Because it's also bullshit. "People who read" prefer static sites and not prefer any kind of interactivity is just fetishizing intelligence. Readers don't give a fuck if your site is coded in react or static, most of them dont even know web technology statistically. Projection at its peak
Anyone who thinks their preferences translate to their viewers is not being honest with themselves. Developers care if your site is static or not, general visitors and web users do not. There is a reason why static sites are not the norm. You're trying to shoehorn your opinion and generalize it when in reality that's not the true. Thanks for mockery!
So we've gone from "anyone who expresses this preference is a snob" to "actually what matters is the preferences of some imaginary audience, who I can also speak for"
yall, the line is referencing codegen & docsgen & slopgen; people are putting shit into the ether that neither them nor anyone else is going to read but will just be imbibed by some other agent for some random purpose no one strictly knows.
It’s so strange that the Claude-ness leaks out even when it’s prompted to use this tone. The underlying flavour shines through clearly. I’m sure you could get it to shake it with enough prompting
I'm fatigued by this hyperbole and profanity, especially when written by an LLM. There is too much of this. Human-written or not it makes it very difficult for me to engage with. The sentiment is bad. Is building this better than building nothing?
Just because this is how things are does not it's how they should be. I'm very tired.
This site is for the lolz and obviously following the style set by the previous mf websites. I find it cathartic to laugh at the ridiculousness of the situation we are in, but also genuinely engage with the neck breaking pace of change we are all having to adjust to.
People complain about all things all the time (rightfully) but I'm not gonna complain about your complaints now, I will only add that I sometimes enjoy humor full of "shock" and profanity. Still! , After decades of professionals and non-professionals diluting it. This site was funny. Ymmv
It is as "cathartic" as dropping n words everywhere. N this and that, that n president!
Author has incestual relationship in their family. At least in my country that is highly offensive. For the sake of their possible children / siblinks, I hope they use protection!
I'm fairly certain most cultures have common use of incestual insults.
The english "mother fucker" is born of the original taboo of fucking one's mother. The act is seen as bad, so we use the phrase referencing the act as a label for all sorts of bad things. Like, you dropped a book on your foot, and that's as bad as someone who sleeps with their mum, so you say "mother fucker".
Spanish has tu chinga tu madre or just chinga tu madre.
Not sure off the top of my head, but I know there's lots of other cultures that use the same taboo in the same kind of substitional way.
As a former 7th grader, I liked the style. If anything, the over-the-top-ness makes it less bitter and more of a self-parody. It's honest about its own immaturity, making everything lighthearted again.
It's also using only under-specific swearwords like 'm..f*king', which is not really instigating violence, attacking any characteristic directly, just exaggerated profanity to the point of unseriousness.
I'm not saying the style is good or that everyone should tolerate it, I'm saying only that for me the exaggeration softens out the sentiment. I'd argue it's also what you sing up given the URL.
First they sell you the sickness and then they tell you the cure is too dangerous to release to the general public. Because their sickness will not sell.
Exactly! Though it is sarcastic, it is the way in which everything is moving. No end to it and it'll get worse by day.
But the site has brilliantly captured the thoughts and the little nuances behind agentic coding. It is sure good for all the LLM providers, but on a slightly serious note, it just burns cash which could have been avoided all together.
All said, it's just too good and satirically correct with the prevailing attitude!
Nothing to complain or comment on about the thought process or content. Just don't get into an opinion forming on what is written, but just take a step back and retrospect, it is all on the wall!
> Websites are broken by default. They used to be functional, fast, and accessible but ugly. Now they're slop, agentic, and on fire — but they get attention, and attention is the only metric left. Nobody's reading and you know it.
I’m upset if an LLM actually wrote this because this is p sick
It's AI. Telling a model to shitpost really isn't very interesting since that's pretty much half of everything on the internets and there was practically infinite training material.
Something that reads like an LLM wrote it is different from an LLM having written it to begin with. Something written by an LLM can be something that doesn't have the hallmarks of LLM all over it.
I was just saying that the original quote doesn't strike me as something that's an annoyingly good piece of LLM writing.
There's a lot of experimentation happening on how to get LLMs to write well, starting with half of what's been posted on Gwern's blog as of late.
We need this at a conference. Why are people pushing back so heavily when embracing it will bring you greater control over the technologies coming out. Yes AI will replace jobs, what now. Are you just gonna wait you fate or create it. Screw it!
Funny to read this while I'm at the Snowflake summit, where every single vendor booth, keynote talk, and about 95% of tech talks are exclusively about agentic AI. Sometimes I wonder if everyone here is just pretending to like it because they have to, like a tech prostitute telling their investor john that that AI feature is the best they've ever had, it's so good. During Tuesday's keynote, one of the speakers kept getting salty that people weren't really clapping a lot, which was the only amusing part of a slog of a keynote that opened with an AI assisted DJ making "music" that might be fit for phone hold music, if that.
I don't even categorically hate AI. I just wish I could stop fucking hearing about it. These people killed their golden goose (shitty SaaS companies that feed into the giant human centipede of tech stacks that usually just ends up being ad tech at the top) and seem really pumped about it somehow.
My company has some products that are SaaS-like, insofar as you are basically just paying us for the ability to use our services, and then some that are less SaaS-like insofar as they consist of paying for ongoing work produced by people with extremely sought after expertise. For potential customers in the first category, I'm starting to see them say, we're deciding between you, company X, company Y, and building it ourselves with AI. It's actually now a concern that any proof of value engagements will involve them just scanning the APIs and workflows to use as references for their LLM agents. Meanwhile our other products are not impacted by this at all and AI just helps them scale workloads.
We might see this die down a bit when people realize that the real reasons you don't just roll it yourself is that (a) you're paying the company to do it right and to be able to use an economy of scale to do it cheaper than you might even be able to yourself and (b) the real cost is not to build it but to maintain it.
I’m getting some serious Frank Grimes vibes here [1]. I think the slop is causing people to lose their minds because the cognitive dissonance they have seeing it proliferate while hating it so much.
Now Im suspecting if it's possible that VCs are part of the money loop, thus they are more than happy to fund as long as you pour enough of the funding back into the "AI ecosystem".
> Here's how open source contributions go down: I clone your repo, point an agent at your test suite, and have it rewrite the whole thing in Rust to a "spec." No copyright infringed, your honor — an agent wrote every line to a clean-room description, and the description was just your code read aloud. The tests were the spec. The spec was theft. Theft was the pipeline.
I know this website is tongue-and-cheek but I did want to address this part. It's seems to be referring to:
I personally don't see re-implementing a project's specification from tests as theft. I also find it morally okay as long as the re-implementers don't lie about the original project (e.g. saying it's the clone to theirs, the original is X times slower when it's not, etc.). Legally, it would also be permissible since re-implementation of a spec, and even an api interface, has been established to be fair use:
I agree with you! It's a shock to the system for a lot of folks to have their code base used that way. FOSS is often a labor of love by very smart folks. If it's legal (and the license allows for it), then it's fair game and hard/impossible to stop.
Act sarcastic all you want, that's a killer line. You do care.