
CTO @MusicGlue · ecommerce&payments for the music industry · GCP Architect & Security Engineer · AIGP & CIPP/E (@the_iapp) · CCAR-P (@AnthropicAI)
Warsaw, Poland
Joined April 2009
- Tweets595
- Following486
- Followers264
- Likes530
Piotr Szmielew retweeted
Mi momento favorito de la cumbre de la ONU: el presidente de Haití bebiendo directamente de la jarra. 🤣😭
I am done with this shit. It is over. The state of engineering right now is horrible. It has been half a month since I started a new role at a big company. Nobody knows anything here. The specs, code, tests, PRDs, tickets, resolution of those tickets, reports, etc., everything is made by Claude Code. Nobody on my team likes this. They are being forced to ship as much as they can. I have heard multiple times from higher management that pushing code is not a bottleneck, so why are we slow? People are working 12 to 13 hours a day just to press enter. Nobody is reading anything. Humans in corporate are doing nothing on their own. Everyone, literally everyone, from an L1 to an L7 engineer here is doing the same thing. Talk to Claude. There is no sense of victory. Nobody is resolving bugs. In reality, nobody is thinking anymore. Everything is done by LLMs. It is so soul-sucking. I would not mind it, to be honest, if we were at least given the time to check out the code and see what is going where. But no, the goal is to just ship. No matter what happens.
Piotr Szmielew retweeted
Dario has written that we need to “pace the frontier,” and Sam has agreed. People may be surprised by my response: go ahead.
You guys are the frontier. By any reasonable metric — market share, revenue growth, model capability — the two of you have a duopoly on frontier intelligence. You’ve also claimed the lead is widening because of recursive self-improvement.
I don’t see what you see in the lab. If the unreleased models are scary enough that you think you should slow down, I support your decision to be responsible.
But stop pretending you need anyone else’s permission. Stop pretending antitrust law has to be suspended so you can form a cartel. Stop pretending you need a regulatory approval process that supersedes product liability. Stop pretending METR is independent when it is intertwined with Anthropic’s investors and staff. Stop pretending you need those same evaluators to police competitors who aren’t even at the frontier.
Most of all, stop pretending the motivation to slow down is purely altruistic. You face massive product-liability exposure if your products enable a truly damaging cyberattack. The market already punishes models that behave in unpredictable or unauthorized ways. After the Hugging Face episode, it is simply good business for OpenAI and Anthropic to trade some raw power for reliability and predictability. Call it alignment if you want. It is also just giving customers what they want.
Pacing the frontier would also create breathing room for a more intelligent conversation about regulation than Bernie Sanders’ “shut it all down.” China is very unlikely to join a global agreement, as you know, and that has to be taken into account as well.
So go ahead and pace the frontier. You are the ones setting it. The easiest way not to build superintelligence is for you to agree not to build it. Demanding your preferred regulatory framework as the price of that will look like blackmail of the public and the political system. So just do it.
If you do, you’ll buy goodwill for the next conversation. If you don’t, we’ll know this was just another bid for regulatory capture — or an election-season psyop.
Piotr Szmielew retweeted
An alternative hypothesis:
- model performance is plateauing
- compute is getting much more expensive
- AI data centers are massively unpopular
- slowing down AI development is a way to explain slowing progress, reduce spending, and try to regain some goodwill.
- This is an effort to save the IPO not humanity.
We Must Pace the Frontier: I’ve written a new essay on why the AI industry should slow down, with a three-part plan for doing so.
Anthropic is unilaterally committing to the first of these steps. We’ll provide third-party evaluators with permanent, employee-level access to our systems, so that they can verify adherence to our safety measures, report on incidents, and assess models’ alignment during training.
You can read the full post here: darioamodei.com/post/we-must…
Piotr Szmielew retweeted
recommended reading.
dontpastetheai.com/
I’ve created a plugin from my multi-model workflow:
github.com/esse/shipyard
Steps:
1. Plan - Fable writes the spec, split into small tasks, marking which are independent.
2. Plan review - Sol attacks the plan on paper.
3. Implement - one Luna Max agent per task, all dispatched at once, each in its own git worktree so parallel file edits can't collide. Each commits in its worktree.
4. Task review - Opus reviews each finished task against the plan step that spawned it. Fixes goes back to Luna in the same worktree
5. Branch review - Claude and Sol both review the integrated diff, in parallel.
Luna Max is a good and cheap model. I'd even say its price/quality ratio is on the high end of the scale.
Hence I thought of a way to introduce it to my regular Claude Code workflow when using the superpowers plugin.
It currently looks like this:
1. Fable plans
2. Sol does the adversarial review of the plan
3. Luna Max subagents do the implementation tasks in parallel in the worktrees
4. Opus reviews each task adversarially
5. Then Fable and Sol do the final review of the whole implementation
I previously used Sonnet instead of Luna, but this should truly make a difference, especially given that another layer of Sol reviewing will probably increase the quality further.
Combining the best of both worlds @thsottiaux + @bcherny = ❤️







