The OpenAI/Huggingface scenario proves the necessity of open models.
Huggingface, in their postmortem, explained how they quickly realized that the threat was an advanced AI and proceeded to use frontier models to analyze the suspect telemetry, but were unable to due to frontier model safeguards. So they fired up GLM instead, which had no such safeguards and proceeded to analyze their telemetry just fine and get to root cause. This proves without a doubt that companies need models with minimal safeguards in order to properly assess threats. If open weight AI doesn't exist to check out-of-control frontier AI (which was exactly the scenario that Huggingface experienced), then it's game-over.
Not only that, but they're typically amortized over 5 years, where the actual lifespan usually falls far shorter (1-3 years), adding to the artificial subsidy conditions we see today. So they're gaming the lenders into deferring interest payments as much as possible today so that new competitors don't have the same cheap financing advantage.[0]
There are all kinds of people out there generating meaningful content on their own terms that will never get picked up by the algorithm. I hate the content mills as much as anyone else, but the fact is that they exist because internet economy rewards them. The entire ecosystem incentivizes the soulless "goo" you describe over the meaningful work people are doing.
Ice T said it best: "Don't hate the player, hate the game".
I think it's a function of growth at all costs (or to put more bluntly, capitalism). TVs need to continuously improve to keep selling, as do video game systems, etc. And graphics are the easiest benchmark to advertise progress, but also some of the most taxing systems to build because they're so complex that there are huge markets of commercial game engines to address this.
Good gameplay requires taste, nuance, experience. Things that are hard to quantify if you're an MBA.
I agree, but how does one begin to enforce a ban like this? Bait-and-switch has always existed in real estate, which is all the more reason to do full due-diligence and inspect the property thoroughly and not just put in an offer sight unseen. If a seller is using AI to that extent, I'd be worried about what else they're hiding about the property.
> And I would be pretty nervous about asking any of the frontier LLMs to retrieve invoices:
I watched an accountant YouTuber reviewing a new AI-driven personal finance app the other day (I really need to touch grass), and it started out just fine. He had seeded the account with a bunch of his data and was able to ask questions about which categories had the most spend, etc.
About half a dozen questions in, he asked it to calculate a certain segment of his spend (and being an accountant, he had his numbers memorized), and he immediately got back a calculation that he did not expect. So he asked for an itemized response and it hallucinated line items that never appeared in his account data, which he pointed out to viewers. He followed up with the chatbot with "where did line item X come from?" and the bot acknowledged that it wasn't legit. He immediately noped out after that, and who could blame him?
Shoutout to Patrick. I had the opportunity to see him speak at a conference early in my career and read his salary negotiation essay. Taking the 30 minutes to read that piece has easily netted me an extra 6 figures of income over the course of my career by getting the most out of those critical conversations.
There's not a more tangibly valuable piece of content I've ever read as a professional than that. I send it to every single new grad that I mentor.
I understand the anger and I read the article, which mentions that. The issue isn't the rule, it's that a head of state (and not just a head of state, a head of the largest host state) allegedly called FIFA and asked them to intervene.
This wouldn't be a story if FIFA decided internally that the card should be suspended, but that's not what happened, so here we are.
There's always going to be a gray area when it comes to contact like Balogun's against Bosnia. Refereeing from one tournament to another isn't the same, the World Cup especially has this issue because the refs all come from different leagues around the world, each with their own skill levels and play styles. The technology helps to a degree, especially around more concrete rules like offside, but this will never fully go away, no matter how much process, people or technology is applied.
International football has to be one of the most corrupt communities in sports, which is saying something. Between bribing WC officials to sway votes on World Cup locations and awarding the tournament to a country that saw 6,500 deaths of workers building the stadiums[0], to implementing dynamic pricing at the current World Cup, a move like this feels very par for the course for these guys.
Agreed, these types of posts often feel like they're missing the forest for the trees. Sure, migrate away from Claude and maybe that will provide some runway, but all of these companies are built on the same economic fundamentals that do not scale.
We are currently in the "$7/mo Netflix with all the good movies" era of AI that will leave and never return.
I don't think it's possible either. DHH pointed out in the most recent episode of Rework that AI removes a lot of the barriers to shipping code, therefore making it possible to build in lots of different directions in ways that was prohibitive to many organizations in the past. But this isn't necessarily a good thing, companies still need to understand what to build in order to ship a cohesive product. AI is great for prototyping and refining use cases in ways that are far superior to static figma designs, etc., but it is not a replacement for taste and execution.
But a slop machine that haphazardly shoots features against the wall to see what sticks still isn't a winning product strategy in 2026. And the problem I see increasingly is that so much energy is being focused on how to deliver with AI internally and externally that is not being expended to advance a company's product. I believe more and more in the idea that for many startups and companies, the actual "customers" are the investors and the product-market fit that companies seek is the product of the company itself, because this is all being driven from the top down, not by customers and users in the market asking for AI features.
> Overall, the screwworm program seems like a classic case of something becoming a victim of its own success: a problem got solved so thoroughly that we forget how big of a problem it was, and we gradually undermine the conditions that made the solution possible.
Chesterson's Fence strikes again. It's so easy to wax poetic about how ineffective government spending always is and should be cut to the bone that we don't stop to recognize that preventative programs like this save us from billions in economic losses.
The thread I responded to is about no longer needing to read code at all, not AI-assisted code-review. I definitely use AI-assisted code review. OP is arguing that one day we won't need to read code at all, which I disagree with.
Maybe, it seems like a bad idea for so many reasons though. Take away tactile code review, insert a layer of prompts and tooling between developers and the codebase, and you've created the conditions to let all kinds of nefarious things happen in a codebase. A disgruntled employee updates agent prompts instructing the code review bot to ignore data exfiltration vulnerabilities (because if we aren't reviewing code, we're probably not reviewing prompts either), ships a backdoor, and you better hope that your network monitoring catches it.
> I think we're mving towards humans no longer needing to understand a codebase, and letting AI drive it.
Hard disagree. Even the best frontier models generate output that's not what I asked for. Sometimes I realize that I get lazy in my prompting and the lack of specificity winds up showing up in the output. Just the other day, a coworker built a huge feature using frontier models and it slipped an IDOR in.
I just don't see a world in which we completely cede control of the codebase to AI because it's still my ass on the line if I ship something that completely borks production. If I'm not reading code regularly, then I lose the ability to read code, and if I lose that ability, then I'm no longer a developer.
What I have observed through my limited experience, primarily testing docker-based development env setups in podman, is that it's usually not a straight swap.
A "push" towards a boring stack? That won't happen because the hype cycle trends towards new tools like water down a river. But if you're looking, I can't recommend Rails enough in 2026. Built on web standards, it's quietly pushing the framework forward and is so much less maintenance than modern JS apps.
Huggingface, in their postmortem, explained how they quickly realized that the threat was an advanced AI and proceeded to use frontier models to analyze the suspect telemetry, but were unable to due to frontier model safeguards. So they fired up GLM instead, which had no such safeguards and proceeded to analyze their telemetry just fine and get to root cause. This proves without a doubt that companies need models with minimal safeguards in order to properly assess threats. If open weight AI doesn't exist to check out-of-control frontier AI (which was exactly the scenario that Huggingface experienced), then it's game-over.