I imagine it was too long and because he just died they chose to use his name.

This is a healthy corrective to the most insane AI maximalist takes (mass disemployment in late 2027, 10% GDP growth in a year), but it shows nothing about whether the actual economic impact of AI spending is.

First, to show that, you'd have to justify the counterfactuals (if those companies hadn't spent on AI, would their position be better or worse?)

Second, while AI spending is increasing rapidly, normal companies aren't spending 1% of their revenue on it. So how can you look at a noisy chart of revenue and expect that "oh, it's not up, the AI spending must be useless?" Those companies could be spending < 1% of their revenue on AI, deriving value from it, and it wouldn't be guaranteed to show in a chart like this.

Your company uses AI and it gets ahead a lot quicker. However, your competition does so as well.

Many areas of economy are zero sum game - so your $ ends up being the same as previously. However, now with a "tax" paid to AI model providers for being able to stay competetive.

I don't think that one has held up very well. A cynic might opine that they've realized how easy it is to grab headlines and attention by putting out research that feeds people who are hungry for negative stories about AI.

UPDATE: I'm going to take this one back a a bit: it turns out Apollo publish articles like this on a daily basis, so the occasional headline that appeals to the "hungry for negative stories about AI" crowd is less of a pattern than if they published less frequently than that.

Uber took an axe to taxi drivers which weren't a popular group to begin with so that was easy. With the "disruption" perfected, next up are doctors, nurses, lawyers, electricians, cooks, engineers, the sky is the limit.

"How did you get the data?"

"It was just an unencrypted SD card inside"

Not very exciting, but I guess just as accurate as reality!

They've even been caught putting them back up or re-enabling them in places where the contract has been canceled. How is that legal? I thought you had to be city-approved to install equipment like that. One would think that no contract = no approval?

Maybe they need to set up a "sting" operation at one of the disabled units and start makin' some arrests/fines for unapproved equipment installation/construction on public property? See if that changes some minds over at Flock about what they can and cannot get away with?

This does not make sense to me. What do you classify as employer here? Front end frameworks are usually pushed by developers, not management. If it were I suppose we would be seeing way less react and more vanilla with jquery on forms and normal website stuff.

The push to create a SPA with react and other bollocks is purely pressure from implementers. There is not a day that I don't see devs that are more interested in making "beautiful code" and architecture despite the actual requirements they were trying to solve for. Ai is changing that, I hope for the better, but only time will tell.

> My goal here is not to write the end-all-be-all benchmark for “I’m a vibe-coder, which framework should I choose?” The point of this post is to demonstrate that it’s possible in the era of AI coding to still make decisions based on evidence rather than vibes.

But it’s obvious that the article will be understood as a useful benchmark, so author probably should have addressed that point earlier and more thoroughly.

Taking the authors pov for a moment, they just showed you how to put all your criticisms to work in making a newer better benchmark :)

Some might respond that "advertising is not illegal," but this argument is tantamount to saying that you should expect ads to be minimally faithful and maximally manipulative. In other words, economic/ social participants can reasonably do anything within the allowance of the law (or worse, wherever cost/benefit makes it optimal). Eventually the absolute disregard for truth or any sort of higher level value was going to give way to our present state of corruption. AI just makes it easier.

The higher court that handles appeals.

That’s the generic answer to “what is stopping the court from…” in a functional judicial system.

"Trump calls Norway a ‘shithouse country’" - https://www.euronews.com/video/2026/10/27/trump-calls-norway...

How did your design process resuls in an architecture which even allows for this kind of failure? How did your review process allow for code to be released which is seemingly completely unread and untested?

"We added some unit tests" is is an extremely damning answer - the lack of tests is a symptom, not the cause. If you ever want to be taken seriously again, you'll have to completely rethink your development process first, and do so publicly.

And bugs like “WHERE 4 = 5”, or selecting from nonexistent columns, or selects permanently modifying table behavior, or any of a dozen others that Jepsen found … didn’t happen in released databases. Even young ones.

Prior to the age of LLMs, that level of bugginess wasn’t “everything has growing pains”. That’s the kind of thing previously associated with poor undergraduate CS homework or “the CEO’s kid wrote our database” corporate horrorshows.

> with no QA

That’s not immaturity. That is a choice. A “the car we are selling does not have airbags, seat belts, or brakes” kind of choice.

> Maybe you don't know too much about engineering

Save it. You have no idea what you are talking about.

No, therefore the condition is unsatisfiable and equivalent to WHERE FALSE. And that's letting you ignore the SQL spec, which says the query is invalid and should return "Column not found" because the column name cannot be resolved.

> We're comparing 4 and 5. Precedent?

I really hope you're trolling, for your own sake.

More cynically, I suspect that many low-quality database projects succeed or fail based more on marketing and hype than robustness. A dishonest product could simply take the line "engineers at Orkes were able to produce a highly sophisticated database system" from the report out of context, quote it on their homepage attributed to aphyr/Kyle/Jepsen, and reap short-term rewards and popularity. I hope I'm wrong.

Some software is correct by construction, in the sense that the overall design makes sense and the cases that don’t work are generally local bugs.

Some software is incorrect by construction, and it tends to work by some combination of luck and by carefully working around the incorrect design in most or all code paths that could expose the incorrectness. (AI can be quite effective at finding the relevant places to insert workarounds.)

ParticleDB sounds like the latter category. Plenty of large projects have portions that are in one category and portions that are in another.

As an aside, for the last day or two, I’ve been contemplating that the Linux kernel’s handling of folio pinning seems to be in the incorrect-by-construction category. Good times. No, I haven’t found a hard-to-fix bug that I would credibly characterize as a security or likely accidental corruption issue [0], but this seems mostly like luck.

[0] I do appear to have re-discovered a bug that some massive Anthropic dump from a couple months ago also found, and it’s getting fixed. If your application does “fixed” io_uring I/O or certain types of iommu-based or maybe RDMA on a memfd, you might plausibly encounter it on rare occasions. I didn’t bother making a reproducer.

> ParticleDB’s home page advertised that ParticleDB was “formally proven” with a TLA+ proof. However, during our collaboration no TLA+ specification was available.

I mean did you see the "primary key equality" thing? Holy shit.

Definitely seems worse than usual (looking back most databases seem to have <10 issues total, and the majority seem "mild") - since it's a database for AI was it also likely vibe-coded or just new? Then again even if new, I wouldn't expect so many issues in a stable release

Perhaps they meant formerly, probably just a speech to text problem

So people on the low-FODMAPs diet end up using "gluten free" as a convenient shorthand for "doesn't contain these particular grains".

My kingdom for even a tiny bit of scientific literacy amongst people who are reporting on science.

Not only is this absurd ("children" need all amino acids to grow...as does anyone else), arginine isn’t even one of the essential amino acids. Your body makes it unless something is seriously wrong.

+ It fared better during droughts, growing so tall that it overshadowed the weeds. It didn’t need fertilizer or herbicides.

+ It's height can be a liability. Heavy winds, rains and hail can make the tall stems flip over before the grain ripens, ruining harvests.

+ Working with the lab of Teofilo Vamerali, Perobelli determined that the grain was Triticum turgidum—literally “swollen wheat” in Latin. Known in English as “poulard wheat,” it had originally evolved in what today are Turkey, Egypt and other nearby Mediterranean countries. And searching agricultural references, Perobelli found that it had been grown in Italy, too, until farmers shifted toward higher-yield commercial varieties. That solved the mystery of the seed bag stashed away in the attic: It had survived because Grossi’s grandfather saved some of the heritage grains.

I talked to my friend about all the things I do to ensure my personal assistant behaves reasonably. The prompt engineering, the fake site evals, everything. And then I have Opus 5.5 do it and it doesn’t need anything. It’s simply fully aligned to performance by default.

And what did I learn anyway. Going from one model to another changes what works. And you can simply learn everything from the Chinese model in days. The whole “building skill” thing is bogus.

I have this library of techniques, a scant few of which I’ve made available on my blog, and what is reality instead: the next model blows the need for the techniques into the dust. Back on level playing field.

It’s a false god, this cultivation. Waste of time. Use the best model you can. Once you hit the guardrails move out to the other models. Even Opus 4.8 is fine. If you legitimately want to dodge the guardrails use the -cyber models.

Then move on. The library is dust.

Five years ago I was spending up to €1000 a day in Google ads for my star-map company, Greaterskies. After a few months of meetings with an ever-rotating group of "experts" working for Google, and advising me in my ads strategy, I had reached a point where most of my revenue was going to Google. What was left was barely enough to keep going.

This is what capture feels like. You still own your company, but you are essentially an operator making money for someone else.

I think this will be the fate of people who allow their processes to be captured by the model providers. Always run at least two harnesses, and make sure that they are swappable.

If I didn’t have a subscription that doesn’t cost me anything, I would use gpt instead. At least gpt models don’t lecture me constantly.

- Refusal to log me in to websites in remote browsers. I was in the mountains and urgently had to submit something so I wanted to remotely use Claude on my Mac at home to help me but it told me it will never log me in because it won’t impersonate users

- Refusal to repeat XHR requests automated in a browser for me to do something (“no, I will only do what a user would do I’m only gonna click around”)

- refusal to enter ANY credential into any scripts, even dummy or dev tokens (“you have to do that yourself. I won’t do it and that’s the last I say of this”)

- constant [cyber] for very small tasks when it becomes a tiny bit technical, even though I’m in the cyber program. With gpt or glm/deepseek I can at least ask cs questions or explore binaries

And the list goes on. Every day it’s a coin flip whether it complies with something or won’t and I have to use OpenCode Go instead that I have as backup now.

At this point Claude is good for coding and that’s it. It’s a tool that doesn’t do what I tell it to and gives me snappy remarks from his opinionated morale high ground. I went from full on Claude maxi to hating everything they did with the 5.5 generation

Anthropic is highly opinionated, dogmatic and idealistic. They have made a pragmatic decision already to cut loose a whole swathe of users so they can pursue areas higher up the value chain. that was essentially the original decision they made when they went after software engineering instead of general users. The fact they are repeating this over and over by continuing to carve out sets of users and usages they don't want reinforces this as a persistent core principle rather than a single pragmatic business decision.

What this means is that at a higher level, their core principle is to sacrifice users they don't "need" rather than provide a broad, accessible service. Which means in turn, you have to accept that when your usage conflicts with their interests, you are at very high risk they will cut you out. If you already depend on Anthropic in any critical path of your daily life, this will be a significant issue.

They are likely accessing Claude via a VPN. Doing model training work over a VPN is a highly suspicious signal, and likely triggers Anthropic's classifiers. It's not surprising that their account got flagged.

Seriously, thank you for prompting this into existence!

I say this working in an LLM startup where we serve literally unlimited usage (with the only caveat being that usage is serialized) via subscription and, unlike OpenAI, are actually profitable. I guess when you're hundreds of billions in the hole you're desperate to try anything to save the sinking ship, even if it clearly won't work.