[eudamoniac]

> I think that anyone planting a big flag at 0 (no AI) in 2026, with what we have available, is indeed doing it for emotional reasons

I just think there is a possibility that being on the AI spectrum is not necessarily better than being at 0. Maybe retaining maximal understanding is better in the long run, even better than minimal, supervised AI usage. Productivity in the long run might be better without it, we just don't know.

[sho]

I appreciate your nuanced take, but I think it's implausible that the "correct" balance turns out to be 0. That just defies all reason. We'll learn how to apply the tools in ways that maximize the benefit while minimizing the downsides - as we do with all new technologies. And there is a long, long way still to go in improving the tools themselves - we are not even close to "done" in terms of the AIs themselves. It's impossible they will ever be worse than right now. It's very possible - inevitable, even - they will be much, much better.

It's just not plausible to me that we don't find some way to leverage all that power without fatally undermining everything we're otherwise trying to achieve long-term. It's not plausible to me that skilled, knowledgeable developers like you would ever conclude that AI was never useful, always harmful, and that it is critical to the project's long-term health that you must do this 2,000-file internal refactor entirely by hand.