OP seems to be wrestling with this feeling that LLMs are simultaneously incredibly useful and also leave a very hollow feeling inside, like it's cheating. The redefinition is how we choose to move forward with hobbies and art when we know these tools are available.
We continue to grapple with AI and how it's impacting our lives by trying to find comfort in comparisons to the past, or to other things that we do. But the reality is, there's never been anything quite like this before, and it's forcing us to redefine how we value work, art, craftsmanship, and output. Sometimes, those redefinitions are extremely uncomfortable.
I don't even know what Zig is but I've seen this topic come up so many times on this site that I'm starting to think the people who are actually doing this are unsure themselves whether it's a good idea or not.
Thanks mate, I think you hit it on the head: the hardest problems in tech were never really tech problems. They're often people and market problems, and throwing more agents at the wall isn't going to magically solve them.
> I prefer CLI over GUI but I also prefer to have a life over making my life harder.
I think this is actually a really profound statement. Many people seem to get caught up in trying to take the most efficient path when you could take a somewhat less efficient path that requires much less time. It can become a form of yak-shaving.
Now, don't get me wrong: there's absolutely a benefit in investing time to learn efficient methods. But life is also short, and you've gotta choose where you invest.
The problem I have with this kind of approach is 1) it emphasizes scaling up a much as possible, which I don't believe is necessarily the most valuable thing, and 2) I really don't want my job to be band aiding agent problems, because it's like herding cats and there will never be an end to it. I'd rather just...get hands on and be involved in the code I am working to create.
A lot of folks are defending McMansions here, but let me provide one reason why they might be objectively bad architecture: they seek to cram all of the bullet points that home buyers want into one thing, without regard for good quality design. For example, high vaulted ceilings that throw off the proportions of everything else. And then what happens is they're built quickly and poorly with poor materials. McMansions are kind of a form of enshittification. Also, when you build them all over the place, like in Utah, you hurt a whole class of people who want live in a place but don't want to have to deal with living in houses like that.
Since you asked...I've gone to the effort to pull out the parts of the article that I think show it:
"That’s the part most benchmarks can’t see, and it’s what this post is about." Classic "it's not x, it's x", shows up in various forms throughout the article.
"To me, this is the most fascinating finding from this entire experiment - we saw very clear alignment tax being paid by certain models, which directly impacted their performance in this zero-sum game." - Usage of em dash. Now, yes, there's nothing wrong with using em dashes. But this feels like a weird place to use one. Also I counted at least 6 other emdashes in this article. Most people do not use em dashes that often.
"and a memory system that kept doubling down on what worked without second-guessing or doubting itself." - Doubling down is a classic Claudism.
"I want to be careful here..." - "wanting to be careful here" is another classic Claudism.
"The same game world, completely different results when in a different “task”." - "same X, completely different X" is another common one from Claude, as proofed by the repeated pattern later down:
"These models were all given the same rules, same game world, and same tools, but each of them approached the game on a personality-level that is completely different from each other."
"It begs the question" - author used this twice in the article.
I'm guessing the author wrote a draft and then had Claude spruce it up a lot. I could be wrong and I'd be happy to be proven otherwise.
That all makes sense. I wasn't trying to attack Emacs or defend Neovim, for the record. I liked Emacs and didn't have any problems with it (except some window jankiness). I was mostly just curious about the ecosystem.
The big reason I switched is because a lot of the big features of Emacs (org mode, magit, "living" in Emacs, advanced text manipulation, the extreme extensibility of the software) were things that sound really amazing on paper, but in practice I just don't really need/use/care about, and that's just my preferences. But once again, Emacs is cool and I totally respect what it can do.
For the record, btw, id DID download your app and I am going to spend some time using it. Other commenters here are talking about how spaced repetition isn't what's important, which is true in the same sense that you can't just use Duolingo to learn a language. But that doesn't make it useless.
Codecademy, Mimo, Enki. I'm not going to act like I know a lot about other options, and you do say that fata hits on more advanced topics which these may not.
I do think you have a cool niche here that isn't being covered, maybe your landing page should include more information about the Duolingo-esque features? I just know that pulls me in a lot.
I can understand that you want to make money from this, but hiding significant amounts of content behind 13 dollars a month feels a bit much. Especially when you acknowledge that most of that content is LLM generated. It's not just the advanced courses, it looks like it's pretty much all of them
Cool app though! I love the idea of coding Duolingo. But I think the price is going to turn most people off. Another problem I see is that it's not really clear how this is that much different from other similar apps out there.
Can you explain more what's wrong with the Neovim ecosystem? I just switched from Doom Emacs to Neovim and my impression of Neovim has been much better. (I get that Emacs has a much more powerful backbone, I just realized that I didn't really need that power; I just want a good text editor)
To be a contrarian, you could possibly become very famous if you swam across the Pacific Ocean or even walked across Siberia. Not sure on the McDonald's though, might be harder to get sponsorship for that.