Skeptical whether author has financial gain from echoing and underwriting this already prominent statement, spread by BigAI. Not that I disagree with what’s written, I do see irreversible changes in our industry, but there’s the flip side that he doesn’t seem interested to write about. Makes the whole article read like a sponsored Anthropic ad.

With previous engineering trends like blockchains and microservices, you could choose not to jump on the bandwagon. However the coding agents trend is different and is changing the very fabric (sry for Claudeism) of software engineering, for better or worse. I do know we will never go back to mainly programming through code again, that’s for sure.

Fortunately, I haven't jumped the bandwagon yet, so I don't even have to think about going back :)

People who are trying to sell you AI and people who are now dependent on it are desperate for you to believe in its inevitability.

i used to think i love coding. putting some music on and getting into the zone churing code was the best feeling.

stragnely i dont miss that feeling and kind of dread going back to it

I'd say I "miss" it as in its a great kind of feeling, but it's hard to get when you now know there's a way better way of getting things done

Knowledge work has changed...But it doesn't solve company internal governance nor politics. When it takes anywhere between 2 weeks and 3months to do anything ( including approvals for non prod access) in most organizations...Code has never been the problem.

> I do know we will never go back to mainly programming through code again, that’s for sure.

Say who?

I'm starting to think there is no AI bandwagon per-se - instead the bandwagon most people associate with AI-assisted development is more a bandwagon of sloppy code and low standards - which irresponsible use of AI enables but isn't a prerequisite for (outsourcing sweatshops have been practicing it long before the dawn of LLMs).

>you could choose not to jump on the bandwagon

I think it's not an option. The benefits are just too large for me.

>I do know we will never go back to mainly programming through code again, that’s for sure.

I think, in some niches, i.e. where there's something not well represented in the training set, it still makes sense to write code by hand. But I am not sure that it will continue.

poor reading comprehension, re-read and try again

How can you assess the output of coding agents if you don't know about algorithms and other fundamentals of software engineering?

I don’t particularly mind algorithmic interview questions (they’re at least self-contained, somewhat objective, and something you can prepare for), but most software engineering has always been done by people with no knowledge of algorithms or compsci fundamentals. What’s being lost is coding fluency, not compsci knowledge.

User acceptance testing.

I think you misread. I never said not to learn it. In fact, for your entry level I would recommend testing for it. At senior+ it should be more about software architecture, design patterns, and distributed systems.

bubblesort has entered the chat

Better example, leetcode interviews became so popular because people were memorizing FizzBuzz and they needed an alternative (but said interviewers didn't fully understand the purpose of FizzBuzz and though "harder means better, right?").

leetcode interviews be ame a thing, because many believed solving leetcode style puzzles makes you superior. Not because someone would memorize fizzbuzz.

This thinking was popularized by coding competions which existed before leetcode and inspired leetcode. Schools themselves produced people who believed these puzzles are what makes you superior developer - one of us, special and choosen.

I wonder if it has anything to do with the currency apparently being backed by an immense reserve of oil (proven to the world by this year's geopolitical events), then coal, and then a massive amount of renewable solar, hydro, wind kWh's and infrastructure to deliver it to homes and shops.

More and more it feels like a nation's kWh throughput is the new metric to track its global influence in manufacturing, industry, and financial services. In other words electric power now equates to global power.

I've always sort-of-joked[1] about a "Blood Standard": your status as reserve currency is proportional to the percentage of the world population your nation can murder in 12 months.

Puts a hard floor on nations with strategic nuclear deterrents - they can never fall below a fairly high threshold, no matter how much of a "Security State Zombie" their national economies have become.

[1] I'm not 100% sure it's all me joking anymore.

I mean, Russia's currency is in the toilet, and if even just 10% of their nukes are actually functional they probably kill a significant percentage of the world pop.

Russia's desperately terrible internal financials, applied to any nation lacking strategic deterrence, would have brought them a lot more pain.

I sort of jokingly contend that they're floated by a theoretical "Blood Standard", in addition to the very distributed basket of commodities they built their country on top of.

The problem here is that I've got the mechanism reversed. Blood Standard measures negative power - the capacity to destroy. Reserve status tracks positive power - the ability to keep other states from destruction. So maybe what the Blood Standard really represents is super-sovereignty - you never get under the thumb of IMF, you never get invaded, you don't lose control of internal monetary policy a la Argentina.

Thinking about it, the Swiss break this model, but from the other direction. "We will never ever screw with you" and in return they get seen as safe.

Again it's a bit of a lark, but it's not as funny anymore, as the growth curve in positive economics hits some natural physical limits along with a very deep gravity well.

> In other words electric power now equates to global power.

In living memory, has this not been the case? Oil's use as an energy source is far more meaningful than its material use.

Part of why I always questioned why calling a country a "gas station" was supposed to be insulting. Yea, that's the main ingredient of being a world power.

The more interconnected the grid gets, the more true this becomes.

Credits to Reuters. Alternative: https://www.automotiveworld.com/news/eu-regulators-puzzlingl...

So many comments in here are missing the point.

By not crediting and personifying the LLM, one (re)takes full human responsibility over the produced works and stated claims. As a result one won’t become an “agent” for the LLM.

The title could have been Don’t blame the LLM.

When we first started using LLMs professionally it was fine to hide behind disclaimers. Now with widespread adoption it’s time to step out of the LLM’s shadow and take credit/blame again.

This whole discussion is a result of Claude using "Co-authored-by" as advertisement because it massively propagates the Claude logo to GitHub. As an advertisement strategy, this is extremely impressive.

Unfortunately, it conflates what's meant by co-authoring. Because so far, Claude has not claimed sovereignty as an artificial intelligence, so actually, mentally crediting Claude is like crediting Vim or Emacs.

We don't have to think of our tools as being authors just because Anthropic did.

The Co-authored-by had a real meaning related to accountability.

Putting our tool in front of us is like letting our cat drive the car. I mean, it's fine if it sits in our lap with the paws on the wheel wearing sunglasses. Just don't pretend it is the one deciding the direction, taking critical turns. Because when we get pulled over, the cops aren't gonna buy it. And neither is anyone on GitHub. We know Claude is still just a program.

On a lighter note: it’s perfectly fine to take full credit for caring about a problem.

When will this war be over?

Educate me, what’s the point of (open-sourcing) this?

The EU is demanding that the European Network of Transmission System Operators for Electricity (ENTSO-E) implement this ten-year power infrastructure plan transparently. Unfortunately, this modelling has so far been carried out using an expensive, proprietary tool (PLEXOS Energy Exemplar). The results were not easily reproducible. However, with the new model based on PyPSA-Eur, a transparent Ten-Year Network Development Plan can be created.

Thanks for actually answering the question. I was curious, too.

Thanks!

This is a repo build using the PyPSA python framework. PyPSA is an open-source Python framework for optimizing modern power systems with renewable energy, storage, and multi-sector coupling.

The repo linked “seeks to complement the tools currently used in the TYNDP cycles, especially for Scenario Building (SB) and Cost-Benefit Analysis (CBA). This approach is designed to enhance transparency and lower barriers to stakeholder participation in European energy planning. Beyond Europe, the project aspires to demonstrate the viability of open-source (OS) frameworks in energy planning, encouraging broader global adoption.

To build trust in and ensure reproducibility with the new open-source toolchain, the project first focuses on replicating key figures from the 2024 TYNDP cycle, before aligning with the current 2026 TYNDP cycle. This process involves developing new features within the open-source domain to address existing gaps, integrating tools for data interoperability and dynamic visualizations, and publishing best practices to encourage the adoption of open energy models.”

Why this report is shared appears to be an application of PyPSA for others to reference and become inspired by its implementation.

Why it’s open source I think is clear from the above paragraph. Open source standards make it drastically easier to harmonise and collaborate while allowing as much engagement as possible to scrutinise the framework.

People who are interested can look at it and use it. People who aren't interested are free to ignore it.

What's the downside of open-sourcing this?

We should commend bureaucracies on the rare instance that they open-source their software, not ridicule them for it.

It’s an honest question, perhaps not worded friendly enough. Forgive my English.

Let’s zoom in on your reply, the people who are interested and look at it and use it. What will they be able to do with it?

1. Run the analyses themselves to help them understand it 2. Provide feedback and even improvements 3. Simply trust that the project is run in good faith because there's transparency

There's a very expensive process for resource planning the electrical grid that is highly modeling dependent. Most electricity grids are planned with a least cost expansion modeling approach. A small number of incumbent vendors provide expensive closed source tools to do this. There are quite a few open tools in this space, but open energy transition is building consensus around pypsa and pypsa-eur as equivalent top of class models (better in a lot of ways) to use for various IRPs.

Thanks, definitely positive they’re moving towards open and freely accessible modeling tools. I can see the benefits for students and budget-constrained institutions.

All government (funded) software should be at the very least open source.

I think a good example is the Norwegian Meteorological Institute: https://github.com/metno (EEA, though, not real EU, but still)

It's not like all of it is useful for someone else, but it's the principle of it, and allowing people to see what their tax money (sometimes) goes to.

No one seeing this as Musk and SpaceX leveraging government support to close the IPO doors on OpenAI and Anthropic?

I know it’s a bold statement but look at this timing and their valuations going south.

Got it, thanks dang!

More technical introduction worth reading: https://blog.kilo.ai/p/the-elephant-is-out-of-the-bag-meet