| ▲ | satvikpendem 2 hours ago |
| Good discussion on the HN thread about that article. To be honest, based on the latest models and agentic engineering, that blog post is definitely right. It's not 2023, 2024, or 2025 anymore, agents have gotten a lot better. |
|
| ▲ | its-summertime an hour ago | parent | next [-] |
| I think the effect was less about it being correct or not, but instead more about if fly.io would treat humans as first class users compared to agents or not in the future. The message is fine, but it was a weird choice to have it on fly.io instead of a personal blog |
| |
| ▲ | satvikpendem an hour ago | parent [-] | | It's just marketing, going with the times of lots of vibe coders now suddenly wanting to put something on the Internet. I wouldn't read too much into it as a fundamental philosophy. |
|
|
| ▲ | latency-guy2 an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It's right in the point it brings up that modern LLMs are serious engineering and quite a bit capable at many tasks. It's not correct on the rest where Ptacek appears dismissive because 'he doesn't wanna hear' about copyright and other things, maybe we chalk it up to an upset guy at people he believes and maybe knows are wrong and ignore the rest of the spiel, but I won't. |
|
| ▲ | bigstrat2003 23 minutes ago | parent | prev | next [-] |
| It's not 2023, 2024, or 2025, but LLMs still suck at programming. Just like every other time AI enthusiasts have claimed the latest and greatest is so much better than what came before. |
| |
|
| ▲ | simonw 2 hours ago | parent | prev [-] |
| Yeah, I think that post from June 2025 has aged pretty well. The Coding Agent revolution hadn't really happened at that point (Claude Code was only ~4 months old) so the paraphrased message "this stuff is actually useful for programming, saying it's all just stochastic parrots misses the mark" was still non-obvious to a whole lot of people. Honestly, the biggest problem with that article was the title. People read as far as "are nuts", got offended and refused to engage with the content of the piece. This opening paragraph does a much better job of capturing the core argument: > Some of the smartest people I know share a bone-deep belief that AI is a fad — the next iteration of NFT mania. I’ve been reluctant to push back on them, because, well, they’re smarter than me. But their arguments are unserious, and worth confronting. Extraordinarily talented people are doing work that LLMs already do better, out of spite. |
| |
| ▲ | tptacek an hour ago | parent | next [-] | | The title was the point of the post. I have acquaintances who are still sore at me about it. But the problem wasn't that people disagreed with me about LLMs; the problem was that we were locked in an unproductive and static equilibrium of people talking past each other and hedging their way out of any direct, empirical confrontation over what was happening. It's easy to forget how different early 2025 was to today. You would generally feel like you were in an inverse Emperor's New Clothes situation if you believed what your own eyes told you about how LLMs wrote code. That's not the case anymore; you hardly ever see people talking about (or, really, extrapolating wildly about) hallucination today. (For a lot of reasons I think a lot about how that post was received in 2025 and what the world is like today. "Vindicated" doesn't capture the feeling.) | | |
| ▲ | otterley 22 minutes ago | parent [-] | | > The title was the point of the post. I still find it incredibly troubling. Not because the substance was wrong, but because a person of your caliber has stooped to the level of writing provocative headlines and language to attract attention. I strongly believe world-class technologists are supposed to be above that sort of thing. Leadership matters: not just thought leadership, but attitudinal leadership. |
| |
| ▲ | dijksterhuis an hour ago | parent | prev | next [-] | | > Honestly, the biggest problem with that article was the title. Pretty sure the content of a company's blog post being overtly arrogant, abrasive, dismissive and generally dickish was also a problem. > Meanwhile, software developers spot code fragments seemingly lifted from public repositories on Github and lose their shit. What about the licensing? If you’re a lawyer, I defer. But if you’re a software developer playing this card? Cut me a little slack as I ask you to shove this concern up your ass. > Yeah, we get it. You don’t believe in IPR. Then shut the fuck up about IPR. Reap the whirlwind. > but it’ll never be AGI -- I don’t give a shit. | | |
| ▲ | tptacek an hour ago | parent [-] | | I would like to take this moment to apologize to you, personally, for not giving a shit about "AGI". I wish I could tell you I've come to see the error of my ways, but I continue not to care about it. | | |
| ▲ | dijksterhuis an hour ago | parent [-] | | do you remember writing this? https://fly.io/blog/carving-the-scheduler-out-of-our-orchest... this was amazing post. i enjoyed reading it, it was relevant to some work stuff i was battling with. the linked articles at the end were amazing too. i had tonnes of respect for fly.io and yourself because of these posts. technically informative, clear, engaging. great stuff. the llm post? complete polar opposite. > I would like to take this moment to apologize to you, personally, for not giving a shit about "AGI". I wish I could tell you I've come to see the error of my ways, but I continue not to care about it. thanks for the snark, and kinda proving my previous point about the tone of the article that was supposed to be a personal blog post and then ended up on a company blog https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49052217 | | |
| ▲ | tptacek 43 minutes ago | parent [-] | | I'm not being snarky. I genuinely do not care about AGI. It's weird to watch people write as if I'm trying to back away from that article or hedge or whatever. I expect to wrap my career up at some point and look at that post as one of the better and more valuable things I've ever written. | | |
| ▲ | john_strinlai 29 minutes ago | parent | next [-] | | >I'm not being snarky "I would like to take this moment to apologize to you, personally, for not giving a shit about "AGI"." appears to be dripping with snark | |
| ▲ | 42 minutes ago | parent | prev [-] | | [deleted] |
|
|
|
| |
| ▲ | satvikpendem an hour ago | parent | prev [-] | | Indeed, it's not worth engaging with AI skeptics anymore today, it's just a waste of time. If they don't see the value then they probably never will, and that's not my problem. | | |
| ▲ | tptacek an hour ago | parent [-] | | This is what I mean about the static equilibrium in 2025. That's what everyone was doing: just writing the other side off. That post of mine did a lot of things, but it did not do that. |
|
|
