It's a half-joke. No need to take it that seriously or that jokingly. It's mostly only grifters and cryptocurrency scammers claiming it's amazing.

I think ideas from it will probably partially inspire future, simpler systems.

AI is such a fun topic -- the hype makes it easy to loath, but as a coder working with Claude I think it's an awesome tool.

Gastown looks like a viable avenue for some app development. One of the most interesting things I've noticed about AI development is that it forces one to articulate desired and prohibited behaviors -- a spec becomes a true driving force.

Yegge's posts are always hyperbolic and he consistently presents interesting takes on the industry so I'm willing to cut him a buttload of slack.

I too am a Very Serious Engineer but my shock is in the other direction: of course the ideas behind Gas Town are the future of software development and several VSEs I know are developing a proper, robust, engineering version of it that works. As the author of this article here remarks “yes, but Steve did it first”, and it annoys me that if I had written this post nobody would have read it, but also that, because I intend to use it in Very Serious Business ($bns) my version isn’t ready to a actually be published yet. Bravo to Steve for getting these thoughts on paper and the idea built even in such crude form. But “level 8” is real and there will be 9s and 10s and I am really enjoying building my own.

My background is in philosophy, though I am a programmer, for what it is worth. I think what I'm saying is subtly different from "black and white thinking".

The final answer can be "each of these positions has merit, and I don't know which is right." It can be "I don't understand what's going on here." It can be "I've raised some questions."

The final answer is not "the final answer that ends the discussion." Rather, it is the final statement about your current position. It can be revised in the future. It does not have to be definitive.

The problem comes when the same article says two contradictory things and does not even try to reconcile them, or try to give a careful reader an accurate picture.

And I think that the sustained argument over how to read that article shows that Yegge did a bad job of writing to make a clear point, albeit a good job of creatring hype.

Or -- and hear me out -- unserious people are saying nonsense things for attention and pointing this out is the appropriate response.

I've been reading Steve's posts for quite literally a decade now and I don't think his new posts are so meaningfully different from the old ones that he's not at the wheel any more. Besides, his twitter posts often double down on what he's writing in the blog, and it's doubtful he's not writing those.

There is no way for this to be true. I read his book about vibe coding and it is obvoius that it has significant LLM contribution. His blog posts though are funy and controversial, and have bad jokes, and he jumps from topic to topic. Ha has had this style like 10+ years before LLMs came around.

> Keep in mind that Steve has LLMs write his posts on that blog.

Ok, I can accept that, it's a choice.

> Things said there may not reflect his actual thoughts on the subject(s) at hand.

Nope, you don't get to have it both ways. LLMs are just tools, there is always a human behind them and that human is responsible for what they let the LLM do/say/post/etc.

We have seen the hell that comes from playing the "They said that but they don't mean it" or "It's just a joke" (re: Trump), I'm not a fan of whitewashing with LLMs.

This is not an anti or pro Gas Town comment, just a comment on giving people a pass because they used an LLM.

There's a rather fine line between "don't believe everything you read" and "don't believe anything you read". At least in this case.

Is this confirmed true? Yegge has a very very long history of writing absurdly long posts / rants.