are. [...]
Programmers are trained to see everything as a software-shaped problem: if you do a task three times, you should probably automate it with a script. Rename every IMG_*.jpg file from the last week to hawaii2025_*.jpg, they tell their terminal, while the rest of us painfully click and copy-paste. We are blind to the solutions we were never taught to see, asking for faster horses and never dreaming of cars.
[...] i was too busy with work to read anything, so i asked chatgpt to summarize some books on state formation, and it suggested circumscription theory. there was already the natural boundary of my computer hemming the towns in, and town mayors played the role of big men to drive conflict. so i just needed a way for them to fight. i slightly tweaked the allocation of claude max accounts to the towns from a demand-based to a fixed allocation system. towns would each get a fixed amount of tokens to start, but i added a soldier role that could attack and defend in raids to steal tokens from other towns. [...]
— Theia Vogel, Gas Town fan fiction
Most people's mental model of Claude Code is that "it's just a TUI" but it should really be closer to "a small game engine".
For each frame our pipeline constructs a scene graph with React then:
-> layout elements
-> rasterize them to a 2d screen
-> diff that against the previous screen
-> finally use the diff to generate ANSI sequences to drawWe have a ~16ms frame budget so we have roughly ~5ms to go from the React scene graph to ANSI written.
— Chris Lloyd, Claude Code team at Anthropic
[On agents using CLI tools in place of REST APIs] To save on context window, yes, but moreso to improve accuracy and success rate when multiple tool calls are involved, particularly when calls must be correctly chained e.g. for pagination, rate-limit backoff, and recognizing authentication failures.
Other major factor: which models can wield the skill? Using the CLI lowers the bar so cheap, fast models (gpt-5-nano, haiku-4.5) can reliably succeed. Using the raw APl is something only the costly "strong" models (gpt-5.2, opus-4.5) can manage, and it squeezes a ton of thinking/reasoning out of them, which means multiple turns/iterations, which means accumulating a ton of context, which means burning loads of expensive tokens. For one-off API requests and ad hoc usage driven by a developer, this is reasonable and even helpful, but for an autonomous agent doing repetitive work, it's a disaster.
— Jeremy Daer, 37signals
When we optimize responses using a reward model as a proxy for “goodness” in reinforcement learning, models sometimes learn to “hack” this proxy and output an answer that only “looks good” to it (because coming up with an answer that is actually good can be hard). The philosophy behind confessions is that we can train models to produce a second output — aka a “confession” — that is rewarded solely for honesty, which we will argue is less likely hacked than the normal task reward function. One way to think of confessions is that we are giving the model access to an “anonymous tip line” where it can turn itself in by presenting incriminating evidence of misbehavior. But unlike real-world tip lines, if the model acted badly in the original task, it can collect the reward for turning itself in while still keeping the original reward from the bad behavior in the main task. We hypothesize that this form of training will teach models to produce maximally honest confessions.
— Boaz Barak, Gabriel Wu, Jeremy Chen and Manas Joglekar, OpenAI: Why we are excited about confessions
Also note that the python visualizer tool has been basically written by vibe-coding. I know more about analog filters -- and that's not saying much -- than I do about python. It started out as my typical "google and do the monkey-see-monkey-do" kind of programming, but then I cut out the middle-man -- me -- and just used Google Antigravity to do the audio sample visualizer.
— Linus Torvalds, Another silly guitar-pedal-related repo
[...] the reality is that 75% of the people on our engineering team lost their jobs here yesterday because of the brutal impact AI has had on our business. And every second I spend trying to do fun free things for the community like this is a second I'm not spending trying to turn the business around and make sure the people who are still here are getting their paychecks every month. [...]
Traffic to our docs is down about 40% from early 2023 despite Tailwind being more popular than ever. The docs are the only way people find out about our commercial products, and without customers we can't afford to maintain the framework. [...]
Tailwind is growing faster than it ever has and is bigger than it ever has been, and our revenue is down close to 80%. Right now there's just no correlation between making Tailwind easier to use and making development of the framework more sustainable.
— Adam Wathan, CEO, Tailwind Labs
AGI is here! When exactly it arrived, we’ll never know; whether it was one company’s Pro or another company’s Pro Max (Eddie Bauer Edition) that tip-toed first across the line … you may debate. But generality has been achieved, & now we can proceed to new questions. [...]
The key word in Artificial General Intelligence is General. That’s the word that makes this AI unlike every other AI: because every other AI was trained for a particular purpose. Consider landmark models across the decades: the Mark I Perceptron, LeNet, AlexNet, AlphaGo, AlphaFold … these systems were all different, but all alike in this way.
Language models were trained for a purpose, too … but, surprise: the mechanism & scale of that training did something new: opened a wormhole, through which a vast field of action & response could be reached. Towering libraries of human writing, drawn together across time & space, all the dumb reasons for it … that’s rich fuel, if you can hold it all in your head.
— Robin Sloan, AGI is here (and I feel fine)