Maybe, maybe not. The "proofs" may not have helped at all with finding a counterexample. Either way, it doesn't matter. A counterexample was found, no one found one before even though clearly a lot of people have tried who also had access to the prior "proofs".
Hopefully fable 5 will be back soon. I had so much more fun on vibeSH with it. Its remarkable how much better it was at hallucinating a coherent shell than Opus 4.8. It was especially good with the ansi escape codes to get the colors right.
One clarification: vibeSH does not run commands or inspect your machine. The model only sees the terminal transcript, and the transcript is the fake machine's state.
Still working on stelae.eu (private WP editor -> static deploy: more secure, faster, cheaper). Its pretty solid already, only working on minor things. The main issue is that I think that I have a real cool product (maybe a bit boring, but in a good way) with good values (anti lock-in, privacy respecting, EU centric, fair pricing, no VC money -> sustainable business approach) but I can't reach the people that would love to use it. So thats what I'm really working on: trying to be more visible.
I think this conflates setup cost with operating cost. The painful part of self-hosting was always to get it working: writing configs, reading docs, SSH ceremony. That's exactly the part that agents can help with a lot, so the perceived gap to Vercel shrinks a lot. But the problems that come later are still there, you just discover it later. DDoS absorption, zero-downtime rollbacks, cert rotations failing at 3am, someone else getting paged when they do. An agent can write my firewall rules, but it doesn't carry a pager.
So I'd reframe the thesis a bit: AI didn't destroy the moat, it moved it. Saving the customer setup time is no longer worth paying for, taking operational liability for the customer still is. SaaS that only offer the former are indeed in trouble, and honestly founders should verify that their product doesn't have this issue.
He doesn't really use the reliance argument. Whether dropping the pause was the right call is a separate question from whether people were allowed to rely on it. They were: the v1.0 language alluded to a much higher bar for changing commitments than they ended up applying, and Anthropic employees described the RSP as binding many times (Habryka says he heard it on more than a dozen occasions). Also, Hubinger's post announcing v3 says Anthropic is responsible for that impression. If you made vendor decisions based on that like the author did, the complaint is still valid, even if the change itself was the right decision. Both can be true at the same time, they were right to change it and you were right to feel misled.
I agree, his takes should not be dismissed lightly. I'm not sure about "demand is fixed" though. I feel like software demand has been declared saturated at least a few times.
I saw what changed syntactically. I meant I don't really understand what changed semantically. And whether there is any context to why the change was necessary.