Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | rowbin's commentslogin

Author here. Happy to answer questions.

One clarification: vibeSH does not run commands or inspect your machine. The model only sees the terminal transcript, and the transcript is the fake machine's state.


Oh, I released something with the same name recently: https://codeberg.org/beleon/mdview

I like it!

Thanks, ditto!

I don't think anybody's worried about that. There's much more to it than just having a good idea and letting ai vibe code it.

Anyway, soldering as a service is nothing to worry about so you're good either way.


Still working on stelae.eu (private WP editor -> static deploy: more secure, faster, cheaper). Its pretty solid already, only working on minor things. The main issue is that I think that I have a real cool product (maybe a bit boring, but in a good way) with good values (anti lock-in, privacy respecting, EU centric, fair pricing, no VC money -> sustainable business approach) but I can't reach the people that would love to use it. So thats what I'm really working on: trying to be more visible.

Clickable link: https://stelae.eu

I think this conflates setup cost with operating cost. The painful part of self-hosting was always to get it working: writing configs, reading docs, SSH ceremony. That's exactly the part that agents can help with a lot, so the perceived gap to Vercel shrinks a lot. But the problems that come later are still there, you just discover it later. DDoS absorption, zero-downtime rollbacks, cert rotations failing at 3am, someone else getting paged when they do. An agent can write my firewall rules, but it doesn't carry a pager.

So I'd reframe the thesis a bit: AI didn't destroy the moat, it moved it. Saving the customer setup time is no longer worth paying for, taking operational liability for the customer still is. SaaS that only offer the former are indeed in trouble, and honestly founders should verify that their product doesn't have this issue.


Fair reframe, and I agree more than I disagree.

It's actually why I stopped at Railway level instead of going full VPS.


Many have theorized this. But i wouldn't bet money on it, the timing is just too unpredictable IMO.

He doesn't really use the reliance argument. Whether dropping the pause was the right call is a separate question from whether people were allowed to rely on it. They were: the v1.0 language alluded to a much higher bar for changing commitments than they ended up applying, and Anthropic employees described the RSP as binding many times (Habryka says he heard it on more than a dozen occasions). Also, Hubinger's post announcing v3 says Anthropic is responsible for that impression. If you made vendor decisions based on that like the author did, the complaint is still valid, even if the change itself was the right decision. Both can be true at the same time, they were right to change it and you were right to feel misled.

I agree, his takes should not be dismissed lightly. I'm not sure about "demand is fixed" though. I feel like software demand has been declared saturated at least a few times.

I have been making software professionally for 25 years and in all that time i have never run into the problem that we have run out of things to do.

Exactly, if we look at what projects are on-going now, look at Startups, they are practically solving all the same thing and most of them will be dead soon, we need to finally reach the era where tools to "zeroshot" anything becomes widespread to create new problems, but even by then, we will have an oversupply of tech workers, many will have to convert to a different field, many will not want to be paid based on callcenter type of work which is prompt-as-much-as-you-can, understandably.

It's quite hard to predict what will happen, but in a few years, I bet the unemployment rate of tech workers will be really high, we can just look at how many jobs are currently already replaceable but the owner of it is just lagging in the implementation of automation, it's probably already the large majority of tech jobs.


Do not use past events to predict the future, or you risk end up becoming a turkey: https://peteweishaupt.medium.com/talebs-tu-e406eb8859a8

"fixed" is definitely incorrect but there's probably a ceiling on how fast the demand can grow, just because other bottlenecks will take over at some point.

> I feel like software demand has been declared saturated at least a few times.

It's never been declared saturated, with one exception in the six months following the dot-com crash.

I've been in the industry since the mid-90s. I have not seen automation with the potential to automate away everything for the average office worker.


Agreed. The limitations of human context window and communication bandwidth restrict the complexity of large-scale software.

LLM will have an extremely large context window and extremely high communication bandwidth in the future. Therefore, even more complex large-scale software will emerge.



I'm out of the loop. Is there any context? Can't pick up on what really changed here.

The link shows the exact diff

I saw what changed syntactically. I meant I don't really understand what changed semantically. And whether there is any context to why the change was necessary.

The commit message feels clear to me? It seems Andrew wanted to clean the zig zen slightly, it’s not a big change:

> - rewordings

> - "memory is a resource" goes without saying

> - emphasize the final point


I'm guessing the parent is wondering why this is noteworthy enough to be posted and discussed in this thread, and so if there's context they are missing

I'm wondering the same: why is this change significant enough to reach the frontpage on Hacker News?

Someone felt that was interesting and submitted it. People noticed Zig and upvoted. That would be my guess

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: