Based on the title, I expected it to say something about this moment in time, using some actual news, but there's nothing there beyond essentially "I don't think this AI think will be useful in the long term".
As Yegge himself would agree, there's likely nothing that is particularly good about this specific architecture, but I think that there's something massive in this as a proof of concept for something bigger beyond the realm of software development.
Over the last few years, people have been playing around with trying to integrate LLMs into cognitive architectures like ACT-R or Soar, with not much to show for it. But I think that here we actually have an example of a working cognitive architecture that is capable of autonomous long-term action planning, with the ability to course-correct and stay on task.
I wouldn't be surprised if future science historians will look at this as an early precursor to what will eventually be adapted to give AIs full agentic executive functioning.
I generally am a fan of polished writing, but I do believe that there's room for quickly fired experimental stuff, and quite enjoyed this piece. With the speed he was going, I wouldn't be surprised if the system architecture actually changed in between subsequent sections of the post. It's not a scientific article, but just a cross-country runner at the top of his game giving us a quick update without breaking his stride, and I'm all here for that.
As Basil Exposition said "I suggest you don’t worry about this sort of thing and just enjoy yourself".
Sure. The critique is with his incoherently labeled images, not his prose or passion project.
If LLMs can't produce readable technical diagrams ("Figure n"), avoid them for diagramming.
Don't insult the reader with strings like Oarity, Ed3e Csess, Ouclstnoc, relinemen, ressore Critieal, Foll Throughput, Witnese/Refin, ecstate ta Mayor, and Hsoide Fulures Stafey Fen.
I like how ‘refine 1’ is correctness, followed by ‘refine 2’, which is of course ‘oarity’.
I’m convinced that AI has totally broken the brains of its users; how on earth could you look at this thing and think “yes, that is a reasonable thing to post in public”? For whatever reason, for many users, the lesson of the AI revolution seems to be “just produce arbitrarily shoddy nonsense, it’s fine, nobody cares anyway”… The worrying thing is that this may be _true_.
I think that it is a debate, and it depends on the role of HTML in your system.
If all you're doing is using HTML to "annotate a document with its structure and its formatting", then yes, I'll accept that it's not quite programming, but I've not seen this approach of starting with a plain non-html document and marking it up by hand done in probably over two decades. I do still occasionally see it done for marking up blog posts or documentation into markdown and then generating html from it, but even that's a minuscule part of what HTML is used for these days.
Your mileage my vary, but what I and people around me typically do is work on hundreds/thousands of loosely coupled small snippets of HTML used within e.g. React JSX, or Django/Jinja templates or htmx endpoints, in order to dynamically control data and state in a large program. In this sense, while the html itself doesn't have control flow, it is an integral part of control flow in the larger system, and it's extremely likely that I'll break something in the functionality if I carelessly change an element's type or attribute value. In this sense, I'm not putting on a different hat when I'm working on the html, but just working on a different part of the program.
Those are not HTML. PHP neither, even when used as a templating language for HTML.
> htmx endpoints
Not really familiar with htmx, but I would say this is HTML augmented with some additional mechanisms. I don't know how I would describe this augmented HTML, but I'm not applying my "not programming" statement to htmx (I probably could, but I haven't given enough thoughts to do it).
> In this sense, I'm not putting on a different hat when I'm working on the html, but just working on a different part of the program.
I agree with this actually. I wouldn't consider that writing HTML (or CSS) is really a separate activity when I'm building some web app.
> In this sense, while the html itself doesn't have control flow, it is an integral part of control flow in the larger system
That's correct but I don't see what it has got to do with the question of whether HTML is a programming language or not.
Strings do not have control flow but strings are integral part of larger programs that have control flow. So what? That doesn't make strings any closer to being programming languages.
It's a question of semantics. What I'm saying is that the way many of us use html in practice in 2026 is less like arbitrary strings and more like db connection strings, where most of our focus is not on whether a bit of text is an article or an aside, but about how it participates in the control flow across different components in our architecture.
From another perspective, I'm not familiar with any present day company, where the html they use in their source code is sufficiently simple and distinct from the rest of the program to be managed by non-programmers. The only html that is just used as strings is that used for individual posts in a crm or marketing tool's cms, typically stored in a database rather than the source code repository.
> As intelligence moves into scientific research, drug discovery, energy systems, and financial modeling, new economic models will emerge. Licensing, IP-based agreements, and outcome-based pricing will share in the value created. That is how the internet evolved. Intelligence will follow the same path.
With only that brief mention buried there, I think there's just not enough info there to comment on. If you have specific thoughts on it, maybe write up a post and submit that?
This is not at all clear to me. Reminded of that joke of how "A month in the lab can save you an hour in the library", thinking about some of the best science in history, the researchers often had very strong theory-based belief in their hypothesis, and the experiment was "just" confirmation. Whereas the worst science has people run experiments without a good hypothesis, and then attach significance to spurious correlations.
In other words, while experiments are important, I believe we can get a lot more distance from thinking deeply about what we already have.
Every single group of people that has been around for long enough accumulates things that they should be ashamed of. But everything is relative, and compared to other countries, Canada and Canadians have always seemed to me to be much better than the world average.
You can still share via torrents, but Soundcloud seems to be the main place, as it has been for almost 20 years now.
On a separate note, I must say that starting to read your comment, I was sure it'll be going towards "Back in 2000 I cudda made a song outta that... Now, in 2025, I just use suno"
reply