For some people the relevant properties of "thing" include not needing overpowered hardware to run it comfortably. So "thing" does not just "exist", at least not in the form of electron.
Cause it's (allegedly) cheap and you can do much better? Avoiding rewriting things should become a thing of the past if these tools work as advertised.
My sense is that the Gemini models are very capable but the Gemini CLI experience is subpar compared to Claude Code and Codex. I'm guess that it's the harness but since it can get confused, fall into doom loops, and generally lose the plot in a way that the model does not in Gemini Studio or the Gemini app.
I think a bunch of these harnesses are open source so it surprises me that there can be such a gulf between them.
It's not just the tooling. If you use Gemini in opencode it malfunctions in similar ways.
I haven't tried 3.1 yet, but 3 is just incompetent at tool use. In particular in editing chunks of text in files, it gets very confused and goes into loops.
The model also does this thing where it degrades into loops of nonsense thought patterns over time.
For shorter sessions where it's more analysis than execution, it is a strong model.
We'll see about 3.1. I don't know why it's not showing in my gemini CLI as available yet.
Like right-to-work laws that frame themselves as protecting individual freedom, critics warn that right-to-compute statutes could, in practice, primarily benefit large corporations by limiting the ability of states and local governments to regulate AI projects.
The Montana law is also nearly identical to model legislation drafted by the American Legislative Exchange Council, meaning it could easily be replicated by lawmakers elsewhere.
Alec which is the group that formed after business/ultra wealthy decided it was cheaper to just buy government than work for votes for unpopular things after the Powell Memorandum.
as I am getting older, I wholeheartedly relate to what you are saying.
1. Some people give a damn, but decision makers won't give them money and resources to fix. Good enough is enough, lets work on next project.
2. Inviting "real people" is expensive, A/B testing is cheaper
3. Complicated 150 page, 120 tab ERP or B2B SaaS can be funded, simple things -> investors are worried that it can be replicated by 1 engineer with Claude Code/Codex at hand
4. Have a heart --- this makes me think, unfortunately we lost it to capitalism. We are even ready to ruin our kids life and their mental health, if it makes money to us
Fair enough. If the substance reads generic, that’s on me.
The intent wasn’t to produce volume, it was to frame the economic layer of the discussion. Whether written with or without AI assistance, the argument still stands or falls on its logic.
What’s more interesting to me is how quickly “AI slop” becomes shorthand for structured reasoning. As these tools become common, separating low-effort output from thoughtful analysis is going to matter more, not less.
Ironically, this ties back to the original question about bubbles. If AI-generated content becomes abundant and cheap, signal will only survive where there’s clear economic or technical grounding behind it.
I’m spending a lot of time thinking about that boundary right now, especially in developer-facing systems where quality and constraint adherence actually matter. The difference between fluff and production-grade behavior is becoming very measurable.
Curious how others here distinguish between shallow AI-assisted output and work that’s actually grounded in systems thinking.
The problem with today's society is you walk into a hospital bleeding and they make you sign an ultimatum.
Legally this should be treated as signing under duress and invalidated.
If someone's life or well-being depends on it, and undergoing services in not a choice, terms and conditions should not be legally allowed to be unilaterally dictated by one party.
“on its face” is doing the heavy lifting here. Banking is highly regulated but you don’t need government permission to open new branches. The food supply chain is heavily regulated but you don’t need government permission to start new restaurants.
The supply of medical care, from operating rooms to doctors themselves, is heavily controlled by the state. There are billions, perhaps trillions of dollars that would flow into reducing the cost and increasing the availability of high quality medical care in the US if this were not so.
The demand is through the roof and will continue to rise. But the right to supply is only handed out to cronies.
> Banking is highly regulated but you don’t need government permission to open new branches.
The closer economic unit would probably be a bank itself, and to my understanding you do effectively need the government’s permission to open one of those.
All of those are normal things for operating any business, and are not limited in the usual case.
Liquor licenses notwithstanding.
There is no default-deny for getting a business license or opening a restaurant in a commercially zoned area, anyone can do it. Licensing and permission aren’t quite the same thing.
> It would not be a good idea because the goal of companies are not to get you to consume only what you need, they want you to consume more.
It's good exactly because of this. Every company is pushing us to consume more, and Wall Street is at the top of this, growth at all costs (including human lives, mental health, just anything)
Only way to save Earth is to stop the Wall Street greed machine.
We should be making shoes which lasts 4 years, clothes which last at least 2 years with no "fashion" industry pushing us to change it every 2 days.
Not trying to pick apart your point but I rotate a small set of staple clothes and they’re in fine condition after two years (haven’t had much time for clothes shopping since toddler arrived), despite me abusing “quick wash” and “drycare 40c” constantly on Miele W1/T1 stack for “90 minute, good to fold” laundry.
I don’t buy the cheapest brands, but also don’t buy anything marketed as premium/luxe.
Mostly I gravitate towards stuff with a fairtrade cotton (and good thread count, but that’s from preference of how it feels to wear)
Plus, I may be deluded but I’m of the opinion that polo shirts and jeans/neutral trousers are a multi-decade winning combination.
I might add, I've had some pretty long lasting clothes with Gildan heavy weight 100% cotton, and a few wool shirts I rotate. I think there are a few tricks that I accidently stumbled on to making my clothes last a long time: Firstly, I use mild detergents, and usually set the machine to "tap cold". I haven't noticed that my clothes are less clean. Secondly, I usually air dry on a rack instead of a dryer. I was forced to do this when I lived in an apartment, and suspect that this is a big factor. Thirdly, and maybe the most important, I spent some time learning what colors I look best in. Turns out there is quite a rabbit hole you can go down in terms of styling your clothes to match not what you "like" but what compliments your skin tone, body shape, and so on.
I actually think the last point has been profound, because I rarely _feel_ like buying clothes, because I look good in whatever Is in my closet.
For reference, I cycle through about 7 t-shirts. I wear the same one in the gym. I have a pair of rotten clothes for when I'm farming or hunting, but my daily clothes endure more daily wear and tear than urban living for sure.
making low quality items that wear out quickly and influencing people to over consume just so big businesses profit more is not "using resources to make life better"
Shoes which last 4 years and clothes which last 2 years are widely available, if you want them. They're not particularly expensive. But many consumers prefer to buy less robust items that won't hold up to daily wear and then complain about longevity.
You can use those expensive engineers to build more stuff, not rewrite old stuff
reply