They’re not lying when they say they have AI write their code, so it’s not just promotion. They will thrive or die from this thesis. If present YC portfolio companies underperform the market in 5-10 years, that’s a strong signal for AI skeptics. If they overperform, that’s a strong signal that AI skeptics were wrong.
3. You are absolutely right. New startups have greenfield projects that are in-distribution for AI. This gives them faster iteration speed. This means new companies have a structural advantage over older companies, and I expect them to grow faster than tech startups that don’t do this.
Plenty of legacy codebases will stick around, for the same reasons they always do: once you’ve solved a problem, the worst thing you can do is rewrite your solution to a new architecture with a better devex. My prediction: if you want to keep the code writing and office culture of the 2010s, get a job internally at cloud computing companies (AWS, GCP, etc). High reliability systems have less to gain from iteration speed. That’s why airlines and banks maintain their mainframes.
They do. Where did you get this? All the providers have clauses like this:
"4.1. Generally. Customer and Customer’s End Users may provide Input and receive Output. As between Customer and OpenAI, to the extent permitted by applicable law, Customer: (a) retains all ownership rights in Input; and (b) owns all Output. OpenAI hereby assigns to Customer all OpenAI’s right, title, and interest, if any, in and to Output."
The outputs of AI are most likely in the public domain. As automated process output are public domain, and the companies claim fair use when scraping, making the input unencumbered, too.
It wouldn't be OpenAI holding copyright - it would be no one holding copyright.
That would be considered a derivative work of the C code, therefore copyright protected, I believe.
Can you replay all of your prompts exactly the way you wrote them and get the same behaviour out of the LLM generated code? In that case, the situation might be similar. If you're prodding an LLM to give you a variety of resu
But significantly editing LLM generated code _should_ make it your copyright again, I believe. Hard to say when this hasn't really been tested in the courts yet, to my knowledge.
The most interesting question, to me, is who cares? If we reach a point where highly valuable software is largely vibe coded, what do I get out of a lack of copyright protection? I could likely write down the behaviour of the system and generate a fairly similar one. And how would I even be able to tell, without insider knowledge, what percentage of a code base is generated?
There are some interesting abuses of copyright law that would become more vulnerable. I was once involved in a case where the court decided that hiding a website's "disable your ad blocker or leave" popup was actually a case of "circumventing effective copyright protection". In this day and age, they might have had to produce proof that it was, indeed, copyright protected.
"Can you replay all of your prompts exactly the way you wrote them and get the same behaviour out of the LLM generated code? In that case, the situation might be similar. If that's not the case, probably not." Yes and no. It's possible in theory, but in practice it requires control over the seed, which you typically don't have in the AI coding tools. At least if you're using local models, you can control the seed and have it be deterministic.
That said, you don't necessarily always have 100% deterministic build when compiling code either.
That would be interesting. I don't believe getting 100% the same bytes every time a derivative work is created in the same way is legally relevant. Take filters applied to copyright protected photos - might not be the exact same bytes every time you run it, but it looks the same, it's clearly a derivative work.
So in my understanding (not as a lawyer, but someone who's had to deal with legal issues around software a lot), if you _save_ all the inputs that will lead to the LLM creating pretty much the same system with the same behaviour, you could probably argue that it's a derivative work of your input (which is creative work done by a human), and therefore copyright protected.
If you don't keep your input, it's harder to argue because you can't prove your authorship.
It probably comes down to the details. Is your prompt "make me some kind of blog", that's probably too trivial and unspecific to benefit from copyright protection. If you specify requirements to the degree where they resemble code in natural language (minus boilerplate), different story, I think.
(I meant to include more concrete logic in my post above, but it appears I'm not too good with the edit function, I garbled it :P)
Copyright'd in, copyright out. Your compiled code is subject to your copyright.
You need "significant" changes to PD to make it yours again. Because LLMs are predicated on massive public data use, they require the output to PD. Otherwise you'd be violating the copyright of the learning data - hundreds of thousands of individuals.
No, and your comment is ridiculously bad faith. Courts ruled that outputs of LLMs are not copyrightable. They did not rule that outputs of compilers are not copyrightable.
I think that lawsuit was BS because it went on the assumption that the LLM was acting 100% autonomously with zero human input, which is not how the vast majority of them work. Same for compilers... a human has to give it instructions on what to generate, and I think that should be considered a derivative work that is copyrightable.
I would say all art is derivative, basically a sum of our influences, whether human or machine. And it's complicated, but derivative works can be copyrighted, at least in part, without inherently violating any laws related to the original work, depending on how much has changed/how obvious it is, and depending on each individual judge's subjective opinion.
The sensible options were that either LLM outputs are derivative of all their training data, or they're new works produced by the machine, which is not a human, and therefore not copyrightable.
Courts have decided they're new works which are not copyrightable.
YC companies have pretty much always been overhyped trivial bullshit. I'm not surprised it's even worse nowadays, but it's never been more than a dog and pony show for bullshit.
There’s plenty of developer talent. You don’t see microsoft office competitors because it’s a bad business to start. “Remake microsoft office suite, but cheaper” won’t work. I’m sure dozens of people have tried.
Zoho is another player in that "alternative to Micro$oft for office/corporate needs" market. Its products are nice and affordable, and especially suitable for SOHO customers.
> number of humans that are literate enough in business, marketing, communications, and software development to pull this off
There aren’t the same thing.
> “Remake microsoft office suite, but cheaper” won’t work
Probably not. But adapt open-source software for New Zealand’s government can. It just takes a rare combination of technical skill, executive function, leadership ability and emotional self-control to pull off.
>Probably not. But adapt open-source software for New Zealand’s government can. It just takes a rare combination of technical skill, executive function, leadership ability and emotional self-control to pull off.
It would be a huge undertaking. You have to use tens of different software packages who weren't designed to work with each other, unlike MS offering. Can you make it work? Yes. But does it make business sense to try it?
> Can you make it work? Yes. But does it make business sense to try it?
Maybe, if you can rally public resources behind you. Probably not given the value you can command in the private sector.
That’s the point. These people are expensive. Because they’re rare. There is a talent deficit at the top of tech, and if I had to describe it broadly, it’s in folks who can (a) write a letter to an elected representative that doesn’t get thrown in the nutter pile and (b) raise money.
> number of humans that are literate enough in business, marketing, communications, and software development to pull this off
> There aren’t the same thing.
That's exactly what I'm saying! Heck, I just talked to a senior dev from AWS a week ago that was a massive technical expert, but obviously couldn't code their way to an actual product on their own. Which is fine, and hence my original comment on the current rarity of those skillsets.
> “Remake microsoft office suite, but cheaper” won’t work
Ehhhhhhh hard to say really. The one-time payment versions of Office still exist, work totally fine, and have excellent add-on extension support. You could move the economics around a bit between consumers and extension developers, but that would probably be it.
If doing it from scratch, if jumping off from an already established product - could work, along with name recognition.
If there was one that i would put that could go head to head and possibly pull it off would be Corel[1], their suite is pretty comprehensive along with their collaborative suite.
Althogh from their businesss model seems they are content to maintain a narrow market and possible still remember getting burned by MS in the early days.
There's a bunch of competitors to MS Office already: Libre/OpenOffice, Google Docs, Collabora, etc. Some of these are totally free to use, some open-source too. Have people switched en masse to them? Nope.
Personally, I think MS needs to massively increase their prices here: they're leaving a lot of money on the table. Companies, especially, (and governments) just aren't going to switch, no matter what. So why not increase the prices ten-fold?
You are looking from the perspective of a user of the software - sure, these have enough feature parity to "compete".
But that's the butt end of the equation. The real issue is enterprise administration. A user never thinks about this problem, because they do not ever encounter it as a problem in their private lives.
How does permission work? How does a new hire get an account? How does account/permission revoking work? How does audit work? And that's just the surface.
Needs for large enterprises, where you cannot just have John from HR make a new account for the new hire, are often not met by the opensource world.
And decided that it was cheaper and easier to just outsource it to Microsoft. Because doing it in today's environment - different work computers, backend servers, mobile devices, etc - is much more complicated than just managing permissions on a mainframe.
Distributed databases are a solved problem (besides maybe performance). Offloading account management to arbitrary databases too. Why everyone is using Microsoft is, because then they have someone to blame, instead of needing to point at themselves.
And setting up things like rsync to replace dropbox is also "fairly quick"!
The point isn't that but the fact that like a normal user, a normal business don't want to have to tinker with low level components to get the functionality they want. They desire to pay and get a working piece of infrastructure with low hassle (tho i get saying active directory being low hassle is weird).
But a normal user isn't going to setup AD either. This will be done by sysadmins anyway, so stuff like being able to put the configuration into version control is actually useful for them. The "normal business" has lots of employee databases anyways and integration is actually a feature instead of needing to sync it with bespoke Microsoft internals.
So you can hook up all those internal employee databases to your new created libpam-mysql and hook it up all to slack or just use what Microsoft sells you.
I do not need to create it, it already exists. Yes, you can write your own pam module, but in general you do not need to.
> just use what Microsoft sells you.
Which means now your employees need to manually sync the MS and your internal databases. Depends on how much your employees time is worth for you. I mean a lot of companies do exactly that, but it is certainly not the cheaper option.
Also using what MS sells is also illegal. Not that anyone cares, as whole Europe ignores that, but when you meet a civil servant on the wrong foot, your company is toast.
Active Directory is a very no-code tool and has a ton of documentation and certifications online, no college degree required. And it's built by paid devs with a verifiable software supply chain.
I just looked up libpam-mysql and it is not no-code at all. And it looks like an unpaid community project which allows contributions from anywhere. That's not a true replacement.
It is so simple, that the whole documentation fits in the README. All you need to do is to tell it the table and column names of your existing database and of you go. If you have something more complicated you can also put arbitrary SQL statements in there.
So my configuration is this (I only redacted the company name, the remaining is copied verbatim):
users.host = /run/mysqld/mysqld.sock
users.database = Company
users.db_user = mail
users.db_passwd = $(secret-tool lookup user mail@mysql)
users.table = User
users.user_column = username
users.password_column = password
users.password_crypt = Y
> and it is not no-code at all
Then tell me how I put your "no-code tool" into the VCS?
> no college degree required
Yeah, which nearly everyone has, but now you need to run through tons of certification programs instead. Which cost a lot of money, so you have the "Certified Rockstar Active Directory Consultant Adviser (TM)"
> it looks like an unpaid community project
> built by paid devs with a verifiable software supply chain.
Which is how most FOSS OS work, which have way more of a verifiable supply chain than your proprietary closed-source OS from Microsoft.
> it is not no-code at all. no college degree required.
Which totally matters, because you want random Joe who hasn't even finished college to be able to mess around with the company authentication setup.
As chiii already pointed out, you are looking at the wrong end of the spectrum.
Decision in Enterprise organizations are not done by the end user and non of your options, not even Google Docs, offers the equality of features.
M365 is far more than just Word, Excel, Outlook, Teams (apart from some apps depending on the M365 tier you are in like Access, Project, Visio etc.), you buy a whole workspace. Users can seamlessly share and work together on documents, not only in their organization but also with others. It's easy to process information from one app to the other etc.
Yes, Google Docs might be the closest thing when it comes to features (but no match), however, looking at local restrictions and laws, Microsoft is one of the few companies that can host you M365 solution in an environment that, for example, matches european laws.
And that is the big problem, there are no alternatives for companies that are already on M365 and using the features of it.
"Seamless" may be irrationally exuberant but it's better than the others _at scale_.
LibreOffice, etc. may see similar from the UI end but if you're scaling across multiple sites/archetypes/employee models/regulatory environments, -and- want access to a wide and deep pool of administrative labor, M365 is seamless by comparison.
HN is such a meme at this point for all the bad reasons. It's why I'd bail on this site again if other social media wasn't worse.
"Hacker News commenters are frequently unaware that their use cases and customer preferences do not reflect the average customer demand in the market."
Office 365 these days is SSO (Include Enterprise cloud apps in the bargain),Cloud Documents, Email, Teams(Telephony and Chat) . Word, Excel and Outlook, what outsiders think of as "office" client side apps, are just a gimme. Heck thats just in brief, most of my customers are in deeper than that. Throw in Cloud Compute, and VDI as experiences that are just that much easier using Azure and 365 than other providers.
Not to mention, the data guarantees around Copilot are super enterprise compatible. Its not that companies want copilot, its that they know if they don't provide a solution, users will desire path into something with dodgy data security. So they provide "The Best" in the IBM sense of protecting the business and their jobs, which is Copilot.
It takes a bit of doing but your end state is, user logs into PC, signs in SSO, they get all their apps (remote and local), their emails, their documents, their collab and neither they or you need to think about it.
Oh and to continue, theres the whole Purview suite which is purpose built to integrate into large business data security incidents. I know of MSPs who wont be seen without Exchanges litigation hold / related tools because they have been saved from prosecution. Defender has not just grown more tentacles its like 3 different complete octopi at this point. Defender for Endpoint is particularly difficult to get away from because it does so damn much in the way of logging and monitoring for very little standup cost.
If you sat down most large orgs and created a list of what they may need to replace if they were getting rid of Office365 + supporting/supported features you would probably find its a lot more work. They are everywhere. Theres a turnkey(ish) microsoft solution that grows out the side of 365s head for every big business problem.
This was the key point I tried to make at the start of this thread: "It's not just using a different version of Excel and Word - that's the least of the issues."
Libre office can mostly replace Word, Excel, PowerPoint. But Office 365 or M365 (or whatever the brand name is today) is a huge suite of cloud collaboration and administration tools, including personal and corporate-level cloud storage, app delivery, integration with enterprise accounts and other corporate tools, email, and many other more niche/obscure things. At this point, Microsoft could probably discontinue Word, Excel, and PowerPoint and still not lose many M365 customers.
> At this point, Microsoft could probably discontinue Word, Excel, and PowerPoint and still not lose many M365 customers.
Yeah, just as we forgot about the "paperless office" metric we seemingly forgot about MS Office file formats. "But can I open that file someone sends me?" hasn't been the central driver in quite a while.
But I guess it's a bit of a moat nonetheless: IT departments just not considering any other cloud solution that would (in addition to the pains of the cloud migration) also require weening employees off Excel/Word/Powerpoint. People don't even ask themselves wether that would (still) be hard or not, it feels like a safe assumption that it will.
The office you are talking about is not what it used to be a few decades ago. I am not into this world but what I know of it is like you are comparing a tool to the whole workshop. No, the tool does not replace the workshop, the tool is a very small part of the workshop.
There are alternatives but when you have bought into the full ecosystem of MS, it will take a lot of work to move.
(Full disclosure: I work with both Linux and Windows at a small company where Office means what you mean with office. They are all using libreoffice but call it office)
I can believe you not hearing about Sharepoint. But not hearing about Onedrive is basically impossible if you have used a Windows machine in the last decade.
Yeah, one may not use it but it's hard to ignore when Office apps suggest you save the document to the cloud as a default. I do avoid it and don't really need any collaboration but I understand that I'm minority. On my home workstation (which is mainly used for video editing) I have only local account so I don't get sucked into more MS services. But at this point you have to actively try to get around the default setup with online account and cloud apps, so it's indeed hard to ignore.
I have never used windows machines for anything but gaming, but I get your point readily. If I had used the windows finder I would have encountered onedrive.
It’s akin to being in the AWS ecosystem and having to switch to Oracle. It’s less so MS Office but rather the SAAS and enterprise security stuff in 365
> Personally, I think MS needs to massively increase their prices here: they're leaving a lot of money on the table. Companies, especially, (and governments) just aren't going to switch, no matter what. So why not increase the prices ten-fold?
Starting with the ads. Windows 11 was launched for precisely this purpose.
Because what better way to milk daily revenue from existing millions of Windows PCs than to show desktop-level ads.
The actual product price increases are an added boost to the M$ coffers.
Microsoft thinks that most students/home users will not run away instead to Linux and OpenOffice/LibreOffice, and maybe it's right, since they had decades to do so.
They are right, but they're too slow in realizing this. I of course switched to Linux decades ago, but for ages now, I've constantly heard people swearing "this is the last straw Microsoft! I'm going to switch to Linux!" because of some transgression and then they never do.
A few people might convert, but tightening the screws on the rest of them will by far more than make up for the ones they lose. MS needs to make the most of this and raise prices enormously, 10-100 times what they are now. Even if 5% of users defect, a 10x price increase will still mean a 9.5x increase in profits.
And they might as well bake some more ads and other malware into Windows and Office too, while they're at it, to increase profits even more. They're missing out on a lot of profit by not putting more ads into their corporate products especially. Sure, people will complain, but so what? The users don't make the purchasing decisions at companies anyway, so who cares about pissing them off?
Oracle did the same cheap dirty trick for profits, when it is bundled adware/spyware (Ask toolbar) by default on its JRE (Java Runtime Installer) used on millions of corporate and student/home PCs, because it knew Java/JRE would already be whitelisted on those machines (Java gets updates, so IT admins tend to whitelist its EXEcutable and its installer (JRE installer), since it is necessary for corporate work (many legacy software depend on Java)).
Suddenly, many IT admins were in a tough spot explaining to many internal customers (including senior management; even CxO's have Java on their office laptops) why their PCs were suddenly flooded with popup ads and even ads on intranet sites (because Ask toolbar integrated into the browser)).
Google used to have a motto/policy of "Do Not Evil", but it silently dropped that approach. It had to do so, because its biggest rivals had already adopted and profited from the evil attitudes, so it too simply followed the evil tide.
The world has always been ruled by the oligarchs (the richest and most powerful people), but in modern era, it is the biggest corporates (especially trillion dollar valuation companies) that call the shots. And they continue do as they please, bending even powerful nations to their will.
hah, my comment appears much more naive than I thought possible.
WPS apparently has 80% market share in Chinese government and state owned enterprise. They used MS from 2000-2005, In 2006 they released Uniform Office Format (UOF) which MS doesn't support(!?) UOF works better with Chinese fonts. 2012 Kingsoft offered Enterprise WPS and became the standard.
Yeah, but they're already gone, and you can only milk them for so much. Businesses and governments are a totally different matter: they're not going to switch to the alternatives no matter what, so MS could make a lot more profit by jacking up their prices massively. $10,000 per user per year is totally doable I think.
Don't underestimate the rage from citizens who receive important documents and sheets in formats they can't open. Or you can open them but with a warning that some functionality might be lost. (reads like: you might go to prison)
I can't think of any official documents I'd be getting in Office file formats. Forms are mostly web ones or in some cases PDF, read-only documents are PDF. Maybe you can submit some documents or attachments in the Word format as a citizen but I wouldn't be surprised if PDF is already required anyway, or an image format for scans.
I'd be more worried about document interoperability between government agencies and other organizations such as companies that do work for the government. The government could of course mandate contractors to use an open source office suite which would extend the need for training to those companies.
Also, I've seen some orgs make heavy use of Office formats in terms of e.g. surprisingly elaborate formatting, document history and comments, and although I haven't tried to use those in LibreOffice, I wouldn't be sure it supports all of those in the same extent some people have learned to use them in Office.
My gov is moving 100% of documents, forms, official stuff to web based without browser plugins. Of course unfortunately if you want to download/print (...) it will be pdf, but outside that, all filling in, editing, reading etc of all citizen facing materials must be possible with a modern web browser. If PDF is only the export for the final doc, I am ok with it; I can fill ut with whatever browser on whatever device. This should be the mandatory basics imho.
Things can be done in such ways that there is nothing visibly incompatible (ie scripting behind some forms), you can always just print and fill the document if needed, and anyway most documents are static pdfs with optional plus for filling some fields in computer.
For us it isn't a very big deal. We will dig out the data points with our bare hands if we have to. (in ways that would make a data analyst scream) For normal users the experience is more like ransomware.
I really hope that happens but I see those announcement as negotiating tactics. Switching will cost a lot (in training, unavoidable delays and mistakes etc.) and both parties will have incentives to go back to good old days.
I hope I am wrong on this. I hate that public infrastructure and bureaucracy runs on Microsoft.
In your heart you either believe something or you don’t. I am happy to live in a world where so many people follow the courage of their convictions, even if they sound insane or uncomfortable.
Yeah yeah there is this guy with a weird moustache with some crazy ideas that we are being held down by these other group of people. We should definitely follow him. He sounds crazy but he seems so convincing. And look at the cool insignia and symbols! Did you know this salute was back from the Romans? - You circa 1920.
Do you think consumer brands lose money when they pay Google to do advertising? Do you think digital ads have a negative ROI for the brands that buy them? If so, why do they keep buying more? Wouldn’t they lose to more efficient companies?
I think you underestimate how valuable being the top slot on google is. Just the other day i googled “bluetooth speaker” and bought the first result (an ad). One hour of that can net you millions of dollars. That’s why consumer brands bid more and more every year on digital advertising.
> Do you think consumer brands lose money when they pay Google to do advertising?
For many brands, yes, and they don't know it.
> I think you underestimate how valuable being the top slot on google is.
The more you advertise, the less valuable each ad space becomes. Consumers have a lot of money they have to dole out. Giving them more ads won't increase that pot of money - it will make your cut smaller and smaller as it's split across more brands.
Which brands lose money on ads? Why are they still in business?
> consumers have a lot of money that they dole out. More ads wont increase the cut of money
Consumer spending is not a fixed pie chart or a zero sum game. US consumer spending has grown from $14 to $19 trillion since 2020. $5 trillion in new pie!!
Your model of ads is: “I, a consumer, have decided to buy a bluetooth speaker, and the ads push and pull me towards particular brands”. But that’s not how ads work! Ads don’t just compete for fixed spending, they induce NEW spending. An ad can give a customer the idea of buying, and grow the market.
> US consumer spending has grown from $14 to $19 trillion since 2020. $5 trillion in new pie!!
All that's telling you is the economy is not doing nearly as well as some of our metrics would have you believe.
Real wages are about the same as before, probably lower. Consumers are buying the same amount of stuff - no value has been created. Rather, the dollar has been devalued, much more than we're willing to let on.
There's real value, like actual physical goods, service and labor, and fake value. Fake value tries to proxy real value, but historically it's often way off.
Money is fake value. Stocks are even more fake value. It doesn't matter if your stock price is through the roof if you're not selling a product people want, for example. The product is the value, the stock price is people trying to approximate the value and future value.
Look it's fine to have contrarian opinions that left is right, everything is backwards, whatever. But when it comes to business and money, these things are quantitative and falsifiable. If you have a better understanding than the idiots in charge, then go be rich! If you have a better model for real value, you'll outcompete them. Until you do that, you are playing word games, ones which have somehow deluded you into believing that the most profitable company on earth is not valuable.
It's not even contrarian, it's just true. Money has always been a proxy for real value, which we created because real value can be hard to measure.
> If you have a better understanding than the idiots in charge, then go be rich!
Doesn't work this way because most markets are dumb as rocks.
> If you have a better model for real value, you'll outcompete them.
Doesn't work this way because most markets are dumb as rocks.
Look, after a certain point you have to detach from what you're being told and look at the world around you.
Prime example: tobacco. For humanity, Tabacoo has a negative value. You should be getting paid to smoke. Why? Because it kills you, and that's very expensive.
But that's hard to measure, right? So we just sell the cigarettes and say their value is what they're sold for. But that's not their actual value.
Their actual value, in the real world, in your hands and in your lungs, is negative. That's not an opinion. That's objective. That's just what it is.
When you look around our markets, almost all products are like this to some degree. The value we're creating is not necessarily real value.
Ads are another prime example. Do they enrich the world? Do they help consumers? No. They have zero real value. They just move money around via manipulation. That's not my opinion. That's just the objective reality.
Eventually, the real world catches up to la la land. You can't just say "well do ads and you make money". When there's no more money to move around, then even our fake value estimates of ads approach zero.
Yes you get it. Obviously “writing code” will die. It will hold on in legacy systems that need bespoke maintenance, like COBOL systems have today. There will be artisanal coders, like there are artisanal blacksmiths, who do it the old fashioned way, and we will smile and encourage them. Within 20 years, writing code syntax will be like writing assembly: something they make you do in school, something that your dad reminds you about the good old days.
I talked to someone who was in denial about this, until he said he had conflated writing code with solving problems. Solving problems isn’t going anywhere! Solving problems: you observe a problem, write out a solution, implement that solution, measure the problem again, consider your metrics, then iterate.
“Implement it” can mean writing code, like the past 40 years, but it hasn’t always been. Before coding, it was economics and physics majors, who studied and implemented scientific management. For the next 20 years, it will be “describe the tool to Claude code and use the result”.
But Claude cannot code at all, it's gonna shit the bed and it learns only on human coders to be able to even know an example is a solution rather than a malware...
Every greenfield project uses claude code to write 90+% of code. Every YC startup for the past six months says AI writes 90+% of their code. Claude code writes 90+% of my code. That’s today.
It works great. I have a faster iteration cycle. For existing large codebases, AI modifications will continue to be okay-ish. But new companies with a faster iteration cycle will outcompete olds ones, and so in the long run most codebases will use the same “in-distribution” tech stacks and architecture and design principles that AI is good at.
