You're trading goodwill for greed.

You're a dishonest person who seized a mechanism that improves our consumer experience for your personal gain.

Yes

Edit: I do like that you came back to edit a whole bunch more into your reasoning. So I'll do the same.

I like that you describe yourself as someone who shits on other people's lawns.

I fully believe that you randomly shit on other people's lawns but this marathon you've imagined yourself in is pure delusion.

Thank you for the kind words.

I wish you much success in life.

Because I've talked to other human beings before?

98.4% is nowhere near good enough to call it PII redaction.

> For example, in Machine Learning our projects are sometimes extremely long and repetitive. Because before AI, it was a valuable skill to be able to recall APIs quickly (what is the method to drop duplicates in a dataframe again?).

> But today that's no longer the truth, and for the better. I am happy students don't have to go over the same repetitive low-value processes that I had to go to. Students can now focus on more high level valuable tasks: understand the domain, compare evaluation methods, compare models, balance tradeoffs, present solutions/reports, etc.

You honestly believe that students that don't have the tenacity to stick with learning a simple set of verbs and grammar are going to have the tenacity to learn concepts steeped in jargon?

I do mean learn, which AI use has been repeatedly shown to be detrimental to.

What? This is what the DMCA was designed for. How would it be fraud?

All you need to us actually look around, has software quality dramatically increased over the last year? Have useful features been coming out at an unprecedented rate?

Because after all this talk about being left behind and I see nothing to show for it.

Within my own company, yes. We’ve shipped a lot more features this year with the same number of people. They’re also better features. We get from 0 to 90% in an hour and then still put a lot of effort into that last 10%. The projects have better test coverage, docs, logging, etc. then they did 2 years ago. Stretch goals are reached much more frequently. What used to be 3 week projects are closer to 3 days. Our commit history is cleaner, easier to understand, has has better commit messages because we have Claude rewrite the history before opening the PRs. Our product is faster, more stable, and has nicer UX.

But this is anecdotal. It’s a team of senior devs who already knew the codebase well. We have a ton of detailed guidelines that make sure it’s writing code we deem acceptable. We review each others code, and get LLMs to review, a LOT.

So I'm guessing your user satisfaction has gone up a bunch and revenue now reflects your increased productivity?

Hey we should see this increase of so called productivity in the global GDP growth numbers. If AI really is this productive the slope of GDP growth should be steeper the last 2~ 3 years. If there is no change in the GDP growth slope, there's no general productivity improvement.

Yes. We’ve almost doubled revenue and our customers are very happy with the improvements we’ve made

In my case very much yes to both questions.

People rarely see when something works well. They only see when it breaks. For example, security has been dramatically improved with the help of AI finding vulnerabilities, only being limited by staff actually making fixes (https://medium.com/@the_atomic_architect/ai-zero-day-vulnera...). Life is full of "silent heroes" doing things without notice. Rarely do we see giant leaps overnight. It is a slow, silent advancement invisible to most. We are also still in the "growing pains" of finding the best use cases for AI.

That case had the owner performing an action they were led to believe would have prevented the car from rolling but potential defects prevented it from doing so.

Not a great fit.

Your marketing that starts with:

> Today Andon is releasing Pion, an agent designed to run any company fully autonomously.

That marketing?

> Illicit distillation

Really... what makes it illicit?

Felony contempt of business model.

EULA perhaps, or do you think not?

> Personally I prefer `class="btn primary"` over `class="btn-primary"` just because it aligns conceptually with what "class" literally means, but I have run into folks that would think it's confusing that there's no top-level .primary rule.

Especially now that there is native nesting, these prefix selectors really seem like the wrong way to go.