fidzu : python

---

News

PyCharm & Django Fall Fundraiser

Buy or renew an annual PyCharm Professional license through the campaign link and you get 30% off while JetBrains donates a matching amount to the DSF, which is working to close the gap between the roughly $300,000 it raises each year and the $500,000 that would make a full-time Executive Director sustainable. The campaign runs through September 10, 2026, so buy or renew before then. A renewal adds 12 months to your existing subscription.

---

Django Software Foundation

DEP 0020: Annual Release Cycle

Django moves to one feature release each January under YYYY.N calendar versioning, starting with 2028.0 in place of what would have been 7.0. Every release now gets a year of mainstream support and two years of security fixes, which retires the LTS label.

The Block and Tackle of Django's Code of Conduct Working Group

The machinery behind Django's move to Contributor Covenant 3.0: a 30-day public comment period enforced by a GitHub workflow, CODEOWNERS gating changes to the CoC text, and an automated decision changelog. The working group is releasing its case-tracking templates under CC BY 3.0 for other projects to adopt.

---

Python Software Foundation

RISC-V is now officially supported by CPython!

CPython now supports RISC-V at tier 3, the entry level for new platforms, which means the open instruction set architecture gets ongoing testing on real hardware through buildbots donated by the RISE Project. Stan Ulbrych led the work with Ludovic Henry, Furkan Onder, and Emma Smith, backed by a Sovereign Tech Agency fellowship.

---

Wagtail CMS News

Wagtail 8.0

A read-and-write v3 REST API, custom base page models, a global permission policy registry, and formalized Django 6.1 support. Two smaller wins: StreamField block IDs are now available as template context variables, and AVIF and WebP images are no longer converted to PNG by default.

Wagtail security releases: 7.0.9, 7.3.4, and 7.4.3

7.0.9, 7.3.4, and 7.4.3 carry the same five fixes as 8.0: permission handling in the Pages, Documents, Images, and translation APIs, document identification by SHA1, and snippet copying. Upgrade to the patch release matching your version.

Streamlining content ops with LLMs: Wagtail user guide

Google Summer of Code contributor Raghad Dahi rebuilt the user guide site, retiring a versioning scheme that made editors duplicate the whole site per release in favor of blocks readers can filter by version. For translations, an evaluation suite scored LLM providers on cost and quality before settling on DeepSeek V4 Flash, now covering 52 languages plus right-to-left support.

CMS with AI, not AI CMS: Wagtail 8.0's new API

The thinking behind that API: rather than bolting AI buttons onto the admin, Wagtail exposes 50+ admin operations with OpenAPI docs and Markdown rich text, drivable from curl, a script, or an MCP implementation. Worked examples include fixing SEO descriptions with an LLM and a generic content importer in about 100 lines.

---

Django Fellow Reports

Django Fellow Report - Jacob

Jacob Tyler Walls filed an early report before heading to DjangoCon US, with his usual prolificacy triaging three tickets, reviewing nine, and authoring seven. In addition, engaged with regular security reports and provided 1-1 mentoring to his GSoC mentee, Pravin.

Editors Note

All 3 Fellows are at DjangoCon US this week, so no formal report from Sarah or Natalia. All 3 also gave excellent talks that we will link to when the videos are available later this year.

---

Articles

Fuzzy String Matching in Django and PostgreSQL

Four ways to match misspelled and variant names, with the trade-offs spelled out. It expands on the author's DjangoCon US 2026 talk on search-as-you-type across 54 million names.

Modern Django Deployments in 2026: My DjangoCon US 2026 Conference Talk

The slides and notes from Will Vincent's recent talk on deployments.

Nifty Django Feature: Third-Party Packages

A helpful overview of Django's third-party package ecosystem, where to look, and how to apply it in your Django projects.

When Python is Too Slow

An opinionated guide on where to turn when Python feels too slow in your application (the answer isn't always switch to Rust).

The Move to Python 3 Begins!

CCP is moving EVE Online's 2.4 million lines of Python off Stackless Python 2.7, in place since 2010, with the first changes deployed on August 25. Stage one leans on automated tools to make the code compile under both versions: 95.9% of roughly 20,000 files already do, leaving about 3,300 blocking lines (1,500 print statements, 800 long literals like 123L, 600 old-style except clauses) and another 20,000 lines that compile but behave differently and need a human to look at each one.

Core Dispatch #10

A roundup of CPython development from August 5 to 27: Python 3.12.14, 3.11.16, and 3.10.21 shipped on the 12th, 3.15.0 release candidate 2 is due September 1, and six PEPs moved, including PEP 805 on safe parallel execution and PEP 833 reaching Final for the simple repository API. Most of the discussion energy went to the competing module export proposals in PEPs 842, 843, and 844.

---

Events

DjangoCon Europe 2027 in Austria!

Five days of Django, Python, and community in Innsbruck, Austria, February 17-21, 2027.

DjangoCon US 2027 in Riverside, California

Join us for five days of inspiration, education, and networking at the Riverside Convention Center in beautiful Riverside, California, September 13-17, 2027.

Call for Organizers: DjangoCon US 2027

That Riverside conference needs people to run it, and more than 15 committees are recruiting, from program and sponsorship to Code of Conduct, A/V, website, and sprints. Leadership roles carry the heaviest load, with weekly check-ins and monthly board reports, but most positions do not require previous organizing experience: email hello@djangocon.us to volunteer.

---

Django Forum

Public thanks to our 3 Fellows

A short forum thread appreciating Django's Fellows.

---

Podcasts

Django Chat #205: Django Developers Survey 2026

A special summer episode on the just-released 2026 Django Developers Survey, working through what it says about Django 6.1, HTMX, async, AI, deployment, testing, and Python tooling.

---

Django Job Board

Two foundation roles anchor the board this week, with the DSF hiring its first Executive Director and the PSF looking for a Security Developer, alongside two full stack engineering openings.

Full Stack Software Engineer (Hybrid) at Provision

Executive Director at Django Software Foundation

AI-Assisted Software Engineer, Web Applications at Logical Media Group

Security Developer at Python Software Foundation

---

Projects

15r10nk/matchify

Converts eligible if/elif/else chains into Python 3.10+ match statements, preserving runtime behavior and source formatting, including isinstance checks that become class patterns with attributes.

matiasb/django-tasks-fennel

A Django Tasks backend which uses Celery as its underlying queue. Mentioned as part of the author's talk at DjangoCon US this week: Teach Django Tasks to speak Celery: Building a Celery backend for Django Tasks.

28 Aug 2026 3:00pm GMT

The results from the 2026 Django Developers Survey are now available. This is the fifth annual report conducted from May to July 2026 by the Django Software Foundation in collaboration with JetBrains PyCharm.

The full report includes infographics, quotes, and dedicated sections so you can easily navigate the results. There is also a The State of Django 2026: Boring is so back blog post highlighting key Django trends in 2026 and actionable ideas for your own Django development.

The Django Chat podcast also covers the survey in a special summer episode, from Django 6.1 and HTMX to async, AI, deployment, testing, and Python tooling.

28 Aug 2026 2:55pm GMT

Welcome to the highlights from the fifth annual Django Developers Survey, a collaboration between the Django Software Foundation and PyCharm. This year's report draws on responses from nearly 3,500 Django developers across more than 40 countries - from students in their first year to veterans with decades of experience.

In software, "boring" is a compliment. It means a technology works so reliably you can stop thinking about it. By that standard, Django in 2026 is thriving: PostgreSQL has been the database of choice for 76-79% of respondents for five consecutive years, Django's template engine has held steady at around 80%, and nearly half of developers upgrade with every stable release - 43% are already on Django 6.0, months after it shipped. The core is boring in the best possible way. Mature, but not static.

Everything around that core, though, is moving fast. AI is now an everyday tool for most developers, and agents are beginning to move beyond answering questions to editing files, running commands, and completing larger tasks. Newer tools are consolidating workflows that once required several separate utilities, typing is becoming standard practice, and the boundaries between editors, terminals, automation, and AI are getting blurrier.

That may be Django's particular advantage in 2026: it is mature enough to be dependable, active enough to keep moving, and stable enough to give developers room to change almost everything else.

As an open-source framework, Django depends on its community and needs funding to remain healthy and secure. The PyCharm team runs an annual fundraiser to support Django.

Until September 10, get PyCharm at 30% off, and JetBrains will donate 100% of your purchase amount to the Django Software Foundation.

1. AI is mainstream, but no workflow has won

AI has become part of the normal Django development workflow. Only 10% of respondents said they regularly use no AI tools for coding, while 58% of AI users use them every day and another 27% several times a week.

What remains unsettled is how developers use them. The interfaces are split almost evenly across the browser, the IDE, and the command line, and no tool dominates: Claude Code leads at 35%, with ChatGPT just behind at 33% and GitHub Copilot at 23%. And for all the attention on agents, a majority of AI users - 56% - still use it purely for chat and advice.

2. Dominating AI workflow is still supervised

Nearly half of AI users already work with AI through an IDE integration. But despite the growth of coding agents, the dominant workflow is still supervised: 59% have AI generate code and then apply the changes themselves, 44% let it edit files or run commands when instructed, and only 27% use it to autonomously complete multi-step tasks.

The emerging pattern is therefore less "replace the IDE with an agent" and more "bring the agent into the development environment." Developers are adopting AI quickly, but the editor remains their home base for understanding the codebase, reviewing changes, and deciding what makes it into the project.

Nowhere is the shift clearer than in how developers learn. Django's official documentation remains the top resource at 67%, but AI tools are now second at 51% - ahead of YouTube, reading source code, and Stack Overflow.

AI is already routine for writing code, debugging, research, and learning. But developers are still experimenting with where it belongs: in the browser, inside the IDE, at the terminal, or increasingly, acting directly on the codebase.

AI is changing the IDE faster than it is replacing it.

3. Python tooling is consolidating fast

Two tools that barely existed a few years ago are already near the top of the survey.

uv, released in February 2024, is already used by 43% of respondents for managing Python environments-second only to venv at 63% and ahead of Docker at 31%.

Ruff tells a similar story. At 43%, it is now the most widely used code-quality and formatting tool in the survey, ahead of IDE inspections at 27%, Black at 25%, pre-commit at 20%, and Flake8 at 17%.

The shift is not that Python's older tools have disappeared. It is that newer tools increasingly cover jobs that once required several separate utilities. The result is a Python toolchain beginning to consolidate around fewer, faster, more capable tools.

4. Type hints are winning. The type checker race is wide open.

Type hints are becoming the norm in Django development: 57% already use them, and another 26% plan to. What is much less settled is how developers check those types.

Among developers who use type hints, the most popular option isn't a standalone type checker at all: 40% rely on the checker built into their IDE. Mypy follows at 32%, Ruff at 29%, and Pyright/Pylance at 22%. Newer entrants are already appearing too, with Astral's ty reaching 12% and Meta's Pyrefly at 4%.

The practice, in other words, is converging faster than the tooling. Django developers increasingly agree that types are useful, but there is still no consensus on which tool should enforce them-or whether a separate tool is necessary at all.

That makes type checking an interesting space to watch in 2027: will one of the newer standalone tools break away from the pack, or will type checking increasingly become something developers simply expect their IDE to provide?

5. As AI writes more code, verification matters more

AI is moving beyond suggestions and into the codebase. That makes automated verification more important, not less.

The survey can't tell us whether AI is driving greater adoption of tests or CI. What it does show is that most Django developers already have the infrastructure agents need: pytest is used by 45% of respondents and unittest by 43%, with pytest-django at 34%.

That testing culture sits alongside widespread CI/CD adoption - GitHub Actions is now used by a majority of respondents at 51%, with GitLab CI/CD at another 26%. Together, these create a natural feedback loop for agentic development: an agent can make a change, run the test suite, respond to failures, and hand the developer a result that has already passed the project's checks.

Not everyone has that loop in place: 19% of respondents write no automated tests at all. As more code is delegated to agents, that fifth of developers is working without the safety net that makes delegation trustworthy.

The emerging agentic workflow may depend as much on verification as generation. The more code we delegate, the more valuable it becomes to have tests and pipelines that can quickly tell both developers and agents whether a change actually works.

Agents can generate code. Tests and pipelines tell them whether it works.

6. One framework, two ways to build

Two distinct ways of building with Django are now firmly mainstream: letting Django render the interface, or using it as the backend for a separate frontend. 72% of respondents use server-rendered templates, while 53% use Django for API-only applications and 46% use it as the backend for a single-page application or dedicated JavaScript frontend.

The balance is even clearer when developers are asked for their primary approach. Half primarily build server-rendered applications, while 44% primarily use Django for either APIs or dedicated JavaScript frontends.

The JavaScript numbers tell the sharper story. React has barely moved in five years - 37% in 2021, 38% today. What's changed is everything around it: jQuery has fallen from 37% to 23%, Vue from 28% to 17%, while htmx has climbed from just 5% to 34%. htmx isn't taking share from React - it's modernizing the server-rendered side of the divide that jQuery used to own.

That flexibility is one of Django's strengths. The same framework can sit at the center of a hypermedia application or behind an API consumed by React, mobile apps, or other clients.

Django remains unusually comfortable on both sides of the frontend divide.

Conclusion

Across the survey, the pattern is consistent: developers are changing their tools and workflows far faster than they are changing the framework underneath them. The parts of Django they value most remain familiar - models, the admin, authentication - and even deployment stays defiantly unfashionable, with 54% shipping monoliths and 44% self-hosting.

Even where Django itself is evolving, it does so deliberately: 33% of respondents use its async features and another 40% plan to - change offered as an opt-in, not a rewrite.

That stability is increasingly valuable. Developers can experiment with a new agent, replace several tools with Ruff or uv, add htmx to a template, or adopt a new type checker without having to rethink the framework underneath their application.

Django's advantage in 2026 is not that it is the newest thing. It is that it gives developers a solid, dependable - yes, boring - place from which to try the newest things. Boring is so back.

PyCharm for Django Fundraiser

Get a new PyCharm Pro license or renew your existing one at 30% off, with 100% of your purchase amount going to the Django Software Foundation.

Explore the complete 2026 Django Developers Survey Results.

28 Aug 2026 2:17pm GMT

We are investigating a security incident affecting JetBrains Cadence. Cadence is a JetBrains-hosted service that integrates with PyCharm through an optional plugin, and lets you run your projects on cloud compute resources. Our investigation has confirmed unauthorized access to the service and the exposure of customer data associated with its use.

We have contacted affected users directly and have taken steps to contain the incident.

This post provides the latest information about the incident, its potential impact, and the actions we recommend Cadence users take. We will update it as our investigation progresses and additional information becomes available.

Last updated: August 28, 2026, 11:50 CEST

August 28, 2026, 11:50 CEST

Cadence is a JetBrains-hosted service integrated with PyCharm through an optional plugin, that lets you run your projects on cloud compute resources. Cadence uses JetBrains TeamCity to orchestrate this work. We recently disclosed CVE-2026-63077, a critical vulnerability in TeamCity that can allow an unauthenticated attacker to execute arbitrary commands on a vulnerable server.

We have since confirmed the Cadence environment was vulnerable to CVE-2026-63077 and was exploited through this vulnerability.

Cadence users should immediately revoke or rotate all credentials and secrets that may have been used to run their Cadence executions. They should also treat all executions, including their inputs and outputs in your Cadence project, as potentially untrusted.

Actions required immediately

We strongly recommend that Cadence users:

• Revoke and rotate all credentials and secrets that may have been used to run Cadence executions.
• Review connected systems for suspicious activity, particularly AWS accounts, S3 buckets, deployment environments, package/container registries, and other systems accessible using credentials mentioned above.
• Review source code repositories for unauthorized changes made during the affected period.
• Review any source code or project files synchronized to Cadence from PyCharm and rotate any credentials, tokens, or other sensitive information contained within them.
• Treat all executions, including their inputs and outputs in your Cadence project, as potentially untrusted.

Cadence users can contact us to request an inventory of the credentials and secrets associated with their Cadence usage. This may help users identify which credentials need to be revoked or rotated, but the inventory should not be considered exhaustive.

We have collated a list of Indicators of Compromise (IoCs) below. These indicators are not exhaustive, and the absence of these indicators does not confirm that an account or system was unaffected:

• Activity occurring from August 8, 2026, onwards, particularly authentication or activity using credentials previously stored in or accessible through Cadence.
• IP addresses associated with observed exploitation activity:
  • 150.109.230.104
  • 43.153.227.206
  • 62.210.127.48
  • 210.247.242.190
  • 15.235.225.205
  • 152.233.30.18
• Authentication or other activity from unexpected IP addresses or locations.
• Unexpected repository clones or downloads, and unexpected commits to repositories.
• Changes to repository secrets, webhooks, collaborators, or permissions.
• New or modified personal access tokens, API tokens, or SSH keys in external services.
• New service accounts created in external services.
• Unexpected changes to cloud IAM roles, policies, or permissions.
• Unexpected access to cloud storage, including S3 buckets and objects, in services such as AWS and Google Cloud.
• Unexpected publication or modification of packages or releases.

Affected server

We have confirmed that the following Cadence server was successfully exploited: api.cadence.jetbrains.com.

Affected period

August 8, 2026, to August 24, 2026.

What happened

The Cadence server used TeamCity to orchestrate workloads and was vulnerable to CVE-2026-63077. Threat actors exploited the vulnerability and gained unauthorized access to the affected Cadence environments, with activity identified from August 8, 2026. We discovered the exploitation on August 23, 2026, and took the affected server offline on August 24, 2026, while we continued our investigation.

What we know

Our investigation is ongoing, but we have confirmed that the threat actors:

• Accessed personal data and extracted it from the affected environment. Confirmed affected personal data includes usernames, real names, email addresses, last-login timestamps, and last accessed IP addresses.
• Compromised a full backup of the Cadence server dating from 2024. This means credentials, configuration, artifacts, logs, or other data present in that backup must also be treated as potentially exposed.
• Compromised multiple AWS IAM users and associated credentials/secrets used with Cadence, including IAM users belonging to JetBrains employees who used the service. These credentials were present in the compromised 2024 backup.
• Accessed files stored in S3 buckets within JetBrains AWS accounts used by Cadence. We are still determining the full scope of the data accessed. We do not currently know whether the threat actors accessed storage buckets in customer accounts. However, some users may have configured Cadence to access their own storage buckets, and the credentials used for those connections may have also been exposed.
• May have accessed source code synchronized from PyCharm projects to the affected server. If you used PyCharm to upload or synchronize project files for execution in Cadence, you should treat that code, and any credentials or configuration contained within it, as potentially compromised.

The likely consequences of the personal data exposure include an increased risk of targeted phishing, social engineering, impersonation, and other unsolicited or malicious communications using the affected names and email addresses.

As the threat actors gained access to the Cadence server, any credentials or secrets stored in Cadence, contained in the compromised backup, or made available to executions on the affected server should be considered compromised and must be revoked or rotated.

This includes but is not limited to:

• Cloud credentials, including AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud.
• Source control credentials and tokens, including GitHub, GitLab, and Bitbucket.
• Package repository credentials, including npm, Maven, NuGet, PyPI, and similar services.
• Container registry credentials, including Docker Hub, ECR, GCR, ACR, and other registries.
• Slack tokens, webhooks, API tokens, SSH/deployment keys, service account credentials, signing keys/certificates, and credentials for any other external systems used by your Cadence executions.

Actions JetBrains has taken

We took the Cadence server offline on August 24, 2026, while we continue to investigate the incident. At present, we have confirmed that the incident is limited to data associated with the Cadence host mentioned above.

The server should have been patched as part of our response to the vulnerability, but it was not. We sincerely apologize for this failure and the impact it may have on you.

We have invalidated all access tokens used by the JetBrains Cadence plugin in PyCharm to connect to Cadence, and took the server offline on August 24, 2026.

We are also notifying the relevant authorities and taking the necessary steps to protect the data of Cadence users.

Further updates

We will publish further findings and guidance here as our investigation progresses. We recommend checking this page frequently for the latest information. We will also contact affected users directly if we identify any important new information that may require action on their part.

For more information about the underlying vulnerability, please see our original security advisory to TeamCity customers and users.

If you previously used Cadence and need assistance identifying which credentials may have been exposed or have any questions regarding this incident, contact the JetBrains Security team at security@jetbrains.com.

We recognize the seriousness of this incident and apologize again for the impact.

28 Aug 2026 9:50am GMT

It's been another month of slow writing and not for want, but in between holidays and the same amount of work, the blog post just got squeezed out each week. Additionally the GSoC project that I have been mentoring took a slight turn into more of a research based thing rather than trying to push anything into Django right now.

However with the GSoC research itself and the recent features of tasks, the email updates, my own prodserver package, I'm beginning to solidify in my head what a modern Django feature looks like. One thing to clarify here is when I use the word feature, I'm referencing a concept that Django can represent, such as Databases, Tasks, Emails & Storage.

These features while different in what they achieve have a very similar architecture within Django, marked by some common characteristics:

• A common API for the rest of Django to use
• A single settings configuration, typically a dictionary
• Pluggable backends that do the actual implementation and specified in the above settings
• Minimal backend implementations inside Django (except Databases), with extra implementations provided as community packages

This architecture leans into Django being an API layer for various concepts that all tie together to become a website or web app. I'm taking this route with prodserver and this approach also taken by by mentee for GSoC when producing django-experimental and django-featurevault.

Django Experimental is a proof of concept around how an experimental features may be added to Django at some point. Django Feature Vault is a similar package specifically targeting an API for feature flags native to Django. Please do give them a read and a spin on a project if you like and raise issues. Both also have associated draft DEPs (Experimental, Feature Flags) available to review and comment.

I wonder if we can more formally codify this architecture (perhaps a copier package template?) to continue to smooth the on-ramp for those that want to contribute new features and ideas to Django and the community.

27 Aug 2026 5:00am GMT

A written guide to my talk on deploying Django and why 90% of it is the same.

26 Aug 2026 11:57am GMT

Starting with 0.3.0, Astral's uv brought many great features, including support for cross-platform lock files uv.lock. Together with subsequent fixes, it has become Python's finest workflow tool for my (non-scientific) use cases. Here's how I build production-ready containers, as fast as possible.

06 Aug 2026 12:00am GMT

As I have discussed in previous posts, "AIs" can make mistakes. In fact, they do make mistakes, and their mistake-making patterns are such that where and how they will make mistakes is both uncertain and constantly changing.

Thus, in any scenario where you want to attempt to make "productive" use of "AI", you must have a system in place for checking every result. Not checking some results; checking every result. If each result might have a consequence for you (and if it didn't have a consequence, why bother automating it?) and you cannot predict in advance which kinds of results will need verification, then verification is always required.

The verification often ends up being just as expensive as doing the work in the first place, which means that if you want your usage of "AI" to be personally profitable, you have to find someone else to externalize the cost of verification onto. This person becomes your adversary, and, if you are successful, your "AI's" victim.

The Ladder-Climber And Their Reverse-Centaur Rungs

One way that this constellation of facts can straightforwardly assemble themselves into a dystopian nightmare is the phenomenon, described by Cory Doctorow, of the reverse centaur. This is when your employer non-consensually turns you into the verification system. The "AI" does the fun part of initially performing the work, and then you do the boring part where you check if the robot is right and clean up its messes, even if everyone already knows that it would, in aggregate, be cheaper for you to do the work in the first place.

Reverse centaurs can be made from any automation, not only "AI" automation. I think that there is a reason that this term happens to have emerged in the "age of AI", though, and not with earlier automation technologies (even those which were considerably more viscerally horrific). That reason is: the wrongness of "AI" output is not merely a technical feature that must be compensated for, it is a generalized externality.

As I mentioned above, if you are responsible for the entirety of the work, both extruding the "AI" output and checking it, it's usually cheaper to have humans do the entirety of the work to begin with. When humans do the writing directly, we can check as we go, and thus verification doesn't need to be as comprehensive.

When "AI" coding advocates say "code review is the bottleneck", what they are observing is that the LLM is still rolling the dice for each PR, and a human is still necessary to verify that each of those rolls is a winner. But calling this process "code review" is a bit of a misnomer; it's not really "code review" in the traditional sense, it's human understanding.

Before the advent of "AI", the human understanding was implicit in the process of writing the code in the first place¹, and the code review was a way of diffusing and extending that understanding. Now that the code can be authored with no initial understanding taking place, that cost has not gone away, it has moved.

Human understanding was always the bottleneck.

However, this is taking a collaborative view of a software project, where satisfying the needs and solving the problems of your customers are the goals. We can see that "AI" is a bad tool to satisfy those goals, because all it's doing is converting the first half of the work, that of understanding the code as you write it, to understanding the agent's output as you read it.

What if, instead, we were to take the view that every software company is a Hobbesian nightmare, red in tooth and claw? In this view, the only goal of a software project is for the individual developers to make their promo cycles and get their bonuses. Given that there is only a certain amount of money to go around, this is a zero-sum game where each programmer wants to look more productive than their colleagues.

Pretty much every organization finds it easy to reward "productivity" as expressed by lines of code emitted, but the benefits of doing thorough and thoughtful design, analysis, and code review very difficult to reward. In this world, an LLM is an invaluable tool for the sociopathic ladder-climber, particularly if your legacy organization is still structuring their workflows as if the person prompting the bot is "writing" the code, and then they get to foist off the act of "reviewing" the code onto someone else.

Here, the prompter effectively externalizes the cost of the LLM's failures but internalizes any benefits. The prompter will vibe-code a big feature, so large that the assigned reviewer can't possibly comprehend it all effectively. When this happens, the reviewer will, eventually, be pressured to approve it, even if they can try to spot a few problems along the way. The reviewer has their own work to get back to, after all, the obligation to review the prompter's (read: the bot's) code is a drain on their time that they are not going to get rewarded for.

If this feature is a big success, the prompter gets a promotion. If it causes a big issue, well, the reviewer must not have been careful enough.

This is why LLMs are "good for coding", and also why their biggest promoters keep having outages.

The Generative Gish Galloper

Coding is the biggest "success story" of this type of adversarial communication, but it is by far not the only instance of such a thing. LLMs create a new form of leverage that can turn Brandolini's law from a linear advantage into an exponential one. If you are engaged in a political debate where you want to overwhelm the other side in nonsense, an LLM can generate bullshit faster than it is physically possible for a human being to type, let alone respond thoughtfully. There is an asymmetry to the utility of this weapon as well: only one side of the political spectrum wants to flood the zone and destroy trust in institutions and the concept of truth. There's a good reason that the fascists love it.

Straightforward Spam and Fraud

This is kind of obvious, but LLMs can generate lightly-customized, plausible-looking text much more quickly than any human being. This facilitates their use in fraud, spam, and scams. In a spamming or fraudulent interaction, once again, the costs are externalized onto the victim: the recipient of a spam message has to do all the work of "checking" the LLM's output. Spammers already expect very low hit rates from boilerplate, and if the LLM can increase those percentages from 1% to 5% the technology will pay for itself; they don't need anything like reliable accuracy.

Customer "Support"

If you have any kind of commercial relationship with a company, I probably don't even need to mention this: customer "support" bots are a misery. Everybody knows it at this point. But customer support is usually conceptualized by businesses as an adversarial interaction, because it is a cost center. They maintain internal metrics on time-to-resolution and try to optimize them. Implicitly, this creates a dynamic where the goal of the customer service agent's job is not to solve your problem, but to emit noise that will cause you to think your problem is resolved, or to give up, as fast as possible. Unsurprisingly, LLMs can emit this noise faster than humans can, getting those customers off the phone. But those customers will remember those interactions, and the story outside the TTR metrics is horrible.

Similarly to the situation in software development, LLMs can look very good on paper for customer support, but mostly what they are doing is illuminating the problems with the industry's existing metrics, by turning "winning the metrics battle against the customer" into a more obvious and immediate defeat for the company's long term reputation.

"Education"

In 2026 it is sadly a fact of life that students cheat all the time using "AI", and that this cheating is very successful, in that the teachers find it very hard to detect.

LLMs are great for cheating on schoolwork because the student is externalizing the work of the checking onto the teachers, who are often starting at a disadvantage to begin with, at least in the US.

My view is that this is happening because of a divergence in the way that students vs. teachers (or, more accurately, "the broader educational system") view grading.

When a student is asked to write an essay, the teachers see the effort as both intrinsically worthwhile for the student, as well as useful as a pedagogical tool to evaluate and react to the student's progress. The student, by contrast, sees a stumbling block designed to knock them off the path to success and into a permanent underclass. It is no wonder that the student sees "AI" as useful to their own goals and has no compunction about deploying it.

There is a bitter irony that the ability to understand the inherent value of actually writing the essay on their own is the sort of thing that students can really only learn by writing a bunch of essays. There's no way that I can think of which makes the benefit legible as long as a shortcut is available.

The net effect here is a downward spiral, where the already-wobbling educational system is sustaining an attack that it doesn't have the resources to recover from. The individual students' attacks against their teachers and their schools' grading systems might appear to momentarily succeed, but they will win the battle and lose the war.

Spamming "For Good"?

Usually when we talk about someone unilaterally choosing to enter into an adversarial relationship, that's an "attack" and for good reasons we have a negative impression of the attacker. However, I would be remiss if I did not point out that there are some cases where the relationship was already adversarial; just because you're the attacker doesn't mean that you are evil.

For example we might imagine use-cases like automatically filing appeals for prior authorizations against health insurance. It's relatively well-known at this point that the main way for-profit insurers maintain their margins is by denying claims right up to the line of the policies themselves being fraud, so using a spamming tool to fight them might be entirely justifiable² in that case.

Similarly, using an LLM could be justified in a fight against a company refusing to honor a warranty. One could imagine using an LLM to immediately generate replies and escalations.

However, even in imagined cases like these, the underlying problem is that the insurers and the vendors already have a tremendous amount of structural power, so it is more likely that they will have the advantage in deploying a communications weapon like an LLM, as well as enacting policies to simply ignore any LLM-based communication that you might submit. Worse, if these strategies were to become widespread, they might provide an excuse to reject any communications by feeding them into an unreliable "LLM detector" and issuing an automated "computer says no" even to hand-written correspondence.

It is also worth stressing that these cases are imagined, as compared to the very real coworker-abuse, spam, scam, fraud, and disinformation campaigns being waged in real life today.

Therefore, while legitimate uses might exist, it's hard to imagine that there's anywhere they would be genuinely valuable and sustainable. In the best case "AI" will provide a temporary advantage for underdogs that will provoke an arms race which the resource-advantaged adversaries will win in the long run, in the worst case the arms race itself will cement permanent structural change that will make things worse.

"Search" By Stealing

Most of the adversarial utility of "AI" is on the "write" side, since write-amplification is more obviously aggressive than reading. But the "read" side of LLMs - summarization and question-answering - can be a form of attack as well.

To begin with, the act of reading itself is currently enormously destructive, but that's arguably not a fundamental aspect of this technology. They could set reasonable rate-limits and respect things like robots.txt, as search engines have for decades now. They could also refrain from committing criminal levels of copyright infringement. But, today, using "AI" tools does suborn this sort of out-of-control crawling.

More insidiously, consider the scenario described in this YouTube video. The LTT Bros decided to try Linux again, and in the course of so doing, they had problems. When trying to solve these problems, they were faced with a choice: they could consult Reddit, or they could ask an LLM. Asking an LLM would "gaslight the heck out of" them, but they still found it preferable, because they would at least get an answer without getting yelled at.

Initially this sounds great. But it also means that you want to extract knowledge from a community, while mechanically eliding any values or norms that the community may want to impart as part of offering that knowledge. As someone who spent many years in a community tech support role, this is worrying. Many requests for support are people asking how to do things that will momentarily solve a superficial problem but create a long-term reliability problem or even an immediate security risk, that the question-asker doesn't want to hear about. Consider the question "I'm tired of entering my password so much, how do I make it so my laptop unlocks automatically". An obsequious chatbot will helpfully tell you how to do this without pushback.

But, this is also a sort of ethically murky area. The Linux community is somewhat famously, for many years now, a toxic cesspool of general hostility, misogyny, etc. It is certainly a good thing that people can get access to this knowledge without subjecting themselves to abuse. But it also means that the people with the power and the privilege to change the community for the better can just quietly withdraw, rather than fixing the problems. It also means that the positive elements of culture cannot be transmitted, and people will have no opportunity to learn about unknown unknowns.

In this case, the "adversarial" communication is with society. The thing that using an LLM for search lets you do is withdraw from society and avoid forming any personal connections. There are some personal connections which are painful and annoying, and so that can feel like a momentary balm. But the need to make connections in general is, like, the concept of society itself.

Who Am I Hurting?

LLMs are good at adversarial communication. They are so good at it, relative to their other benefits, that they will tend to make communications adversarial if you are not remaining vigilant about the possibility that it might do so. My request to you, dear reader, if you are going to use such tools, is to always ask yourself, "who might I be hurting, if I use an LLM for this?"

If you're using an "AI", who is its adversary? If you haven't given it one yet, who might the "AI" turn into an adversary? Who might you overwhelm with an asymmetric amount of output, or, if you're receiving information and not sending it, who are you taking that information from without consulting?

Figure out the answers to these questions and conduct yourself accordingly; the answer might be "yourself".

Acknowledgments

Thank you to my patrons who are supporting my writing on this blog. If you like what you've read here and you'd like to read more of it, or you'd like to support my various open-source endeavors, you can support my work as a sponsor!

23 Jun 2026 8:06pm GMT

Codecov's unreliability breaking CI on my open source projects has been a constant source of frustration for me for years. I have found a way to enforce coverage over a whole GitHub Actions build matrix that doesn't rely on third-party services.

09 Jun 2026 12:00am GMT