> What is alarming, however, is the degree of autonomy and depth of exploration the AI displayed.
Claude Code made a change on March 26th to skip asking for most permissions. See this quote "Claude Code users approve 93% of permission prompts. We built classifiers to automate these decisions":
It's helpful to rewrite software every 2 years as your team turns over. The code you understand best is code you wrote yourself, and no one likes maintaining other people's legacy code.
This is the risk of being a consumer in the AI world - companies are running extremely lean on real humans and are deferring support to AI chatbots with no real reasoning abilities...
Also an issue with scale - for example, Google having similar issues of not handling small, isolated cases.
See the other commenter/thread that recommended I do this. I'm worried that by doing a chargeback, I will be blacklisted from using Anthropic's services, which I feel like is a reasonable assumption.
If the product is really so good that you're willing to let the vendor abuse and defraud you then just treat it as a cost of doing business and move on. Personally I wouldn't tolerate that, but I guess it's a matter of priorities.
Until they do start doing identity verification, I think you're good. Frankly, don't be a coward. If you're getting treated like this, why would you even want to use their services in the future?
That will get their attention - to blacklist you from ever doing business again with them. People saying this is a nuclear option are telling this because they know what a charge back means for a business owner. So treat it like that.
As someone involved in hiring, there are a few factors going on:
1. There's no available headcount. No one is leaving since there are no opportunities elsewhere. Especially those on visas.
2. When we do have headcount, we get 1000 resumes within an hour or two. We also have a stack of referrals to get through first. A lot of these resumes are experienced folks with backgrounds in FAANG.
3. Supply remains high (100k CS undergrads every year including global supply) whereas innovation is low.
As someone who has recently hired within a FAANG, another problem is internal transfers and downsizing. The external hire process for a big company takes minimum 6 weeks. Within 24 hours of posting a job opening, I've got 20 internal transfers interested, all highly qualified, all familiar with our internal systems and processes, and all desperate to avoid being actually laid off from their team that is disappearing. My last two positions went to a returning ex-employee (who don't have to re-interview if they come back within 2 years) and to a transfer. I wanted to hire externally because I know there are good candidates out there, but it's impossible to justify waiting 6 weeks for the pipeline to close when you know that good internal candidates will get laid off if you don't take them, and the headcount likely will disappear anyway if it's not filled.
depends whatchu did at said FAANG and who is doing the hiring. but generally agree.
places like the GOOG are so far out there in terms of tooling and approaches (and size, and bureaucracy, etc.) that you end up with a hire who is damn good at whatever unique internal tooling and job sets are, but can't handle anything else.
they'll expect 250k at minimum, get surly when they don't get it, constantly look to jump or climb, and won't jive with the culture, esp. once that's still using a lot of the more basic approaches that are more common in larger, non-STEM enterprise orgs.
inevitably these guys jump in 1.5 years or less, and achieve nothing of note in that time, except harping on how great tool X is at Meta, or how we did Y at the GOOG and everyone else should. or some sort of PTSD from working at Amazon.
after a couple rounds of getting burned by people with amazing resumes we are now weary of the FAANG pedigree.
I’m curious how you got the impression that Ed Yong “covers all viewpoints.” Going through the list of stories he wrote for Atlantic [1] seems to tell a different story, particularly in regards to his covering of the COVID pandemic. I’m not necessarily disagreeing with what he wrote, but to claim he “covers all viewpoints” seems disingenuous.
What are some viewpoints that you think he should have covered in order to justify the “covers all viewpoints” claim? Could you elaborate on why they would be important to cover?
That sounds like a list topics that he hasn’t covered, or that he hasn’t provided updates on, rather viewpoints on a topic that he hasn’t covered. Unless he’s recently written on those topics and I’m missing some context.
I'm not especially a fan of Yong's COVID reporting (Zeynep Tufekci was my most reliable source), but this isn't a good criticism. COVID's origins are of less importance to The Atlantic's readership than the other COVID topics he wrote about, and the science is much less settled than the typical topic Yong writes about.
Even your own (non-medical) source doesn't go this far with its claim, concluding There is really no specific way to determine the exact number of nurses who left the profession due to the COVID-19 vaccine mandate.
A fair point - I'm not sure disingenuous, and, I have a sense of what the parent commenter means in informal language about "covers all viewpoints", but, really, doing so in any stricter sense is almost certainly impossible, even for far simpler stories / events than those he has tended to cover.
