Oh I got an email about a booked flight, Europe, Denver, Vegas. For some reason the times weren’t picked up in my calendar so I naively thought I’ll try their AI tools to put it there…
I tried to get it to work for five minutes, it couldn’t get it to work.
Then I was so pissed that tried for another thirty minutes to “prompt” my way to get the events created correctly, highlighted the timezone issues…
I would be delighted if they could get it smart enough to stop putting flights other people have booked to come see me onto my calendar and suggest that I leave on time to get to their home city to catch the flight! It's been doing that for decades, and nobody seems to notice or care.
The most annoying thing I noticed about Google trying to shoehorn “AI magic” into their products is Google Maps. I try to help someone navigate with a child in the backseat and they shoveled an AI button into their UI that is even active when you are navigating… Annoyed me so much. I already picked the supermarket I want to go to, now just get out of my way and get me there.
Cigarette manufacturer's research concluded smoking is a-okay for you. AI slop peddler CEO says, if you don't buy their stuff, you will be left behind. Biotech company says taking their pills can be only good for you.
This lady says you should let your children get hooked on YouTube, who knows what could happen if you don't!
Looks like biased research, fake coverage amplifies it, it's all manufacturing consent.
"Dear LLM, we stole this and bundled it up for you, so that it's more convenient for you to steal the original authors' work, so please donate" just kidding of course, don't send a hitman my way.
It's not only an AI company, it's the symbol of AI hype. This AI hype is significant part of the US economy, and the AI infrastructure spending basically half of its growth.
("it's not this it's that", I swear it's human generated slop)
How do you know we've survived worse? I agree that we almost certainly have, but isn't one of the features of a bubble that you don't know how big it is?
Your experiment would not prove that they are deliberately slowing older phones via updates. That's big part of the claim. Your experiment would only show that as you update, your old phones will get slower and slower.
I wouldn't be surprised older phones get slower with updates, in fact, that feels like the most likely scenario for me, based on my experience as a software developer.
But IMO, Hanlon's (maybe Occam's, too?) Razor applies. Most likely, the teams just need to ship features, make fixes, and they mostly test on higher end, recent devices. Sure, at some point, someone tests on a lower end device that everything still works, but they probably either do not notice the issues, or shrug it off, or rationalize it (it might make x worse, but users get y in exchange, so it's fine).
I'm not saying that they definitely did not do it on purpose, it's possible, I am saying that a simple with/without updates check doesn't prove they did it on purpose.
In my own experience, newer products get more love automatically, because the testers, the devs, the team are on newer devices. Perf regressions are also harder to catch than simpler bugs and sometimes require extended usage to notice smaller perf degradation, and devs and QA do not really test like that (often enough).
The way I see it, older products will naturally decline with updates, as they are less of a focus while validating a new release. Sure, they get some "freebie" improvements, but I'm guessing the accidental "decay" outweighs any improvements.
I'm not saying they couldn't make it on purpose. I'm saying that (IMO) it's more likely that it gets worse with every update even without malicious, conniving people trying to get you to upgrade by worsening your OS.
They are both snakes (IMO), but they are different kinds of snakes. I can see why to some Sam is acceptable while Elon wouldn’t be (and vice versa). It’s also convenient to be more lenient toward the snake’s shortcomings when you becoming extremely rich depends on it.
See what coming?! I really don't understand what's going on here. Correctly predicted what, that Bun was being rewritten into Rust? I'm not sure anyone doubted that, all the work they did was public???
9 days ago this is how the migration was described:
> I work on Bun and this is my branch
> This whole thread is an overreaction. 302 comments about code that does not work. We haven’t committed to rewriting. There’s a very high chance all this code gets thrown out completely.
> I’m curious to see what a working version of this looks, what it feels like, how it performs and if/how hard it’d be to get it to pass Bun’s test suite and be maintainable. I’d like to be able to compare a viable Rust version and a Zig version side by side.
9 days after that comment, the rewrite has been merged to master.
9 days after "this is my branch" "the code doesn't work" "I'm just curious" "high chance it's thrown out"... it's merged to master.
-
Some people saw the original as an attempt to downplay the importance of the branch in response to negative feedback, rather than accurately describing what the branch represented.
Those people essentially predicted that Bun's actions would shortly reflect much more conviction than was being let on.
Experiments graduate to production all the time, but given the timelines involved, their predictions were correct.
Stop thinking about '9 days' like it means the same thing in an era where machines can generate thousands of lines of code in a few hours.
There is no way a human rewrite like this wouldn't be roughly at the same stage with a 9 day delta. In that case, some of these accusations would be reasonable to make. But that is not the case here.
Yes because it was an experiment and tests were indeed failing at that point in time, but guess what ? When an experiment succeeds you probably don't throw away the results.
You're free to look down on whoever you want. I'm free to tell you I couldn't care less, and that both replies so far just confirm how much of an emotional meltdown the reactions here really are. Your comment has managed to have nothing to do with the point I was making.
You're getting the responses you earned by intentionally being flippant as possible.
If you had presented your point more thoughtfully, maybe I'd have spoon fed the point of my response, which 100% relates to what you said: your model of time compression is describing the speed of creating code.
But Bun is more than lines of code and serves as core infrastructure for lots of other projects. It's a terrible look in terms of governance to approach this migration as they have, especially the initial denial.
There's no reason to think there was an 'initial denial'. That's the point. Everyone here is saying there was denial because all of this happened in 9 days, and again, that's a silly assertion to make when humans did not create or review the code. Someone can have a swift turn in opinion when an incredible amount of change happens in a short time. The LoC comment I made was simply to serve as an illustration to how fast things can change with LLM generated code.
I'm being flippant because this should be incredibly easy to understand.
Maybe it might be easier to understand if I was a really terrible engineer.
AI gives me 750k LoC PR that's mostly broken and unuseable on Monday.
AI then fixing it by adding another 250k LoC, is not going to convince me, a competent maintainer of a major Js runtime with years of contributions, plenty of downstream dependents, and an understanding of the AI zeitgeist... to merge it all in by the next Wednesday
>Maybe it might be easier to understand if I was a really terrible engineer.
Yes yes I'm sure Jarred is a really terrible engineer. Yawn.
>AI then fixing it by adding another 250k LoC, is not going to convince me, a competent maintainer of a major Js runtime with years of contributions, plenty of downstream dependents, and an understanding of the AI zeitgeist... to merge it all in by the next Wednesday
But you're not any of these things, are you? Regardless, of course you're free to not make the same decision. Doesn't really change the point.
The fact so many people can tell these actions don't meet the bar of a competent maintainer is... not a flex.
And I didn't realize I was talking to a cheerleader the whole time: I guess I'll defer to you on if Jarred is consistently a terrible engineer, or is just being a terrible engineer this one time.
Just because the machines can generate code that quickly doesn't mean that human thought has changed to moving faster. Everyone's had a problem they were working on, and the solution doesn't come sitting at the desk staring at the code, but three days later in the shower, eureka! hits. Just because machines are writing code hasn't changed the underlying human thought speed substrate. That's why people see nine days as too fast, even in this sped up AI era.
Human speed thought doesn't matter here because it's not human reviewed. The code was generated. It exists and it (now) works to the extent they're satisfied with going through with a canary release. Going on about about '9 days' is working with a mental model that simply does not apply here. That is my point.
If you think there should be human review or that there should have been a lot more human collaboration, that's one thing but accusing Jarred of lying about his intentions is another thing entirely, and one where '9 days' is not remotely the proof people think it is in this situation.
The chain we're on and the comments I originally responded to have such concerns. And I mean, if it's not going to be reviewed by humans then really what makes 9 days too soon ? Should the code just sit there collecting dust until everyone agrees an arbitrary amount of time has passed ?
Yes! For the size of the change, I think 30 days would be okay. 3 months would be better. Run them in parallel. Take some time and iron out most of the kinks. Don't break shit people rely on!
> This whole thread is an overreaction. 302 comments about code that does not work. We haven’t committed to rewriting. There’s a very high chance all this code gets thrown out completely.
With the nearly complete PR with the port to rust, a number of people predicted that it was going to happen. They were assured it's unlikely to happen and then they were accused of overreacting over effectively nothing. When those same people who were already upset about the rewrite, learned that their predictions the same ones that were rudely dismissed, were in fact, correct, they became upset again; this time about being lied to.
Correct or not, it's reasonable to conclude they were lied to. Especially given they correctly predicted the future.
>Correct or not, it's reasonable to conclude they were lied to.
No it's not. If we were 9 days away from a human written version of this experiment then yeah it would be reasonable to conclude they were lied to, because a human written version would progress so much slower and steadier that it's very unlikely you hadn't made up most of your mind a week before merge time.
But it's not human written. It's months, perhaps years of work compressed into a week, where the machine can go from 'nothing is working' to 'everything is working' in a few days. There is nothing reasonable about concluding you must have been lied to when such a delta in such a short time is possible. And if people fail to see that, then perhaps the initial assertions about an emotional meltdown were not so far off after all.
I might surprise you, but tech projects have social part of it. Decisions like that are discussed with community. It is completely fine to not give a single shit about community, but then don't act surprised when community doesn't give a shit about you.
Decisions like this are discussed however the maintainers of the project wish to discuss them. And a majority of the time, these decisions are made and discussed solely by the maintainers, so I really have no idea what you're talking about.
Irrational armchair quarterbacking driven by emotional reactions to change and perceived threats. It’s not worth worrying about this specific instance, but the overall trends could get messy. This is just a taste of that.
I tried to get it to work for five minutes, it couldn’t get it to work.
Then I was so pissed that tried for another thirty minutes to “prompt” my way to get the events created correctly, highlighted the timezone issues…
Then gave up and did it manually in 2 minutes.
reply