Michael Park

CEO of | Does it bother anyone else that someone else has your name?

[American Debunk @AmericanDebunk]

This is one of the greatest and most life changing clips on 𝕏.

Watch it and you’ll notice your entire perfection of reality change in real time.

[Theo - t3.gg @theo]

Weird thing about LLMs: "incorrect responses" are more expensive than correct ones.

If I go to a restaurant and they screw up my food, they usually refund me and remake the meal.

If an LLM gets stuck on a problem, it runs around in loops, burning tokens and costing money.

[Casey Muratori @cmuratori]

Even so, I remain confident that AI will replace somewhere between 0% and 100% of all jobs within the next five to fifty years.

[Mo @atmoio]

not fair that in filmmaking you can say stuff like this and it’s very highbrow, very cool.

imagine saying your soul writes more maintainable code and modular architectures

[Prof Zenkus @anthonyzenkus]

When CEOs replace employees with AI, they are signing up for a subscription service that - after whatever introductory price agreed to has expired - has the power to raise the cost of that service at will. And if the company can't pay, everything STOPS.

Corporations are "hiring" AI bots who can in effect set their own salaries. And don't think for a minute that Big Tech won't raise the price as soon as they know you are dependent on them. But don't worry, because if the company cannot afford the ever rising costs for their new AI "workforce", I'm sure Anthropic or whatever AI firm they are contracted to will be happy to take part ownership of the company in exchange for continuing the service.

Corporate America is writing its own death warrant.

[Sir Escanor (𝘏𝘰𝘱𝘪𝘶𝘮 𝘚𝘭𝘢𝘺𝘦𝘳) @EscanorReloaded]

CEOs are quietly realizing the AI replacement plan has a problem.
Two problems, actually.

One: the token costs for running AI agents are now exceeding what they were paying the employees they fired.

Two: when the tokens run out, the AI stops. Just stops. No continuity. No workaround. Just a spinning wheel where your workforce used to be.

You fired humans to save money and bought a subscription that bills you into a corner.

The employees you let go knew what to do when things broke.
The AI just invoices you for the outage.

And then there’s the permission problem nobody wants to talk about.

To do its job, the AI agent needs access. Full access. Your systems, your patents, your contracts, your future plans. Everything you spent years building, handed over to a process that has no loyalty, no discretion, and no skin in the game.

You didn’t hire a replacement.
You gave a stranger with no soul the keys to everything you own.

Enjoy.

[ThePrimeagen @ThePrimeagen]

With AI what would have normally been 2 hours of study, 2 hours of white board, and about 6 hours of programming has been compressed into 7 2 hour sessions that have gone in the wrong direction.

Truly alien technology

[BuccoCapital Bloke @buccocapital]

Levie’s Law of AI Psychosis:

The farther away you are from the actual work the more confident you are that humans are no longer needed

I like it

[Aaron Levie @levie]

CEOs are uniquely prone to AI psychosis because they’re sufficiently distant from the last mile of work that still has to happen to generate most value with AI.

So when they play with AI, they see the happy path results, often not considering the next 10 or 20 things that have to happen to get sustainable results from agents.

“Look I made this awesome product prototype”. Yes but you didn’t have to review the code before it went into production and fix a bunch of issues.

“Look I generated a contract”. Yes but you didn’t verify all the terms before it goes out to the counterparty and didn’t have to wire up all the past contracts to work with.

The best thing you can do as a CEO is to use AI a *ton* to figure out the real implications of agents in the enterprise, and come out the other side with an appreciation for both the upside and the real work that goes into them.

[Lee Robinson @leerob]

You might believe you should spend less time thinking about code because of AI.

I strongly disagree! We’re watching this play out live where tons of AI generated code becomes a liability.

At the end of the day, an engineer needs to be responsible / on call for code that gets shipped to production. If you don’t understand the system you’re trying to debug, you’re probably going to have a bad time.

Yes, AI can help with all of this, if you set up the proper systems. You can have agents triage prod logs, look at errors, etc. You can speed up parts of the investigation, but an engineer needs to make the call. There might be serious customer or financial implications from that change.

I expect the trend continue for trimming dependencies, vendoring code so you can modify it directly, preferring simpler systems with fewer abstractions, and spending waaaay more time thinking about system design and code maintenance.

I’ve said this before, but it’s a great time to get familiar with CS fundamentals and some of the history behind what great software looks like. Many parts will be different in the coming years as AI progresses, but also a lot more than people realize will stay the same.

[Mick Douglas 🇺🇦🌻 @bettersafetynet]

Orgs are laying people off "because of AI" and I (and the entire industry) need to talk about how insane all of this is.

I build AI tools. I like AI. This isn't an anti-AI rant. This is an anti-stupidity rant.

Buckle up. Spicy takes galore!

🧵1

[ThePrimeagen @ThePrimeagen]

Honestly why stop at 100x engineer?

Just use more agents, you literally could be 1000x, 10000x, 100000x just by scaling

You could what you use to in an entire year in one second

[Haider. @haider1]

Creator of C++, Bjarne Stroustrup:

AI-generated code isn't ready — it generates more bugs, more bloat, more security holes, and is nearly impossible to validate

"senior developers are already retiring rather than deal with it"

The problem is that even a small prompt change can shift the entire codebase in unpredictable ways

[ThePrimeagen @ThePrimeagen]

hey @strausszelnick do you want to come on TheStandup and discuss in depth with the Software Engineering community?

[Reads with Ravi @readswithravi]

You must choose one of two pains.

[Mitchell Hashimoto @mitchellh]

I strongly believe there are entire companies right now under heavy AI psychosis and its impossible to have rational conversations about it with them. I can't name any specific people because they include personal friends I deeply respect, but I worry about how this plays out.

I lived through the great MTBF vs MTTR (mean-time-between-failure vs. mean-time-to-recovery) reckoning of infrastructure during the transition to cloud and cloud automation. All those arguments are rearing their ugly heads again but now its... the whole software development industry (maybe the whole world, really).

It's frightening, because the psychosis folks operate under an almost absolute "MTTR is all you need" mentality: "its fine to ship bugs because the agents will fix them so quickly and at a scale humans can't do!" We learned in infrastructure that MTTR is great but you can't yeet resilient systems entirely.

The main issue is I don't even know how to bring this up to people I know personally, because bringing this topic up leads to immediately dismissals like "no no, it has full test coverage" or "bug reports are going down" or something, which just don't paint the whole picture.

We already learned this lesson once in infrastructure: you can automate yourself into a very resilient catastrophe machine. Systems can appear healthy by local metrics while globally becoming incomprehensible. Bug reports can go down while latent risk explodes. Test coverage can rise while semantic understanding falls. Changes happens so fast that nobody notices the underlying architecture decaying.

I worry.

[Brivael Le Pogam @brivael]

Je veux présenter mes excuses, au nom des Français, pour avoir enfanté la French Theory (qui a enfanté la pire des merdes idéologiques : le wokisme).

Nous avons donné au monde Descartes, Pascal, Tocqueville. Et puis, dans les ruines intellectuelles de l'après-68, nous avons donné Foucault, Derrida, Deleuze. Trois hommes brillants qui ont fabriqué, dans l'élégance de notre langue, l'arme idéologique qui paralyse aujourd'hui l'Occident.

Il faut comprendre ce qu'ils ont fait. Foucault a enseigné que la vérité n'existe pas, qu'il n'y a que des rapports de pouvoir déguisés en savoir. Que la science, la raison, la justice, l'institution médicale, l'école, la prison, la sexualité, tout n'est qu'une mise en scène de la domination. Derrida a enseigné que les textes n'ont pas de sens stable, que tout signifiant glisse, que toute lecture est une trahison, que l'auteur est mort et que le lecteur règne. Deleuze a enseigné qu'il fallait préférer le rhizome à l'arbre, le nomade au sédentaire, le désir à la loi, le devenir à l'être, la différence à l'identité.

Pris isolément, ce sont des thèses discutables. Combinées, exportées, vulgarisées, elles forment un système. Et ce système est un poison.

Car voici ce qui s'est passé. Ces textes, illisibles en France, ont traversé l'Atlantique. Les départements de Yale, de Berkeley, de Columbia les ont absorbés dans les années 80. Ils y ont trouvé un terreau qui n'existait pas chez nous : le puritanisme américain, sa culpabilité raciale, son obsession identitaire. La French Theory s'est mariée à ce substrat, et l'enfant de ce mariage s'appelle le wokisme.

Judith Butler lit Foucault et invente le genre performatif. Edward Said lit Foucault et invente le post-colonialisme académique. Kimberlé Crenshaw hérite du cadre et invente l'intersectionnalité. À chaque étape, la matrice est française : il n'y a pas de vérité, il n'y a que du pouvoir, donc toute hiérarchie est suspecte, toute institution est oppressive, toute norme est violence, toute identité est construite donc négociable, toute majorité est coupable.

Voilà comment trois philosophes parisiens, qui n'ont probablement jamais imaginé leurs conséquences pratiques, ont fourni le logiciel d'exploitation à une génération entière d'activistes, de bureaucrates universitaires, de DRH, de journalistes, de législateurs. Voilà comment on a obtenu une civilisation qui ne sait plus dire si une femme est une femme, si sa propre histoire mérite d'être défendue, si le mérite existe, si la vérité se distingue de l'opinion.

C'est de la merde pour une raison simple, et il faut la dire calmement. Une civilisation se tient debout sur trois piliers : la croyance qu'il existe une vérité accessible à la raison, la croyance qu'il existe un bien distinct du mal, la croyance qu'il existe un héritage à transmettre. La French Theory a entrepris de dynamiter les trois. Pas par méchanceté. Par jeu intellectuel, par fascination du soupçon, par haine de la bourgeoisie qui les avait nourris. Mais le résultat est là. Une génération entière a appris à déconstruire et n'a jamais appris à construire. Une génération entière sait soupçonner et ne sait plus admirer. Une génération entière voit le pouvoir partout et la beauté nulle part.

Je m'excuse parce que nous, Français, avons une responsabilité particulière. C'est notre langue, nos universités, nos éditeurs, notre prestige qui ont donné à ce nihilisme son emballage chic. Sans la légitimité de la Sorbonne et de Vincennes, ces idées n'auraient jamais traversé l'océan. Nous avons exporté le doute comme d'autres exportent des armes.

Ce qui se construit maintenant, en silicon valley, dans les labos d'IA, dans les startups, dans les ateliers, dans tous les lieux où des gens fabriquent encore des choses au lieu de les déconstruire, c'est la réponse. Une civilisation se reconstruit par les bâtisseurs, pas par les commentateurs. Par ceux qui croient que la vérité existe et qu'elle vaut qu'on s'y consacre. Par ceux qui assument une hiérarchie du beau, du vrai, du bon, et qui n'ont pas honte de la transmettre.

Alors pardon. Et au travail.

[Matt Pocock @mattpocockuk]

Long skills are such a red flag to me

- Hard to audit (and therefore, trust)
- Hard to edit (more text, harder to maintain)
- Expensive to run (more text, more tokens)

The shorter the skill, the better IMO