This right here is where I feel most concerned

> If you haven’t spent at least $1,000 on tokens today per human engineer, your software factory has room for improvement

Seems to me like if this is true I'm screwed no matter if I want to "embrace" the "AI revolution" or not. No way my manager's going to approve me to blow $1000 a day on tokens, they budgeted $40,000 for our team to explore AI for the entire year.

Let alone from a personal perspective I'm screwed because I don't have $1000 a month in the budget to blow on tokens because of pesky things that also demand financial resources like a mortgage and food.

At this point it seems like damned if I do, damned if I don't. Feels bad man.

Until there's something verifiable it's just talk. Talk was cheap. Now talk has become an order of magnitude cheaper since ChatGPT.

It is tempting to be stealthy when you start seeing discontinuous capabilities go from totally random to somewhat predictable. But most of the key stuff is on GitHub.

The moats here are around mechanism design and values (to the extent they differ): the frontier labs are doomed in this world, the commons locked up behind paywalls gets hyper mirrored, value accrues in very different places, and it's not a nice orderly exponent from a sci-fi novel. It's nothing like what the talking heads at Davos say, Anthropic aren't in the top five groups I know in terms of being good at it, it'll get written off as fringe until one day it happens in like a day. So why be secretive?

You get on the ladder by throwing out Python and JSON and learning lean4, you tie property tests to lean theorems via FFI when you have to, you start building out rfl to pretty printers of proven AST properties.

And yeah, the droids run out ahead in little firecracker VMs reading from an effect/coeffect attestation graph and writing back to it. The result is saved, useful results are indexed. Human review is about big picture stuff, human coding is about airtight correctness (and fixing it when it breaks despite your "proof" that had a bug in the axioms).

Programming jobs are impacted but not as much as people think: droids do what David Graeber called bullshit jobs for the most part and then they're savants (not polymath geniuses) at a few things: reverse engineering and infosec they'll just run you over, they're fucking going in CIC.

This is about formal methods just as much as AI.

Can you make an ethical declaration here, stating whether or not you are being compensated by them?

Their page looks to me like a lot of invented jargon and pure narrative. Every technique is just a renamed existing concept. Digital Twin Universe is mocks, Gene Transfusion is reading reference code, Semport is transpilation. The site has zero benchmarks, zero defect rates, zero cost comparisons, zero production outcomes. The only metric offered is "spend more money".

Anyone working honestly in this space knows 90% of agent projects are failing.

The main page of HN now has three to four posts daily with no substance, just Agentic AI marketing dressed as engineering insight.

With Google, Microsoft, and others spending $600 billion over the next year on AI, and panicking to get a return on that Capex....and with them now paying influencers over $600K [1] to manufacture AI enthusiasm to justify this infrastructure spend, I won't engage with any AI thought leadership that lacks a clear disclosure of financial interests and reproducible claims backed by actual data.

Show me a real production feature built entirely by agents with full traces, defect rates, and honest failure accounting. Or stop inventing vocabulary and posting vibes charts.

[1] - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46925821