I'm definitely jealous of the free time homeless people have. I just don't want to make the choice for my children to be homeless with me.

I'm curious: how will it replace e.g. lawyers? Will judges be replaced as well? Juries?

Yes! That's what I've been doing at work for the last few weeks! And while it doesn't appear to be super fast, I'm already pretty certain that the next round of testing will come back with fewer unexpected issues because together with my agent and the right usage, I was already able to catch stuff that I would have missed otherwise.

Also feels much better than pure vibe-coding (which I still do for personal projects that aren't mission critical for anyone).

I don't think you are misunderstanding how models work, but I think the parent comment meant that the training of the models should push them to include attributions in their native output so they will more likely do so without reinforcement through the harness.

I write with my left hand but play guitar right-handed. I don't think it had any effect on my playing, because I think I'm a naturally right-handed guitar player. Here's a list of things and whether I do them right- or left-handed:

  ┌───────────────────────────┬───────────┐
  │ Activity                  │ Hand      │
  ├───────────────────────────┼───────────┤
  │ Baseball (Bat/Catch)      │ Left      │
  │ Hold Spoon                │ Left      │
  │ Soccer                    │ Left      │
  │ Tennis                    │ Left      │
  │ Throw Ball                │ Left      │
  │ Darts                     │ Left      │
  │ Write                     │ Left      │
  ├───────────────────────────┼───────────┤
  │ Bow and Arrow             │ Right     │
  │ Hold Fork/Knife           │ Right     │
  │ Play Drums                │ Right     │
  │ Scissor                   │ Right     │
  │ Shoot Rifle (Nerf Gun)    │ Right     │
  │ Skateboard/Snowboard      │ Right     │
  │ Use Mouse                 │ Right     │
  └───────────────────────────┴───────────┘

Basically, the only reason I call myself left-handed is because I write with my left hand. All in all, I have no idea if I do more things left handed or right handed.

I'm similar. I do very little with both hands, but I'm split between left and right on individual things. Throw is right, write is left. Where I especially get hung up is learning something to do with feet - surfing, skateboarding, snowboarding, etc... I struggle to figure out which one is my preference. I usually find that I'm equally bad at both.

Our sports teacher in high-school would tell us to stand straight. Then he would shove us from the back a few times. The foot we would stop ourselves from falling would be our leading foot (for snowboarding). So if you catch your fall with your left foot, you're regular. Otherwise goofy. Don't know if that's a safe bet, but it seemed to work out for us back then.

OTOH: I am convinced I can't snap my fingers with my right hand and never will because my specific mix of handed-ness makes it impossible for me to do so, no matter how hard I try and practice. No problem at all with my left hand.

Our track coach would do the same thing! And he got really frustrated with me because the foot that I led with seemed to vary by day. I'd be fairly consistent on any given day, but another day I'd be consistently the other foot.

I agree, but the reality is that most people work to make a living, not to have fun. If you enjoy your job because you mostly get to write code in a tight feedback loop instead of doing the "hard" work of planning, writing and reviewing specs, balancing customer requirements, and the lot, you have a very privileged life. And those jobs are probably going to get fewer now.

It's kind of sad. But on the other hand, I am glad I don't have to write every little line of code myself *on top* of having to do all the other stuff.

I don't feel the need to justify my salary, since I'm simply lucky in that regard. But I'm pretty sure you couldn't do my job just because you had access to a coding agent. Most of my time at the office is spent discussing high-level architecture and strategy, ideas, customer requests, backward compatibility, safety, security, quality assurance, etc.

Writing the actual code is a significant part of that, but the codebase is so complex that even Opus 4.7 and GPT-5.5 struggle with it without being fed a *lot* of context and constraints. And even then, they need a *lot* of steering due to making bad decisions that only someone with an intimate knowledge of the theory behind our software is able to catch.

I can only assume that people who think coding agents can completely replace an actual developer mostly deal with trivial software regarding both scope and the type of customers they serve (individuals instead of big companies in industry).

I'm pretty sure OpenAI and Anthropic are overpricing their token billed API usage mainly as an incentive to commit to get their subscriptions instead.

Anthropic recently dropped all inclusive use from new enterprise subscriptions, your seat sub gets you a seat with no usage. All usage is then charged at API rates. It’s like a worst of both worlds!

What's the point then? Special conditions for data retention/non-training policies?

SSO Tax is a large part of it, controls around plug-in marketplace, enforcement of config, observeability of spend. But it’s all pretty weak really for $20 a month.

And Microsoft are going the same route to moving Copilot Cowork over to a utilisation based billing model which is very unusual for their per seat products (I’m actually not sure I can ever remember that happening).

The target audience for the APIs is third party apps which are not compatible with the subscriptions.

True. I missed that.

What da?

Because code is fundamentally not a creative work the way art is. Code "just" has to be correct, even if that correctness has demanded to come up with ideas. And as a software developer you usually get paid a nice salary to write it, no matter if you're typing it yourself or generate it with an AI.

Art can't be generated. We can only generate artefacts mimicking art styles. So far we have no AI generated images that are considered actual Art, because Art's purpose is to express the artist's intent. And when there is no artist, there is no intent.

I have to stop now, but I guess you can see where I'm going with this.

Art can be generated perfectly fine. Only artists and connoisseurs care about details and art style. Most art is purchased by a business, and that business just wants a picture of a woman being happy next to a cake that looks similar enough to the other corporate pictures.

Code can be art the same way writing can be. There's a big difference between artistic code and business code, the same way there's a big difference between poetry and a comment chain on hacker news.

I don't mean to be mean, but I don't think you understand what Art is. For example, I don't consider a picture of a woman being happy next to a cake art. That's a decorative artefact. And I don't really consider myself a connoisseurs, nor do I particularly care about details or art style.

I'm not trying to be pretentious or precious about art. But I consider the process of creation to be as much a fundamental part of art as the resulting artefact. If I can't contextualize a work of art to a human's inner life - be it implicitly or through knowing about the artist - it's not really art to me.

Artistic code can be a work of art. But only if created by a human (in a way that humans make art), and I think the same principles should apply to it as any other medium of art. But that kind of code is so rare and insignificant compared to all other code being written and published, that I don't think it's worth watering down the discussion with it.

I would only consider AI generated output art, if the way to get there were a substantial artistic expression.

So I think visual arts and music fall in a different category because it's much more artistic, unconstrained, and personal by nature than code. Even if that difference sits on a spectrum. But on that spectrum they're worlds apart.

I struggle explaining my point of view better and hope I manage to get my point across at least to some extent.

Having said all that, I do consider training LLMs on other people's code without compensation wrong as well. Just not as wrong as I do with other stuff.

I don’t think that’s completely true, there is an art to code beyond it just being correct. There are a great many correct implementations of a program, but only some of them are really beautiful as well. Most people don’t see the code or appreciate this, but the difference between correct and art is clear to me when I see it.

Code can be beautiful or ugly but that doesn't make it art.

Art is not just about beauty, it is about expressing the mind (feelings, experience etc) of the author. AI will never do that (except if it learns to express its own experiences, which would be art, but not something competing with human art; it would be like if we had contact with alien art).

I think that's the main thing many people who've never seriously made art or aren't deeply involved with it on an emotional and psychological level are unable to grasp.

Code is my art and is how I express myself. I agree that nothing that AI does is art.

I think most of us agree that writing code can be expressive. But I don't think that alone qualifies you code as art.

I have written code myself that I deem beautiful and expressive. But I'm also a musician, and making music (and listening to it deeply) has given me such intense, mystic experiences, that they dwarf anything I've ever experienced writing code. It's also much harder to make good music because it requires a kind of courage and psychological constitution that is simply not required for writing code.

Code in general is obviously not art, which is all that matters here.

I respectfully disagree, I think code has always been more of an art than a science. It's an odd one, I'll grant you, as you need to do a lot of work to really appreciate it.

I agree that it's "more art than a science", colloquially speaking. But I would still not call it art. Not by a long stretch.

Fair enough.