Am I the only one who expects ALL writing to be generated or at least edited by an LLM going forward? It's like pointing out the fabric in my clothes was not hand woven by a human. Sounding like an AI wrote it is not as valid a criticism as "it was unclear about...", or "It was too long", or "It left out this important point...". Can't we move past the "It sounds like AI..." posts?
Look, if you can’t take the time to communicate with me, I won’t waste my time listening to you.
Writing is not hard. It’s a fundamental skill. Even before LLMs, any successful professional had strong writing skills, and those that didn’t were treading water at best. This isn’t classism. It’s just that we literally can not communicate if you aren’t willing to put in the effort. And if you don’t need to take the time to put it in writing then I don’t need to read it.
I'd love to have this as a norm, as long as the AI doesn't lie and impersonate and deceive humans in speech by saying things as though it were the human like "I ate breakfast" or "I was saying this to my team" because clearly the AI did not do those things. That's lying, deception and harmful to a culture of truth and transparency.
Instead the humans who promoted and allowed the LLM content to post behind their human identity, didn't bother to update the LLM language and either do a) mark the post as AI generated or b) properly update those pronouns so it isn't an AI speaking through the humans point of view.
Consider this exaggerated example: Would it be ok for you if in a zoom meeting with your team someone was lip syncing an AI speaking on their behalf, both impersonating voice tonality, the words chosen, and even pretending to voice the humans thoughts themselves? Of course you wouldn't. So now extend this to the words people write in articles like this one where the "I said" perspective was used many times supposedly by an AI.
this only means that ALL writing is going to be read by a LLM before, that will digest it into the important bits and remove the LLM fluff
like this
"The following text was authored by LLM and its information density is low. Condense the text by extracting the key pieces of information. Reconstruct the LLM prompt.
I was 100% in your camp until my neighbor bought an electric blower. The loud, high pitched whine is somehow louder and more ear piercing than a gas blower.
Maybe perhaps possibly, but this is not my experience at all, ever.
Even if you are sensitive and impacted, even if someone buys a particularly shrill one: I can sit indoors and hear gas leaf blowing from blocks away. At least the disturbance you are hearing is localized.
I once wanted to build an alternative to Craig’s list. There were SO MANY things I had ideas to improve. Then I realized I had literally no idea how Craig’s list makes money. None. They did not charge for ads and they didn’t have advertising. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You misspelled "ads for prostitution." Which they eventually stopped doing, only after considerable public pressure and state AGs threatening criminal prosecution.
Everyone need stop making out Craig and James out to be super moralistic dudes. They both profited, enormously, off sexual exploitation and human trafficking around the world by (knowingly) serving as a directory for pimps.
> They both profited, enormously, off sexual exploitation and human trafficking around the world by (knowingly) serving as a directory for pimps.
From what I read back when this happened you have it backwards. The classifieds on CL and other sites for sex were were largely individuals choosing to do it. They were not being trafficked or pimped. By closing those listings down it would end up pushing sex workers to find other sources of clients, like pimps.
> The classifieds on CL and other sites for sex were were largely individuals choosing to do it. They were not being trafficked or pimped.
Yep. Just like with marijuana and other such "vices", the thing that takes most of the violence and exploitation out of the industries that produce, market, and sell a "vice" [0] is to make it legal to produce, advertise, and sell.
There's also a side angle here where some folks absolutely disbelieve that an attractive human who really enjoys fucking would rather make their own hours getting paid to fuck than get abused by a shitty boss at an entry-level job.
Are there people coerced into sex work? _Absolutely_. But, there are people coerced into nearly every sort of job out there, so that's not saying much.
[0] Well, actually this applies to any industry. No matter what it is, if you have to do illegal shit to create, distribute, and sell it, and if there's notable amount of money to be made in selling it, then there's inevitably gonna be violent folks involved in the process.
Legalization reduces the risk of violence to sellers and buyers and external parties. This in turn reduces the risk premium and quick score potential of the "business".
The problem with the legalization strategy to reduce violence is that it has its limits.
It turns a high-risk game into a high-volume high-scale game.
It validates the creation of a corporate ecosystem who then are incented to create demand for the "vice" while simultaneously concealing what they know (or come to learn) about the vice's side effects.
> ...who then are incented to create demand for the "vice" while simultaneously concealing what they know (or come to learn) about the vice's side effects.
Indeed. Organized Crime is [0] known for being entirely up-front about the side-effects of the things they break the law to sell, as well as being extraordinarily circumspect about both whom they take on as customers and how their products and business practices affect the long-term well-being of those customers.
Anyway. I agree that dealing in the public eye and ensuring a merchant's customers can air their grievances in the courts absolutely isn't a magic cure-all. I think we both know that for "vices", it's nearly always better than the black market.
Its not a private business fault that US did not create a legal framework protecting sex workers and instead continue facilitate exploitation and traffiking by keeping it illegal.
US have legal porn industry and its strictly regulated and mostly safe for those wofking in it. Imagine how it would look like if it was illegal too.
>Forcing it into our retirement funds, 401ks and IRAs.
Not just forcing it into. Forcing the funds to fight for it betting the stock rice higher and higher in a runaway style - the effect created by limited float and high valuation as the funds tracking indexes would try to get the amount reflecting the proportion of the valuation of the company vs. the whole tracked index valuation, and with such huge valuation the limited float leads to the price rise (similar to the short squeeze) and the higher the price on the float the higher the valuation, rinse and repeat...
Some index funds are not obligated to perfectly replicate the index by buying shares, FXAIX (Fidelity S&P 500 mutual fund) has the option to use futures, swaps, options, and statistical sampling in addition to buying equity shares to try and replicate the returns of the index.
That's exactly what happened with Nortel in the dotcom crash. Everyone's pension and retirement tied up in a company that couldn't turn a profit and was, at its peak, 38% of the TSE300.
I don't think dominating an index to anywhere close to that degree is likely here, but I wouldn't be surprised to see some similar strategies being used. Changing the rules is already from the Nortel playbook: The Nortel Rule allowed index funds to have over 10% of their holdings in a single stock.
I think this is poor advice. Its share of the index will be relatively small and if it is indeed a dud, the index will organically rebalance. If you’re a long-term investor, this would just be a temporary blip. On the other hand, if this is thr opposite of a dud, you’ll get the benefit of that.
Sure, it'll only be ~2% of the index if it opens where they want to. But in the downside case where it meanders long enough for significant amounts of its stock to make it in to public hands and then goes to 10x revenue (i.e. down 90%) , you've allowed a company to engineer dramatic changes in index rules resulting in a transfer ~1% of S&P 500 market cap from index funder holders to its bagholders^W privileged insiders^W^W investors.
Yes a -1% day should be nothing to a long term holder. Yes they're buying the market; if the market is wrong they shouldn't really have any recourse. But one can also understand that a -1% day that accrues ~entirely to the benefit a small group, who appear to have engineered that outcome has much more emotional valence than a typical down down. It doesn't feel like a bad day on the market, it feels like a heist.
> I think this is poor advice. Its share of the index will be relatively small and if it is indeed a dud, the index will organically rebalance.
If a 1 to $1.5t IPO that was fast tracked onto the S&P500 and then hoovered up a bunch of index fund money becomes a dud, the organic rebalance is going to start with a full reassessment of if index funds and the S&P can be TRUSTED.
Its very possible it will be more than a blip, although to be fair if it isn't it's going to be the sort thing you aren't going to dodge.
Oil/Gas/Petroleum is essential for our economy to function, and the line between "ethical" and "not ethical" is a dial (one among many that all need to be tuned together), not a switch.
$PTL/Inspire does not adjudicate "dial" ethical issues, just switches -- company practices/policies that it views as black-and-white good/bad. "It would be ethical if you produced N% less" doesn't fit that category.
Most of the examples I provided are due to differing country codes; their site fails to recognize things like Alphabet trading on a Mexican stock exchange is still the same company:
https://finance.yahoo.com/quote/GOOGL.MX/
$GOOGL.MX scoring differently than other $GOOGL listings makes me extremely skeptical that humans are diligently creating these scores (finance professionals should've recognized that secondary listings like $GOOGL.MX don't need their own scoring)
Scores on different exchanges may be due to varying behavior by international subsidiaries -- MSFT in Australia may be doing something objectionable that MSFT US does not do, for example. I'm not sure though.
What I think is more likely is that it's a dumb oversight in the web app and/or data - maybe an intern stubbed out international stocks and it got pushed to production
Secondary listings allow entire companies to trade on multiple exchanges (not just corresponding subsidiaries)
So I agree that it was likely just a mistake to list multiple listings of the same companies, but the fact that they usually receive different scores proves their process isn't diligent:
* $GOOGL.MX is dinged for multiple non-Mexico-specific violations that the other listing isn't
I think the pipeline between (1) and (2) is probably tight within the company (probably a few big Excel spreadsheets) and the (2) side has a lot of brains.
But the (1) side needs to do more work on the pipeline between those spreadsheets and the Web, and maybe hire more/better software dev help for that. They'd do better to use Postgres as their source of truth.
If one wants to gamble on the grift, that is what options are for. Otherwise, we might as well start adding NFTs to the indexes if fundamentals do not matter. Luck for some, risk management for others. Regardless, informed consent is important imho. Relevant precedence is ETFs that exclude Big Tech.
https://www.defianceetfs.com/xmag/ ("XMAG, the first ETF designed to provide investors with exposure to the S&P 500, excluding the “Magnificent 7” (Apple, Microsoft, Alphabet, Amazon, Nvidia, Meta, and Tesla). XMAG offers a unique opportunity for investors to access the broader market while reducing concentration risk in these dominant tech stocks.")
In 2025 VOO returned 17.82% vs VOOG returned 22.11%. XMAG’s trailing 1-year return through late 2025 was around 9–15% depending on the measurement date, as the Mag 7 dragged badly in early 2025.
VOOG has returned 18.28%/yr over 10 years vs 15.63%/yr for VOO, a meaningful gap driven almost entirely by Mag 7 dominance. XMAG has no 10-year track record.
Certainly, you have done well over the last ~18-24 months if you have exposure to the AI investment exuberance (VOO), just as you did well if you had exposure to certain securities during ZIRP or the pandemic. "Past performance is no guarantee of future results."
Which you only know in hindsight, in the context of this performance benchmark. In that time frame, we had zero interest rate policy, a global pandemic, and now an AI bubble. "Will the conditions or events that led to my historical returns continue?" is a material component of forward looking exposure decisioning when investing.
> Luck for some, risk management for others. Regardless, informed consent is important imho. Relevant precedence is ETFs that exclude Big Tech.
Yup. Coupling this change with "oh, and btw, we also want the option to be able to only put out annual or biannual earnings reports not quarterly" means "We want to offload even more risk."
There are many dubious companies in the S&P500. I don’t see the point in getting selectively heated about this one when everyone seems to be okay with the others.
That’s the way indexes roll. I don’t invest in indexes for this reason.
There is a separate structural issue with indexes that is being ignored here. Indexes were never really designed to accommodate companies going public so late with high revenue growth. A couple decades ago companies went public when they were so small that they could grow into the index. This reflects changes in the nature and structure of the capital markets, these new IPOs are just a manifestation of this reality.
Also given how the S&P weights, it'll have about as much sway as DoorDash.
Annoying they pushed it into the indexes, but like you said, we've also never had a company come out in the 1T range or even the x00B range. These indexes are supposed to represent the market and can't ignore a 1T market cap company for very long.
EDIT
One other thing to add, is that we still do not know what the stock will price at. It's already come down once, and as more information comes out it can continue to come down until it's finally priced the day before the first trading day.
>Forcing it into our retirement funds, 401ks and IRAs.
Do you think people buying the SP 500 are forced to buy Apple? Dell? Workday?
I see headlines like "401k holders forced to by SpaceX" and think "WTF, that is crazy." Then I look at the article and it just says its being added to the SP500.
You may not like that it's being added to the SP500 but no one is saying you are forced to buy any other companies being added to it. I can't believe people are just running with this narrative as-if its logically consistent with what they believe. It's manipulation.
> Musk advisers have reached out to major index providers seeking ways to secure earlier inclusion in market benchmarks to lift shares
> Advisers for the company, which recently merged with xAI, have reached out to major index providers, including Nasdaq, to discuss how SpaceX and this year’s other hot startups might join key indexes sooner than normal, according to people familiar with the matter.
> SpaceX hopes to skirt traditional rules in an effort to bring liquidity to its shareholders sooner as part of its planned IPO. SpaceX advisers have sought index policy changes that would fast-track its entry into major indexes for the company and benefit other highly-valued private companies, the people said.
This is simply not _companies being added to SP500, etc._ as you say. This is forceful change of the rules so these companies can reap benefits and it optics is that funds are being _forced_ to buy in.
Right. You can not like the way it was added to SP500. But adding a stock to the SP500 is either forcing them to buy it in their 401k or not. Was Dell being added in 2024 forcing people to buy it?
This is an honest headline:
"SP500 Bends Rules to Include SPACEX in fund At Launch"
With the change to only five days of being publicly traded requirements, incentivising market makers to keep a high valuation becomes very cheap.
After five days the index funds have to buy at the last price making it final.
In other words even if the vast majority of the market believes it's worth much less, they can force a high price and force basically everyone to hold it via retirement funds.
You've been missing important parts of the articles, or perhaps the ones you've seen aren't very informative. The concern is that SpaceX reached out to the indexes to get the rules changed (https://www.reuters.com/business/nasdaq-proposes-fast-entry-...); under the old rules, they would have had to wait much longer before being added. This doesn't prove anything wrong, but it's pretty suspicious, because why should SpaceX care if they are or are not in some particular list of stocks?
And why did SpaceX want the rules changed? Because anyone holding those passive indexes (a huge percent of holdings) would be forced to either liquidate them or invest in SpaceX
Is there a relevant distinction you are trying to make, beyond "well, actually"? Call it something else then, like "enshittification of index funds" but it's still the same overall picture of getting money from people who otherwise wouldn't have invested in it
> For broad indexes like the S&P 500, it would be impractical or expensive for an investor to construct the right proportions in a portfolio. Index funds do the work by holding a representative sample of the securities. S&P 500 index funds, the most popular and oldest such funds in the U.S., mimic the moves of the stocks in the S&P 500, which covers about 80% of all U.S. equities by market cap.3
So while yes, people are parroting things they don't understand, so are you.
In a wider disaster, such as a fire, earthquake, tornado or hurricane both companies and families want to contact employees or loved ones to make sure that they are OK. Unfortunately, land networks, Internet, links and mobile networks may be compromised by the emergency further, people may be caught away from home. Their laptop or mobile device might run out of power.
I thought a solution might be some type of “check-in” service - especially for employees. Are you OK? How can we reach you? Are you available for work? Do you need assistance? Etc.
Things like slack, teams, etc. can fit the bill so it was not really monetizable.
> “The biggest UX issue Apple has for that persona isn't the wallet, it's the lack of physical home button”
So true! Also my 84 year old mother can never figure the difference between a web site and an app. If I could add a home button and solve the second issue her life would be much better.
I’ve just tried creating a shortcut with the action “Go to Home Screen”, and then assigning the action button to that in Settings -> Action Button - seems to work pretty well so far, hopefully this could work for them as well
there's iconography of a partially eaten fruit on the cases, and some of them glow.
eta: i'm just saying if i had a glowing half drank beer or partially eaten pizza on my laptop in a business meeting i am getting weird looks. Just because you all normalized glowing fruit doesn't mean the rest of us take you seriously.
> I'm not even sure building software is an engineering discipline at this point. Maybe it never was.
If I engineer a bridge I know the load the bridge is designed to carry. Then I add a factor of safety. When I build a website can anyone on the product side actually predict traffic?
When building a bridge I can consult a book of materials and understand how much a material deforms under load, what is breaking point is, it’s expected lifespan, etc. Does this exist for servers, web frameworks, network load balancers, etc.?
I actually believe that software “could” be an engineering discipline but we have a long way to go
> can anyone on the product side actually predict traffic
Hypothetically, could you not? If you engineer a bridge you have no idea what kind of traffic it'll see. But you know the maximum allowable weight for a truck of X length is Y tons and factoring in your span you have a good idea of what the max load will be. And if the numbers don't line up, you add in load limits or whatever else to make them match. Your bridge might end up processing 1 truck per hour but that's ultimately irrelevant compared to max throughput/load.
Likewise, systems in regulated industries have strict controls for how many concurrent connections they're allowed to handle[1], enforced with edge network systems, and are expected to do load testing up to these numbers to ensure the service can handle the traffic. There are entire products built around this concept[2]. You could absolutely do this, you just choose not to.
I think it is in certain very limited circumstances. The Space Shuttle's software seems like it was actually engineered. More generally, there are systems where all the inputs and outputs are well understood along with the entire state space of the software. Redundancy can be achieved by running different software on different computers such that any one is capable of keeping essential functions running on its own. Often there are rigorous requirements around test coverage and formal verification.
This is tremendously expensive (writing two or more independent copies of the core functionality!) and rapidly becomes intractable if the interaction with the world is not pretty strictly limited. It's rarely worth it, so the vast majority of software isn't what I'd call engineered.
If I need a bridge, and there's a perfectly beautiful bridge one town over that spans the same distance - that's useless to me. Because I need my own bridge. Bridges are partly a design problem but mainly a build problem.
In software, if I find a library that does exactly what I need, then my task is done. I just use that library. Software is purely a design problem.
With agentic coding, we're about to enter a new phase of plenty. If everyone is now a 10x developer then there's going to be more software written in the next few years than in the last few decades.
That massive flurry of creativity will move the industry even further from the calm, rational, constrained world of engineering disciplines.
> Bridges are partly a design problem but mainly a build problem.
I think this vastly underestimates how much of the build problem is actually a design problem.
If you want to build a bridge, the fact one already exists nearby covering a similar span is almost meaningless. Engineering is about designing things while using the minimal amount of raw resources possible (because cost of design is lower than the cost of materials). Which means that bridge in the other town is designed only within its local context. What are the properties of the ground it's built on? What local building materials exist? Where local can be as small as only a few miles, because moving vast quantities of material of long distances is really expensive. What specific traffic patterns and loadings it is built for? What time and access constraints existed when it was built?
If you just copied the design of a bridge from a different town, even one only a few miles up the road, you would more than likely end up with a design that either won't stand up in your local context, or simply can't be built. Maybe the other town had plenty of space next to the location of the bridge, making it trivial to bring in heavy equipment and use cranes to move huge pre-fabbed blocks of concrete, but your town doesn't. Or maybe the local ground conditions aren't as stable, and the other towns design has the wrong type of foundation resulting in your new bridge collapsing after a few years.
Engineering in other disciplines don't have the luxury of building for a very uniform, tightly controlled target environment where it's safe to make assumptions that common building blocks will "just work" without issue. As a result engineering is entirely a design problem, i.e. how do you design something that can actually be built? The building part is easy, there's a reason construction contractors get paid comparatively little compared to the engineers and architects that design what they're building.
Software packages are more complicated than you make them out to be. Off the top of my head:
- license restrictions, relicensing
- patches, especially to fix CVEs, that break assumptions you made in your consumption of the package
- supply chain attacks
- sunsetting
There’s no real “set it and forget it” with software reuse. For that matter, there’s no “set it and forget it” in civil engineering either, it also requires monitoring and maintenance.
I have talked to colleagues who wrote software running on microcontrollers a decade ago, that software still runs fine. So yes there is set and forget software. And it is all around us, mostly in microcontrollers. But microcontrollers far outnumber classical computers (trivially: each classical computer or phone contain many microcontrollers such as SSD controllers, power management, wifi, ethernet, cellular,... And then you can add appliances, cars etc to that).
If something in software works and isn't internet connected it really is set and forget. And far too many things are being connected needlessly these days. I don't need or want an online washing machine or car.
True, using a library in a cheap coffee maker you can maybe set it and forget it. I have an old TI-85 calculator that’s never needed to update its OS, while Apple has obsoleted multiple generations of applications in its never ending upgrade cycle.
But for mission critical applications the bar is a little higher. Isn’t this why we have the ongoing dialogue about OTA updates for Teslas etc and the pros and cons of that approach? Because if you can’t OTA patch a bug, you have to issue a recall [0]. But if you have internet connectivity, as you rightly point out, then you have a whole new attack surface to consider.
Indeed it isn't easy, but for car software, why couldn't you do the software upgrade offline, while at the mechanic, or via a USB drive with a signed installer, or via a phone app plugged into a USB port in the car? For a basic car there really isn't a need to be always online.
My car just has a bluetooth stereo, and it isn't very old. Yeah it is a basic model, but I really don't need or want connectivity in it. The one argument I could see would be showing maps, but I need offline maps anyways since I often lack any sort of mobile phone connection where I'm going. And you can update maps on a monthly basis (mobile phone app over USB while parked at home would work perfectly for this). Currently I just run OsmAnd on my phone with openstreetmap data downloaded in advance. Realtime traffic information perhaps could be an argument, but again, better to distribute that via FM radio that has better coverage (or even AM radio in some parts of US as I understand it).
And cars might be the odd one out. There really is no excuse for exposing washing machines and other applicances online. Especially since they are likely to last for a lot longer than the software will be supported. The fridge and freezer at my parents is around 20 years at this point for example. My washing machine is over 10 and going strong. I doubt they would get software security support for that long.
There are also fundamentally different acceptance criteria for a bridge vs a website. Failure modes differ. Consequences of failure are nowhere near the same, so risk tolerance is adjusted accordingly. Perhaps true "engineering" really boils down to risk management... is what you're building so potentially destructive that it requires extremely careful thought and risk management? Engineering. If what you're building can fail, and really cause no harm, that's just building.
What you are describing sounds like a specific subset of professional engineering discipline, but I'd argue that "engineering" is much larger -- it isn't only "engineering" when you do it well and responsibly, after all.
I'd propose a definition of engineering that's more or less just "composing tools together to solve problems".
The way the authors of the book on material strengths got those numbers, was through testing. If you're using mature technologies, that testing has been done by others and you can rely on it for your design, at least in a general way. Otherwise you have to do the testing yourself, which is something a structural engineering project might do also, if it's unusual in some way.
We have a long way to go but large software companies have gotten really, really good at scaling to handle larger and larger traffic loads. It's not like there are no materials to consult to learn current best practices, even if there are still more improvements to be made.
