i doubt that's the goal for them. i bet they just really don't have capacity for people using it a ton, yet they wanted people to be able to try it out while it's new. so they compromised and made it temporarily available. and then hope they can get costs down or capacity up so they can make it more available again
sounds like the link with AI is tenuous at best given the other comments, but I'll take it as an opportunity to say a few things I believe anyway:
1. AI is really helpful for a lot of things
2. to the extent that AI can do something perfectly for us, we probably shouldn't try to force people to "learn" it the hard way
3. people who don't want to learn won't, and will suffer naturally later
4. if the material didn't need to be learned anyway, then using AI to do it for them is a win. that's how the real world works anyway.
5. if AI makes some knowledge obsolete, we should stop trying to teach it.
i think the only thing for the teachers to do is to properly warn students of the consequences of using AI to skip learning ahead of time (because by the time the natural consequences hit, it's too late), and to do their best to devise tests that incentivize the right knowledge, while also showing how to use AI properly.
the problem is that the education system isn't set up to change this quickly so I don't really know how they are going to properly adjust every semester
i guess i don't blame a writer who's job is threatened by this technology to write a piece like this. but the perspective is ultimately one where they are complaining about how it affects them, without regard to the end user.
it's the same as toll booth operators complaining about fastpass
this was definitely me in high school. i still fondly remember the day when we could use our Ti-83+ for our exam but we had to show the teacher that we cleared memory for notes and formulas.
So i wrote a program that just made it look like I cleared memory and it worked like a charm.
I don't remember if I even stored anything that could be constituted cheating but it was more about the satisfaction of knowing I outsmarted them, heh.
I think it's the least hostile thing they can say, and I respect their decision for their own project.
That said, it still feels like they are unnecessarily hobbling their project. LLMs are tools and they can help you think, research, and code. You can overuse them, yes, but you should embrace them where they help.
not accepting bun's PR for other reasons is totally fine (sounds like it's a core change where more thinking needs to be done), but simply banning all LLM authored PRs is unnecessarily restrictive. Just focus on the quality of the work.
if you include "it turns out that", you're implying that maybe you thought the same as them in the past, but looked into it, and learned something interesting. if you omit that, you're just correcting them and subtly implying that they aren't as smart as you (e.g. it was obvious to you)
i don't know what else they can say about their own business.. but it's clearly cope.
sure, there's a lot of compliance/legal concerns, but AI is probably already better at reading all the relevant information and encoding that into a system than humans.
I don't think a non-technical person is going to one-shot it, but a technical person could today. The biggest issue would be marketing and maintenance (companies aren't going to buy from a single random person who might abandon the project at a moment's notice)
last i checked, you can't annotate inline with planning mode. you have to type a lot to explain precisely what needs to change, and then it re-presents you with a plan (which may or may not have changed something else).
i like the idea of having an actual document because you could actually compare the before and after versions if you wanted to confirm things changed as intended when you gave feedback
they have pretty fierce competition though, so i doubt this is intentional. my guess is they just have a million things to do and that isn't at the top of the list
what are your goals? it's usually tough to sell things to developers because they are very particular about how they want their software to work, and also would rather build their own tools much of the time (which is increasingly true with AI now).
if you really want to sell it, you should probably make sure that you have customers willing to pay, which means talking to potential customers and getting them on a waitlist. i think it's usually more likely that other people don't care about your software like you do (because you built it to be exactly what you want and know how it works) and even then, aren't willing to pay to use it (or pay very much)
if you're not very concerned about making money and mostly just want something nice for yourself that other people _might_ care about, then sure, go for it! i build software like that all the time
I didn't like that there was a long delay after you move your mouse, and since all the calculation happens on the frontend, i figured you could easily make it ~instantly update and follow you around. So i (well, claude) made a version that does that and i think it's more fun. here's the code you can paste into the console at pointerpointer.com: https://pastebin.com/f7YqQNxg
yeah it's crazy to think that claude 4 has only been out a month. And the previous iteration 3.7 was launched only in February!
but also I think the interesting thing is that people didn't jump on MCP immediately after it launched - it seemed to go almost unnoticed until February. Very unusual for AI tech - I guess it took time for servers to get built, clients to support the protocol, and for the protocol itself to go through a few revisions before people really understood the value.