This is literally they saying they are letting their LLM run wild(ish) and seeing the status.claude.com we can see the result.

This is a case where the outcome is the direct result of the engineering practices like the ones they describe.

PS: Yes I use Claude, Coded, Amp and Cursor agents every day so I am not saying here LLMs are not valuable.

LE: They did not made claims that "AI is good" they made claims that developers/computer engineers are not needed anymore in the near future. Thats is a stronger claim and has a direct relation with a product they have which needs computer engineering (yes infra counts too) and which seems to be down more than we expect as a good quality bar.

Unless you have inside knowledge of their infra ops and management tools, it is just guessing and blaming veganism. For all we know it could be tools from Nvidia or anyone else failing under massive load.

It could be the veganism. Some things are. Leaping to it as the only possible explanation for every ailment is exactly the fallacy.

I have not stated anything. I just replied to a metaphor which is not needed cause here we talk about engineering problems handled by engineers in a tech company. I give you something else where this line of thought could be wrong: culture beats (and destroys) engineering practices unless regulated by law. In this case yes this is not because of LLMs but because of company culture.

Still hard to know where the line draws because Anthropic talks about solving computer science for good as in humans need not apply.

Could be a hardware issue, could be a datacenter issue. Could be anything. So it could also be a software issue right?

This is not ideology. This is talking about root causes and I replied to someone that started saying this is not because of them promoting and using LLMs to the maximum. Could be it is not because of that. But it could be because of LLMs.

Keeping a company accountable when they try to sell a service that will replace engineers is not ideology. Ideology will be to not use any company that uses LLMs. But pointing out the disconnect between the public discourse and the status.claude.com is a simple idea.

Can you tell me that all those red lines there are infra?

The issue is that it's a thought-terminating cliche, and it would be nice to have one place on the internet that isn't just who can post one the fastest with the most glee to the giddy seal-clapping of the audience.

So not sure what we are debating here: I see first hand companies jumping full on using LLM for _everything_ for the last 6 months (of course Anthropic longer) and without guardrails and good engineering practices the number of incidents, downtime is increasing.

Look at status.claude.com - Anthropic could at any point come out and say all those are due to third party providers.

I am also not saying here Anthropic is worse than other scaleups. But they do something different: they come in front of us and tell us they have better engineering practices.

Why can't it be simply the case that Anthropic is struggling by their own accord? Infra scaling isn't a solved problem, much less with new, complicated, ever-changing, stateful LLM requests.

Pretty much every API-service-centric company I've worked at was in some constant state of either triaging or thinking about infrastructure health, often due to the familiar cascading problems of a necessarily distributed system.

But now with the AI scapegoat, we rewrite history to pretend us humans solved infra scaling, so any issues today must be caused by AI and any related superstitions we want to tack on.

They can and it is normal. I have said it is normal for scaleups specifically at a similarity growth rate.

What we (or at least I) critique here is coming out in the world and announcing that coding is done while having a product that has a status page full with red stripes. Yes, could be infrastructure, could be third party integrations could be a lot. But a lot of what is there is software. And yes, some parts is hardware. Unless the root cause is culture. In that case as I mentioned in another comment there I give them that: LLMs cannot solve culture.

Again the difference here is that the other scale-ups with similar _scaling_ issues are not talking about how we should all just use LLMs for everything and that learning to code is not required anymore.

So I am not saying the real issue is not infra or integration with third parties. What I am pointing at is: "don't talk that you don't need engineering while you - yourself - have engineering problems that need engineering solutions and still have not solve them".

Also you are getting out of your way to brainstorm possible root causes that will let them get away with this cognitive dissonance (or is there a better them in communication). Let them do the explanation and defend their position as they are the ones attacking the computer science engineering.

> Let them do the explanation and defend their position as they are the ones attacking the computer science engineering.

This once again boils back down into: because they make claims about LLMs being good, I get to make any claim I want, and if if they didn't want me to make my claim, they shouldn't have made theirs.

It seems reactionary rather than earnest.

You've accused me and someone else of "brainstorming" reasons why they might have infra scaling issues, but I'm not. I'm pointing out that everyone has them especially pre-AI, and all of those reasons are on the table, not less likely. You have done the opposite: committed to a suspicion. That is the end result of the thought-terminating cliche.

Or it could be that GitHub saw a 14x increase in commit volume last year[0], and we've concomitantly seen its reliability fall of a cliff in the last year or so. Given that Microsoft is leasing additional space on AWS(!)[1] to handle the additional commit volume, my personal money is on commit volume growth being a bigger issue than internal use of AI.

Internal use of AI may have been an issue. Commit volume growth may have been an issue. Unless one has direct knowledge of their infrastructure issues, claiming to know is quite literally making exactly the "they are vegan, their illness must be caused by their veganism" argument the GP commenter was talking about.

[0]https://daringfireball.net/linked/2026/05/04/commits-on-gith...

[1]https://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-github-amazon-ai-c...

And I have to remind myself that people writing this are having a bias: they believe that in a system with few taxes (so less public health care, public eduction, less support for unemployment ...) they are on top, they are the ones with money, they are the ones that win the game.

But when they are without money and in a precarious situation they too might vote an extremist that will promise to distribute wealth via the state => more taxes. You have a real example happening these years in a country that proudly promote itself as the best one in the world: low taxes, no healthcare, no free education, little regulations - the most amazing place to start a business.

I am not saying everybody is like this, but it is very important to question yourself about where are you seeing yourself: as the one on top winning from the system or the one that has some needs. And second question: how many people will be on one side or the other?

Regarding birocracy: this comes exactly from the fact that EU is not a federation so each state needs to have their voice heard and so a lot of regulations/law are complex => more birocracy.

Of course EU has a lot of things to improve and a lot of regulations to rewrite and can and should do more for business. But let's not put those two in an antagonist system: you can support businesses while not punishing the people, the consumers, the users and the labor market.

What if your assumption here is incorrect and you are more likely projecting? What if there are other reasons people have?

What people are complaining about is that they visually see an increase in taxes and bureaucracy without a proportional increase in what they get back from the government. OFten the contrary. THye pay more and get less. They don't want to cancel all that, they just want their government to be less corrupt and more savvy with how its spends its taxpayers money.

>but it is very important to question yourself about where are you seeing yourself: as the one on top winning from the system or the one that has some needs.

Yes, that's important to ask yourself, But more important would be to ask yourself what happens as more and more people become parts of the "needs" group, who will be left to contribute to fund those with needs? If you compensate by increasing taxes and burden your fewer remaining productive workers to redistribute their labor to a growing pool of unproductive members with needs, your skilled people emigrate and you're left with just the people with needs. Who is then going to pay for all those needs? Raise a Berlin wall to keep them from leaving?

Caring for people in needs is nice, but this isn't' the 1960's anymore when Europe had international monopoly over entire industries and could afford generous welfare. The truth is if you run your government like a charity, you can't compete with major powers that run their country like ruthless corporations or industrial factories. Eventually they will steam roll you with their economic and military might and your former prosperity will be gone in a blink of an eye.

The problem with Europe's needs based system is that it's unsustainable within both its current domestic conditions and the international conditions eroding its wealth, but no EU citizen wants to hear that they system they paid for their whole lives is not working.

If that happens, you're doing it wrong. The point of helping people with social programs is to ensure (ideally) no one falls through the cracks and becomes an even bigger cost to society, so they can eventually contribute to society again instead of being a cost to it instead of getting trapped in poverty.

Of course, some people are not well enough they will ever be able to contribute to society, but providing them with the basics is less expensive to society than not doing so.

They already are doing it wrong and they have been since its inception, since the pay-as-you-go system is unsustainable unless population and economic output grow forever and EU has stagnated for the last 20 years and shows no signs of massive comebacks.

Here is a real example: open a company, buy a small piece of land, section it in smaller pieces, promise you build houses, get people downpayments in cash, syphon all money to other companies with having contracts just a bit bigger than average market price, declare bankruptcy, then start again. You of course have smaller stakes in those other companies.

The real truth is that language preference (typed or dynamic) are more of a fashion choice in most companies where I was present than a pure technical consideration.

if you build your product by accumulating technical debt without any focus and effort toward simplicity and trying to make it do anything then the solution after many years is rewriting. But if you have the same culture and keep the same customers you will be in the sample place where you have started but now having different category of problems (eg network latency vs N+1s).

Maybe this is the "way of the startup" but lets not pretend that types can fix culture, engineering practices or product vision and good customer management.

If there is a "crack" there you might be able to get out of it, or it will let a disruptive idea to grow, but my way of thinking about innovator's dilemma is that is it a "culture bias": knowing about it give you some small advantage but it needs a real change to maybe have a chance to escape/act on it and the most important part is that under pressure it will quickly and imperceptible run the entire process or decision making.

But I also disagree with your reading of the innovators dilemma. You're being far too absolute

Lets take this to the extreme: only 2 people remain with capital and AI all the rest are replaced.

Now these two people how do they make money? they pay each other so there is no extra value created thus the amount of money as value symbol remains constant.

But here is an even more interesting question: As their AI can create anything why would they pay each other? So why do they need money?

The money just circulating around is actually more or less how a normal economy works. If you have a two person world where one person makes food and the other makes tools, the money just bounces back and forth between the two people as they trade tools and food. It facilitates trade by acting as an IOU in case the first person doesn't need to trade tools at the exact moment the other needs to trade food.

AI and robotics will one day be able to produce food and tools without human labor. So there could be plenty of wealth created. The question is how do we distribute that wealth when humans aren't needed to make it? We need a new distribution system that isn't based on pay for labor. A lot of people suggest UBI.

UBI is a system for dividing up scarce resources.

For instance: it'd expect money to become near-meaningless, and the economic activity of the trillionaire class will consist mostly of direct extraction and consumption of resources (basically a personal autarky). There may be some barter of things like energy, raw materials, and maybe a small amount of proprietary items.

Given the lack of need to pay labor and the direct control of more resources than they'll ever need, the trillionaire will direct the world enonomy to towards pet projects (e.g. an Elon Musk commanding his robot army to build a giant steel pyramid on the moon in his honor, because why not? It'll be cool!).

While all those are true they are not reflecting the level of intelligence of people: intelligent people take personal stupid decisions because while intelligence is a function of let's say the more "abstract brain", decisions are emotionally driven and influenced by the "ancient, threat focused, pleasure driven brain".

Here is a quick way to think about this: some intelligent people are obease, some others don't exercise, and others don't take their health seriously while also working on the most amazing problems we ever solved. You know what's the biggest paradox here: they all have the capacity to understand fully the impact of their lifestyle on their health but still making a life style change is hard due to not being driven by knowledge and logic.

- the scale of how much and how fast you can generate code with AI vs how fast can you write code for compiler

- the mental model of what is being generated and how much the contributor understands and owns the generated code