[ethical_source]

You must understand that when you deal with AI people, you deal with children. Imagine the author of the spec you're trying to implement is a new grad in San Francisco (Mission, not Mission Street, thanks).

He feels infallible because he's smart enough to get into a hot AI startup and hasn't ever failed. He's read TCP 973 and 822 and 2126 and admitted the vibe or rigor but can't tell you why we have SYN and Message-ID or what the world might have been had alternatives one.

He has strong opinions about package managers for the world's most important programming languages. (Both of them.) But he doesn't understand that implementation is incidental. He's the sort of person to stick "built in MyFavoriteFramework" above the food on his B2B SaaS burrito site. He doesn't appreciate that he's not the customer and customers don't give a fuck. Maybe he doesn't care, because he's never had to turn a real profit in his life.

This is the sort of person building perhaps the most important human infrastructure since the power grid and the Internet itself. You can't argue with them in the way the author of the MCP evaluation article does. They don't comprehend. They CANNOT comprehend. Their brains do not have a theory of mind sufficient for writing a spec robust to implementation by other minds.

That's why they ship SDKs. It's the only thing they can. Their specs might as well be "Servers SHOULD do the right thing. They MUST have good vibes." Pathetic.

God help us.

[phillipcarter]

…what? Literally nothing you wrote is accurate.

[ethical_source]

You'll come around to my perspective in time. Don't take it personally. This generation isn't any worse than prior ones. We go through this shit every time the tech industry turns over.

[phillipcarter]

The people who built MCP are seasoned software engineers, as are most folks who work for these labs. What are you even on about?

[owebmaster]

The people building MCP are in the same cohort as the Doge "hackers". And we can see the result.

[phillipcarter]

Not even a remotely accurate statement.

[ethical_source]

LOL

[phillipcarter]

Okay, well, clearly you have some funny beliefs, and I won’t try to convince you otherwise. Just think first before posting weird screeds with no basis in reality next time.

[ethical_source]

> weird

Adj, something the speaker wants the audience to dislike without the speaker being on the hook for explaining why.

> screed

Noun, document the speaker doesn't like but can't rebut.

It's funny how people in the blue tribe milieu use the same effete vocabulary. I'll continue writing at the object level instead of affecting seven zillion layers of affected fake kindness, thanks.

[auggierose]

I think you are wrong, but I upvoted anyway because it is so funny :-)