Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | pixelat3d's commentslogin

I fail to see the obvious wisdom in having AI re-implement chunks of existing frameworks without the real-world battle testing, without the supporting ecosystem, and without the common parlance and patterns -- all of which are huge wins if you ever expand development beyond a single person.

It's worth repeating too, that not everything needs to be a react project. I understand the author enjoys the "vibe", but that doesn't make it a ground truth. AI can be a great accelerator, but we should be very cognizant of what we abdicate to it.

In fact I would argue that the post reads as though the developer is used to mostly working alone, and often choosing the wrong tool for the job. It certainly doesn't support the claim of the title


> re-implement chunks of existing frameworks without the real-world battle testing

The trend of copying code from StackOverflow has just evolved to the AI era now.

I also expect people will attempt complete rewrites of systems without fully understanding the implications or putting safeguards in place.

AI simply becomes another tool that is misused, like many others, by unexperienced developers.

I feel like nothing has changed on the human side of this equation.


> the supporting ecosystem, ... the common parlance and patterns

Which are often the top reason to use a framework at all.

I could re-implement a web frame work in python if I needed to but then I would lose all the testing, documentation, middle-ware and worst of all the next person would have to show up and re learn everything I did and understand my choices.


AI has a lot of "leaders" currently working through a somewhat ignorant discovery of existing domain knowledge (ask me how being a designer has felt in the last 15 years of UX Leadership™ slowly realizing there's depth to the craft).

In recent months, we have MCPs, helping lots of people realize that huh, when services have usable APIs, you can connect them together!

In the current case: AI can do the tedious things for me -> Huh, discarding vast dependency trees (because I previously wanted the tedious stuff done for me too) lessens my risk surface!

They really are discovered truths, but no one's forcing them to come with an understanding of the tradeoffs happening.


The whole premise of this is kinda wrong. Google killed SO more than anything else. Much like how they’re killing the rest of the web today. AI certainly didn’t help, but it is/was not the root cause, nor was the ‘toxic’ environment


I have been on a call with a CMP where they got mad at me for not resetting our user's preferences and because our 'do not accept' was high due to the fact i refused to de-promote it via a dark pattern. I kid you not.

fwiw; looking at our stats for the past year: No consent: 40.8% Full Consent: 31% Just closed the damn window: 28.1% Went through the nightmare selector: 0.07%

~1.5M impressions from GDPR areas


Which is why this article has no value. The title is completely disconnected from market reality


It is VERY real, sadly


Can't say I agree. As far as things that could be said go, "garbage" is pretty tame


Sooo... is this why Google sucks now?


Snagged bsky-social-hykwa-x3ox4


4 more: (prepend bsky-social-)

7poji-p36pm

irn4h-ncvic

2hb2e-xhxnb

2k4na-5qiqu


And they are gone.


Your assumption is the reason his content was removed was because of the allegations, which is potentially not true. While it's very likely the allegations are what drew attention to it, it doesn’t mean there wasn’t a bunch of stuff there already that violated policies – especially given the content he had doubled down on.

All Youtube did was cite their “Creator responsibility“ clause[1] as the reason. This could have included a myriad of violations, especially considering the type of content he was producing.

Also, if you read the allegations, he very much was in the protected status you mention. “Open secret”, lots of people covering for him, running interference, etc etc. Calling him a “D-list celeb, likely with little to no major influence” illustrates your lack of research into the issue.

[1] https://support.google.com/youtube/answer/7650329?hl=en as the reason.


> there wasn’t a bunch of stuff there already that violated policies

Are you suggesting that it could be that his existing videos were in violation of community guidelines? Is there any evidence for this? I've watched some of his videos, and this seems like a rather silly accusation.


I see this angle a lot; " Greater Internet Fuckwad Theory [1]" it's often called. However, Facebook -- the single largest social website in the world -- stands as stark evidence that anonymity doesn't really factor in all that much. I'm not saying it isn't a contributing factor, but it's not the boogeyman it is so very often made out to be.

[1] https://i.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/original/000/325/699/4fc...


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: