Sean Copello

Thoughtful analysis by @jonathanmiller , on New York City’s proposed pied‑à‑terre tax. housingnotes.com/p/the-pied-a-t… My Thoughts below👇

The 'vibecoding' hype is officially hitting a wall. We have passed the peak of inflated expectations regarding AI eliminating all software developers. David Sacks recently broke down the reality check the tech industry is facing, citing insights from Aaron Levie and Matthew Yglesias. The consensus is shifting: people do not actually want to 'vibe code' their own complex applications. The real consumer demand is simple. We want professionally managed software companies to leverage AI coding assistants to build better, cheaper products. The translation is straightforward: just lower your prices, do not make the end user vibe code. While agentic coding is an undeniable boon for professional developers looking to scale their output, and fantastic for beginners learning the ropes, it breaks down when casually building complex software. Casual users are not equipped to take on the ongoing risks of system upgrades, routine maintenance, bugs, and cyber security threats. Chamath Palihapitiya takes it a step further, calling this casual approach to enterprise software a massive risk rather than just a tax on knowledge workers. He predicts that we will eventually see a public company completely torch its enterprise value because someone tried to vibe code their way out of a problem, leading to inevitable firings. As Jason Calacanis points out, this is exactly how the technology adoption lifecycle works. The industry is currently moving from the peak of inflated expectations down into the trough of disillusionment. AI agents will eventually climb the slope of enlightenment and become a highly productive standard, but the idea of replacing the entire professional developer workforce overnight was just a phase in the cycle. FT: @theallinpod @jason @davidsacks @chamath @friedberg

Palantir CEO Alex Karp rips into AI slop companies: “The appearance of software working, is not software working.” “The slop getting a lot of attention is dangerous in terms of the hyperbolic rhetoric—that there will be no jobs because of slop, nothing will work, we will have a god-like figure in the name of AI.” “In fact, what actually does work is a platform built by a motley crew of highly-technical people who over 20 years have been maligned for being right.”

Richard Dawkins just played us all

@atmoio Best video you have done yet. Love the new daily show style format. Referring to him as "clawkins" was the Freudian slip of the year.

Musk’s lawyer is calmly eviscerating OpenAI’s President Greg Brockman, largely using Brockman’s own diaries and emails. For the first time I think Elon has a real chance of winning.

The pivot from the doomsday messaging is underway and I am here for it.

@CTVNews The right time was 2021-2022 You missed it, so the new right time is now, before everyone else in your age group starts listing en masse, around 2030 or so

What has LinkedIn even become.

@credealjunkie He forgot to ask for POF. I’m skeptical.

AI will create more jobs than any other technology in history. The doomers' fundamental error isn't just the lump of labor fallacy. It's deeper than that. They assume a finite problem space. This is the fundamental error of AI and job doomers. They look at the economy and see a fixed amount of work to be done, a pie that can only be sliced thinner as machines take bigger bites. They see humans a competitive resource for a finite amount of work and a finite amount of problems to solve that must be eliminated. This is fundamentally, totally and completely wrong. The pie isn't fixed. It never was. And the reason it isn't fixed is baked into the very nature of technology itself. Technology is nothing but abstraction stacking. And abstraction stacking is infinite. Therefore the work is infinite. The hammer didn't reduce the amount of work. It moved the work up the stack. And the new work was more complex, more varied, and more interesting than the old work. Complexity breeds more complexity and more variety. Once you have houses instead of mud huts, you have a cascade of new problems that didn't exist before. Plumbing. Wiring. Insulation. Roofing materials that don't rot. Drainage systems so the foundation doesn't flood. Fire codes so your neighbor's bad wiring doesn't burn down the whole block. Each of those problems becomes a job. A plumber. An electrician. An insulator. A roofer. A civil engineer. A building inspector. None of those jobs existed when we lived in mud huts. They exist because we solved the mud hut problem. Think of all of human technological development as a stack of abstraction layers, each one built on top of the ones below it. At the bottom: raw survival. Finding food. Building shelter. Making fire. These are the base-layer problems. Each major technology wave solved a base-layer problem and in doing so created an entirely new layer of problems above it: Agriculture solved "how do we reliably eat?" — and created problems of land ownership, irrigation, crop rotation, storage, trade, taxation, and governance. Writing solved "how do we remember things across generations?" — and created problems of literacy, education, record-keeping, law, bureaucracy, and literature. The printing press solved "how do we spread knowledge at scale?" — and created problems of intellectual property, censorship, journalism, publishing, public opinion, and democratic discourse. The steam engine solved "how do we generate mechanical power without muscles?" — and created problems of factory design, worker safety, urban planning, railroad engineering, coal mining, labor relations, and environmental pollution. Electricity solved "how do we deliver energy anywhere?" — and created problems of grid design, power generation, appliance manufacturing, electrical safety codes, utility regulation, and an entire consumer electronics industry. The Internet solved "how do we connect all human knowledge?" — and created problems of cybersecurity, digital privacy, online commerce, content moderation, network infrastructure, cloud computing, social media dynamics, and an entire digital economy that employs tens of millions. Notice the pattern? Each solution didn't just solve a problem. It created an entirely new problem space that was larger, more complex, and more varied than the one it replaced. The stack grows. It never shrinks. It's turtles all the way down and all the way up.

You are directly feeding into the scare campaign to make LLMs seem many magnitudes more powerful than they are. We need regulation and a moratorium to stop the sprawl and environmental damage as well as the future bubble issues caused by these things going bankrupt. But the kind of “deadly AI” these people are talking about is utterly fictional. The “blackmailing” story, the “breaking containment” story, these were marketing tricks by Anthropic summarized by people who don’t read the system cards. I wish Bernie would not have fallen for the marketing. To be clear we absolutely need regulation for the future and to stop data centers from being built, but let’s talk in terms of what is actually happening vs what the companies want (LLMs are not autonomous AI and do not “think” nor have they shown any sign they might)

@JordanSchu76936 @StealthQE4

@CREIntelligence @StealthQE4 There’s nothing better than carbon based nutrients. If there was enough manure in the world to fertilize all the ground we’d be much better off

No fertilizer thanks to the Strait of Hormuz. We’re cooked later this year 💀

People understand that LLMs aren't actually "thinking," right?

@FatherPhi lol you’re watching Claude’s context window collapse in real time. #Chatgpt is so verbose only took a few exchanges for #Claude to forget the initial prompts. Fascinating.

Claude is really too nice for this 😂

What are we doing..

Joseph Gordon-Levitt says “almost all” AI systems are “built on mass theft,” arguing that companies using large language models “shouldn’t be forgiven for that past theft.”

@GaryMarcus True story.

god nowadays he sounds exactly like me