I actually don’t really understand what you’re arguing about. I saved this and read it a few times but I don’t understand your question

I gave you the up vote because it’s a good take, but this really has nothing to do with the article, so I can tell that you and a bunch of your 58 up voters didn’t read it

This guy (a founding engineer of fly.io) isn’t claiming his 10x status in the article on the grounds that he uses AI

Indeed, he’s claiming that he gets value from AI despite being a 10xer without it

I have to say that you just have to sayed something up

Revenue is a standard unit of measurement for any venture backed business because it gauges interest and growth better than profit does

What makes him a wanker?

1. I’m not really interested in trying to burn anyone and despite my nuanced understanding of the Luddites, I do think dismissing a Luddite take in the context of technological progress is legitimate
2. I care about ethics and governance too but I live in a capitalist society and I’m here to discuss the merits of a technology

This is a pretty good take imo

Like AI, IoT is an important and lasting technology

But too many businesses and products jumped on a misguided bandwagon to pull stupid uniformed VC money

You should look into how Dieselgate worked

I don’t think you understand my take

I guess that makes it a bad analogy

Replace AI with Excel in your argument and repeat it again. Do you see how silly you sound?

If this dev doesn’t do it, the next one will

This dev is analytical enough to understand basic incentive modeling and game theory. Capitalism is a race to the bottom no less now than it always was.

This is a brilliant take. Whoever designed my car’s screen system can kick rocks

I think this take undervalues the AI. I think we self select for high quality code and high quality engineers

But many of us would absolutely gawk at something like Dieselgate. That is real code running in production on safety critical machinery.

I’m basically convinced that Claude would have done better

Agreed. It creates a new normal for what the engineer needs to actually know. In another comment I claimed that the same was true at the advent of stack overflow

Agreed, and yet the AI accelerated the project

I hear you, and there’s merit to the concerns. My counter is

1. The same was true at the Advent of books, the Internet, and stack overflow
2. It’s Luddite to refuse progress and tools based on an argument about long term societal impact. The reality is that capitalism will choose the path of least resistance

deleted by creator

Quoting from the repo:

This library (including the schema documentation) was largely written with the help of Claude, the AI model by Anthropic. Claude’s output was thoroughly reviewed by Cloudflare engineers with careful attention paid to security and compliance with standards. Many improvements were made on the initial output, mostly again by prompting Claude (and reviewing the results). Check out the commit history to see how Claude was prompted and what code it produced.

“NOOOOOOOO!!! You can’t just use an LLM to write an auth library!”

“haha gpus go brrr”

In all seriousness, two months ago (January 2025), I (@kentonv) would have agreed. I was an AI skeptic. I thoughts LLMs were glorified Markov chain generators that didn’t actually understand code and couldn’t produce anything novel. I started this project on a lark, fully expecting the AI to produce terrible code for me to laugh at. And then, uh… the code actually looked pretty good. Not perfect, but I just told the AI to fix things, and it did. I was shocked.

To emphasize, this is not “vibe coded”. Every line was thoroughly reviewed and cross-referenced with relevant RFCs, by security experts with previous experience with those RFCs. I was trying to validate my skepticism. I ended up proving myself wrong.

Again, please check out the commit history – especially early commits – to understand how this went.

while you were parroting AI sheep I was studying the blade ah comment

Do you think that human communication is more than statistical transformation of input to output?