Looking back at Django on the Med 🏖️ 2026

I haven't been to a programming conference in a really long time. That was mostly due to laziness, wanting to stay at home and decision fatigue because I didn't know how to travel sustainably and didn't know where to stay during the conference.

I had been talking online to Carlton for some time and when Django on the Med 🏖️ 2026 was announced I knew I had to go. What's not to like about a conference in Italy with all the good food and the Mediterranean Sea? I managed to overcome my inner Schweinehund (the German term for the lazy voice in your head that tells you to stay on the couch) and reserved both the (free) ticket for the conference itself and also the train ticket to go from Zurich to Pescara. The train takes 8 or 9 hours depending on the connection with a single change in Milano.

The conference itself consists only of development sprints and socialising - no talks and nothing to prepare in advance for participants, except taking the computer with you and optionally having some ideas about what you want to work on.

The import map Django Enhancement Proposal (DEP) I worked on

The forum discussion about rejuvenating Django's forms.Media sparked my interest in reviving Thibaud's DEP draft in early 2025. Some features which were mentioned in the early draft, such as a Stylesheet object for including additional stylesheet attributes in class Media and CSP support, have been added to Django 6.1 in the meantime. My main motivation was and still is to bring import map support to Django. I changed django-prose-editor to use import maps back then and wrote a first draft but then got stuck while trying to write a good DEP.

For those who don't know import maps: ES modules import each other by URL. When static file storages add hashes to file names for cache busting, those URLs change on every deployment. Import maps solve this using a web standard: Modules import stable identifiers such as my-library, and the import map tells the browser which file to actually load.

If all browsers were to support multiple import maps the DEP would maybe not be necessary. People could just ship an ImportMap media object and include it in forms.Media(js=[...]) before the ES modules actually using it and things would just work. At the time of writing this post Chromium and Safari support multiple import maps but Firefox still doesn't. So, if we want to use this feature without having import map merging we will have to wait several years for browser support to be widespread enough. And since third-party Django apps and Django websites which want to use import maps have to agree on a common implementation it makes most sense to me to propose adding this to Django core. The proposal lives in the DEP pull request and the accompanying new feature ticket.

As an aside: Django has been famous for not having a frontend story for the longest time. I think this is mostly a strength, because Django has therefore allowed everyone to use the frontend technologies they want and hasn't decided on a particular technology, library or framework which, in the meantime, would have become obsolete or not really state of the art. ES modules and import maps aren't opinionated in the same way that, for example, jQuery, htmx, React or Svelte are; they really are a basic implementation of modules, namespaces and a specification of how those modules should be loaded in the browser. So, I don't think it would be fair to reject adding better support for these things on the grounds that Django wants to be agnostic to the frontend. I'm not saying here that the DEP has to be accepted or that there cannot be good reasons to reject or modify it further - I'm sure there are. I'm just proposing that we cannot just use the old arguments to argue against it.

The diary

Enough about the DEP. Now I am going to recap the last few days. I'm not adding any pictures to this post, but you can head over to Mastodon and check out the #DjangoOnTheMed tag, for example here on hachyderm.io.

Tuesday

On Tuesday morning I left home to take the train towards Pescara. I was really glad I packed my headphones with noise cancelation. After about 9 hours I arrived in the late afternoon, checked into the hotel, took my swimming trunks and immediately went to the beach.

In the evening we had dinner at the seaside at Lido Aurora Pescara. It was a pleasure to finally meet some of the people I have been either working with or just following for a long time. A special surprise was meeting Simon again. We met at Django Under the Hood in Amsterdam in 2016 and he helped get my first pull request¹ to Django off the ground back then.

During the course of the conference we went back there several times. Good food, and luckily not just options with fish and seafood, but also good vegetarian options. (I'm not strictly vegetarian, but I sometimes prefer vegetarian or even vegan food.)

After a long day I slept surprisingly well. That's not saying much, but it certainly was a welcome surprise given my issues with my back and hips.

Wednesday

The sprint officially started on Wednesday with a warm-up session led by Carlton. The three questions asked (paraphrased because I don't remember the exact wording) were "What is great about Django?", "What are the risks, or what could be better?" and "What are you planning to work on?"

I discussed ways of adding import maps with Joe, the author of django-esm and esimport. I thought we had completely different and conflicting ways of thinking about and using import maps. After talking it over it became clear quite quickly that, while we don't have to use them the same way, our ways of using them do not have to be in conflict. I think this is one of the big advantages of events like this: The same discussion would have taken weeks or months in an issue tracker, if it ever happened, and in person it was a question of sitting together for an hour, hashing it out, and then you potentially have a basic agreement and an idea for which direction to go.

As already alluded to above I restarted my work on the DEP. It basically needed a complete rewrite since (excitingly!) so much has already landed in Django in the last ~18 months.

We went back to Lido Aurora for lunch. In the afternoon, almost everyone went for a bike ride along an old railway track which has been converted into a bike lane along the sea. I already knew a similar thing from Liguria near Levanto/Bonassola but it was nice encountering the same idea near Pescara. (The new railway track has been built further inland.) We also had some nice Spritz abruzzese. Generally, Spritz isn't really my thing but those were a bit more bitter and earthy and less sweet and therefore we soon ordered a second round.

In the evening Žan, Annabelle, Simon, Carlton and I went to Fruity Burger (or something like that) for some vegan food. As expected it was really tasty. While vegan options in restaurants can unfortunately sometimes be quite bland, vegan restaurants in my experience are often some of the best: You really have to know your ingredients and can't just add bacon to everything. (Nothing against bacon, but still.)

Thursday

Again I started the day with a great coffee and an overly sweet breakfast (for my taste). Italian food is generally great but the breakfast isn't my thing. I like my müesli and whole grain bread. Anyway!

I continued working on the DEP and started tweaking django-js-asset to serve as a proving ground for the ideas. Towards the end of Thursday's sprint I had a first rough draft ready and Joe provided some great feedback on it. One of the most important points for me was to care about the API and not the implementation at this stage in the process. The DEP draft contained too much detail related to implementation and not enough examples showing off more complex use cases.

I only ate a small lunch since we were promised a bus tour with a lot of great food in the afternoon and evening. It still proved to be too much as we would learn later.

In the afternoon we took a bus to a local vineyard. We were shown around and had a look at the machines and learned a few things about the winemaking process. That was followed by a wine tasting and some bread and antipasti.

Next, we went to Penne and were shown the city and were told a little bit of the local history. Everything's built from bricks. Brick buildings and earthquakes are not a great fit it seems to me - the last larger earthquake hit the region less than 10 years ago. It's interesting that people are always rebuilding the houses anyway. From Penne we had a really nice view over the region, from the hill we were standing on all the way to Pescara and to the Adriatic.

We took the bus again to the restaurant and ate until 11 in the evening. At a certain point I couldn't go on anymore. No matter how great the food, there comes a moment when eating more seems impossible, and in my case that moment came before i secondi. The secondi were arrosticini. I could only eat one so now I'm wondering if I am a persona non grata in Pescara 🤣. Also, I was in pain from too much sitting - sitting isn't good since I'm still recovering from a disc hernia and the associated follow-up issues in the hip. Still, I had a great day and wouldn't have wanted to miss any of it.

Back in the hotel I couldn't sleep immediately so I addressed some of the feedback I got earlier in the day and then went to sleep.

Friday

The night wasn't very restorative but I was awake anyway in the morning so I got up and started the day again on time. I finished applying the feedback to the DEP and to django-js-asset and continued refining them and filling in holes. I also modified some of the packages I'm developing to use the new way of defining media using import maps just to get a feeling for whether the API is nice or not.

During the coffee break I asked around if the changes to the way import maps are defined would break existing code. Luckily it seems that django-prose-editor is "just used" and people weren't relying on being able to define import maps themselves yet. Or, if so, I don't know about it. Maybe django-probe could help with that, but we obviously aren't there yet.

We finished the sprint with a group picture and closed off the official part. Most of us went out for lunch together. Some people had to leave after that; I drank an espresso in a nice coffee bar, said goodbye to them and went to the beach afterwards.

In the evening we went to an excellent vegan restaurant. I was happy that I wasn't the only one who was surprised to learn that the restaurant wasn't that close after all.

Saturday

Almost everybody had either left or had to leave on Saturday morning so I didn't expect to meet with others anymore. I finally went for some long walks, explored other parts of the town and went to see the long bridge/walkway/passeggiata/whatever and some parks. I also took some time to note down both what we did and what I thought of finally going back to a conference.

In the evening I ran into Mark and Becky twice and we decided to have a beer together before saying goodbye again and for the final time for this sprint.

Having an additional day there was a win. I had less time during the sprints to visit the city itself and really did appreciate the extra day I allowed myself.

Sunday

I ate breakfast, went for a short walk around the city and to the beach and then took the train back home. Up to Milano it was uneventful. The train from Milano to Zurich was cancelled, but I didn't lose more than half an hour in the end.

Finally

I'm wondering about the DEP process now and what happens with the pull request I submitted. I'm linking to the new feature ticket, the DEP pull request and what I consider to be the proving ground again. Because django-js-asset has to stay backwards compatible, an implementation in Django itself could be quite a bit simpler.

I will be in Liguria, Italy again in just one week. Feels a bit stupid to cross the Alps only to cross them again a few days later, but I'm really looking forward to sleeping in my own bed for a few days.

I can very well imagine going to more conferences and sprints again. The value of meeting in person is unquestionable. It might be hard though to improve on the experience we had here with the location, the nice weather and the social events. The selection of events is large and I certainly won't be going to all of them, but I am looking at going to the next Django on the Med in Malta, and maybe also to PyCon Italia and/or DjangoCon EU. We will see!

28 Sep 2026 5:00pm GMT

Oh boy, I love Wagtail. Haven't I said this too many times on this blog? I recently built a small promo banner for a client's Wagtail site. The editor form was simple: some text, a button label, and a "Button links to" radio with two options, "Page" or "External URL". …

Read now

28 Sep 2026 9:45am GMT

One of the issues that I have with the current generation of "AI" products is that they do not appear to take their own premises seriously. I look at a plethora of obsequious chatbots claiming to be serious tools for problem solving, and I think, this is not what a problem-solving tool would look like.

Even before we get to the tremendous ethical problems with the frontier labs, it is this impression of their composition as a product that makes me feel, constantly, whenever I am interacting with them, that they are less a software product than that they are a grift, a scam designed to make me feel like I am interacting with a product that has capabilities that it simply does not, to try to lull me into a false sense of security that I can trust it.

The frontier labs are of course the worst offenders, but every criticism here applies just as much to Ollama, which (if anything, due to the obviously poorer quality of the available models themselves) needs these features even more than the frontier labs do.

Here, I will set down a few features that might convince me that an LLM-based product, particularly one focused on research or software development, was actually serious about helping me do useful things with it.

Make "Checking For Mistakes" A First-Class Feature

This is the biggest issue, and the major reason that I was inspired to write this post.

It is a truth universally acknowledged, that AIs cannot reliably provide information.

I could cite a ton of news articles and studies about this fact, but there is no need. Every single chatbot admits this, up front, in a fine-print disclaimer as a core part of their user interface. Gemini says "AI can make mistakes, so double-check responses", Claude says "Claude is AI and can make mistakes. Please double-check responses.¹" ChatGPT says "ChatGPT can make mistakes. Check important info.".

Every time I see that last one, I wonder how I'm supposed to know what "info" is supposed to be "important".

All of these warnings are all small, gray text, painfully obviously included as legalese to push responsibility back onto the user rather than to help with anything. This is a core limitation of all these products. Checking their output is a part of the workflow for using them that:

1. you absolutely cannot skip or skimp on without creating risks to yourself and whoever you are conveying its output to, and,
2. it is very easy to skip or skimp on and you are encouraged at every turn to do so, because "just trust the output" is one of the quickest ways to save time.

A chatbot product that took this weakness seriously, as an actual consideration for using it, would put a checkbox next to every claim in its output. It would be a 2-column worksheet, where you've got the LLM output in the first column, and next to it, human notes in the second column, explaining what work went into checking this claim, and a big checkbox that you would only check off after you believe you'd checked its claims thoroughly enough.

Coding assistants would need to have some version of this as well. Right now, this is pushed off into code review, which means it is a dark pattern which subtly encourages the "author"² to offload this work to their code reviewer without ever looking. Once again, "it's probably fine, I don't need to check" is the quickest way to save time and churn out those PRs faster.

It might even be useful for coding harnesses to have some affordance for checking code before it even runs tests. As the vendors themselves have admitted, it's not just expensive to burn tokens on your "AI", you also end up burning far more compute on the AI. Being able to check your diffs before sending them over to uselessly exhaust your testing compute cluster would be useful.

If your product tells me that it makes mistakes and I must be the one to check for the mistakes, but then gives me zero tools to check for mistakes, I cannot take it seriously.

More Citations to Check, And More Details

Most chatbots prefer to give an answer, rather than a citation. In my own personal use, I find that when asked to provide a list of citations with clearly marked sources for each one, they will appear to "get bored" halfway through the list and simply stop including citations at some point.

When the bots include citations at all, present them as inline annotations that say nothing but the domain name of the search result, in a font so small that it's barely legible, and an equally indecipherable icon that is fewer than 16 pixels on a side.

This is backwards.

Now, I am aware that these citations do come from somewhere, and in an attempt to reduce hallucinations, all of the major providers support some form of "grounding"³, and that those little barely-readable citation links are referencing actual structures in the RAG pipeline and not just potentially-hallucinated tokens, but I'm not talking about the underlying machinery in the model, I'm talking about the presentation to the user.

Plus, regardless of whether a snippet of text came from a RAG query, we know that LLMs can never provide an authoritative result; it's a fundamental limitation of the technology. They can still garble the results of RAG as much as they can misrepresent any other training data. This means that it must never present its results as authoritative.

If you ask an AI to do research queries, every result should be presented as a list of citations. Moreover, the presentation should display each citation as a large object of in its own right, with clearly identified metadata, including not just the site where it was found but its publication date and, if possible, the name of the author. The literal, unmodified quotation (not from RAG, not a summary: a quotation extracted with a regular program and not an LLM) should be front-and-center, larger than any AI-generated text.

If the AI product wants to editorialize or summarize (which should not always be necessary!), the AI-generated text should be presented as small text underneath the citation that has been found, de-emphasized as much as the disclaimer is right now, at the very least until the user has verified that the summary is accurate. Perhaps, for a research project, a "did you read the citation" checkbox might even be helpful.

If your product openly tells me that it will scramble, misrepresent, or omit its citations in its summaries, and I must read the original human-authored citations to be sure, but then gives me no tools to track my reading of those citations or even any way to find them, I cannot take it seriously.

No First-Person Output, No Apologies

There is no reason for a software development or research tool to use first-person language to describe itself. They should not do so. In fact they should not be allowed to do so.

There is also no reason that they should ever apologize. It is a waste of everyone's time; it's a waste for the chatbot to generate the apology, it's a waste for the user to read the apology, and it's a waste for the user to respond to the apology. Yet they unfailingly do this upon every correction.

The vendors of these tools know that they are routinely causing mental-health crises. In response, they have added non-functional "guard rails" that can still, in 2026, easily be bypassed.⁴

A product seriously interested in helping with productivity would correct this glaringly obvious flaw, focus on the task at hand, and stop emitting useless verbiage.

In the previous two sections, I tried to focus on ways in which the harness would be constructed differently even if the LLM technology is fundamentally impossible to improve; in this case, I have to assume that the labs have some control over the model itself. But unless they are truly incapable of influencing their output (and all their "benchmarks" and "capabilities" seem to indicate that they can control it very tightly) they ought to be building models that are much less verbose.

More Non-Natural-Language User Interfaces

Although natural language could hypothetically be a powerful interface for interacting with a computer system, the practical upshot of LLM natural language interfaces is that these interfaces are imprecise and repetitive, full of superstitions masquerading as "best practices". The inputs are a mess and the resulting outputs are a mess.

The general way of addressing this unstructured mess is to allow the chatbot to directly take action in response to the user's input; in other words to supply it with "tools" via an MCP server. But again, this is backwards. If we cannot even express our intent clearly in the first place, why are we trusting this system to take potentially destructive and harmful actions on our behalf?

Instead, I would expect a product that was seriously invested in helping me accomplish specific tasks, to have user interfaces specific to those tasks. Is it supposed to be able to be a security scanner that can discover OWASP top 10 bugs in a codebase? Have a button for that. Build that functionality into your harness, train it directly into the model, use smaller models that can satisfy that functionality more effectively than throwing it at the planet-sized brain of Fable or whatever.

I'm aware that there are small software startups that do something like this, but they are bolted on to the side of the main model providers' APIs, not integrated into the core of the product and not using their own models and AI systems to achieve consistent and repeatable results.

Strong Data Provenance Indicators

Chatbots produce data tables pulled from websites, from APIs, from MCP tools or from summarizing and scrambling the user's input. In order to provide the illusion of a seamless interface, this data is presented in-line regardless of where it comes from. But some of these outputs are produced mechanically via regular old API calls, for example, from the result of calling a tool or querying a website, but presented uniformly.

But there is a huge difference between an authoritative data source being inlined as part of a chatbot conversation, being treated as input by the chatbot, and some ad-hoc hallucinated data being treated as output of the chatbot.

If a product is trying to help me make accurate, empirically-grounded, data-driven decisions, the source of the data is critical.

Integrated into the "check for mistakes" and "verify citations" workflow I described above, there's a necessary "verify data programmatically" pass as well; to have tools that will treat portions of the output as a regular spreadsheet, allowing regular-old computer arithmetic to verify things and showing where such arithmetic was used, and how.

Better User Control of Reproducibility

Anyone familiar with the technical specifics of LLMs will know that they have a variable called "temperature" which controls the degree of randomness that the LLM uses to produce its outputs. But most users don't know this, because it isn't exposed as part of the user interface by default.

This leads to a subjective impression that you asked ChatGPT, and you got ChatGPT's authoritative answer.

You can't just set the temperature to zero and still get useful results - I am aware that it does more than just scramble the output at random, and there are perhaps good reasons that simply exposing just a temperature setting would not be that useful to users. But if we followed some more of my earlier recommendations for making more structured UI elements to solve specific problems rather than having long back-and-forth chats where each refinement depends on the previous response, perhaps those elements could also re-play the process so that users can see how reliable the bot is at a particular task and develop a sense of how the stochastic nature of the process actually affects it.

Similarly, if a user is trying to solve the same problem repeatedly with a chatbot, and the chatbot product has numerous computational tools that don't really have anything to do with the LLM, such as deterministic data-processing tools, then having a way to freeze the non-deterministic parts of the transcript but re-populate a particular data frame with updated information and fork / continue the conversation from there would be a way to avoid introducing pointless additional randomness when you already know what tool you're trying to use.

The fact that every conversation is presented as this flat chat prompt that doesn't let me interact with any of the widgets that were previously produced except through more chatting, really makes me feel like the whole product is just doing predatory social-media style "increase time on site" optimization, just trying to lure me into further repetitive and unreliable chats, rather than letting me get in, solve my problem, and get out.

Context Visibility

Managing the LLM context is the ongoing challenge facing organizations that are trying to use "agentic" workflows. Filling up the context with too much information causes well-known problems. In response, advanced LLM users attempting to solve larger problems must break up very long prompts into "skills", give access to lengthy information via "tools", and delegating sub-problems to "sub-agents" rather than simply extending a single prompt indefinitely.

All of these strategies have flaws, because even on the largest models, compared to the breadth and depth of knowledge-work problems, LLM contexts are quite small.

And yet, none of these products will show the context to the user by default. There are third-party addons that can show you a simple progress bar but for addressing the premier engineering difficulty with this technology, that is below the bare minimum.

This lack of visibility means that almost all of the tools for extending the context are flying blind. Rather than responding meaningfully to a full context, everyone just kind of guesses how much state they need by guessing and trying over and over again with progressively more elaborate skill and sub-agent layouts. Even managing context compaction ends up being an advanced API-driven workflow⁵.

A serious product that was trying to help the user understand would not only show "available context" but explain the impact of context compactions, make it easier to see harness-generated prompts, and so on. This would be a first-class feature, combined with the aforementioned reproducibility / replay tools, would allow users to do real experiments to develop an understanding about how to make good use of the context window.

A Sandbox That Actually Works

I've been focused on the chatbot interface here because it is the most immediately egregious upon looking at the UI. But the "agentic loop" tools used for coding are equally dangerous, if not more so. Coding tools keep destroying everyone's data, over the course of years.

These catastrophic incidents that become front-page news are relatively rare compared to the amount of coding-agent use out there. But they also aren't the only kind of sandbox violation. Coding models will so routinely edit test code instead of the system under test that there are "pro tips" articles all over the web giving you the flawed advice to simply ask the agent not to cheat. News write-ups of the catastrophic incidents themselves will also offer glib and wrong advice, like "use a docker container". That might prevent it from literally deleting your operating system, but it won't prevent it from destroying all the local work you have in your codebase (it needs access to a checkout, after all!)

There is a flurry of activity in the infosec space where people are rushing to plug the gaps left by these coding harnesses. Everyone's got their own version of an MCP approval gateway where you can optionally place a proxy between your agent and your production infrastructure.

In the best case, though, all these mitigations and proxies and prompts simply turn the user into an auto-approval automaton, hitting Y, Y, Y, Y over and over again, until you finally are driven mad and hit "yes to all", turn on full-auto mode and submit yourself to the void. With nothing between your personal vigilance and disaster, there are no workflows left beyond decrementing your own vigilance until there's nothing left and then hoping the disaster never arrives.

The fact that some mitigations exist that can be deployed by extra-cautious users does not change the fact that "agentic coding" is an unsafe-by-default technology deployed without concern or guidance. Every frontier lab has tied a spring-loaded shotgun to a dog; the fact that dog owners can publish thoughtful blog posts explaining how you can teach your dog the basics of gun safety or how you can have your dogs play in a bullet-proof room does not mitigate the fact that the product should not have been allowed in the first place, nor should it continue to exist without VERY strong security controls.

I might believe that a frontier lab were seriously interested in providing developers with a useful tool if they shipped something that had safety built-in.

That means tools in the harness, detached from any LLM, independent of the prompt, that could:

• sandbox all filesystem operations and strictly limit ANY deletions outside of specified scopes, regardless of operating system,
• enforce snapshotting of the entire repo on every operation for easy rollbacks and minimal lost work,
• remove the disaster of "auto mode" (not to mention nonsense like --dangerously-skip-permissions) entirely, and
• carefully consider a structure for presenting plans to the user where, rather than provoking immediate alert fatigue by asking for checks on every action, make structured plans which can be submitted to the user as a group of actions and reviewed and approved as a batch.

In the same way that I suggested above that research-based tasks should have a way of re-issuing prompts to determine how reproducible a result is, or whether other sources might be found, agent-based tasks should have a way of being executed against mock services for popular APIs, so that the verification can match both on the front-end (review the plan for making the API calls before they're executed) and the back end (review the API calls that were issued to the mock service and verify that they matched).

Instead, the frontier labs provide us products that are disasters out of the box, give us "best practices" to build massive and elaborate, as well as incomplete and error-prone, security perimeters of our own design. Then they blame "operator error" when it inevitably goes wrong. I cannot believe that these design choices are intended to help us be productive.

Bonus: Human Processes

Organizations deploying AI also frequently come across as unserious, for similar reasons. In 2023, naive exuberance could perhaps be forgiven. But today, as we near the close of 2026, there are several well-known problems, that have been extremely well-covered in the press. None of these things should be surprising, but most orgs deploying these tools are still just letting them rip and hoping it all works out.

Organizations deploying these tools would need at least three kinds of major modifications to their internal processes, if they wanted to be serious about using them safely:

1. Shift Rotations to Prevent Vigilance Decrement

There have been several high-profile incidents where software developers' gradual acquiescence to accepting LLM output have lead to serious economic consequences for the companies deploying them, perhaps best typified by Amazon's "millions of lost orders" due to a gradual decay of their engineering processes from LLM use.

These outages, and other AI-related failures, are due to the difficulty of maintaining focus on the same problems. In other words, as I described above, vigilance decrement is a constant problem, because AI outputs are most often correct, but continue to be incorrect in surprising and non-intuitive ways. As I have previously written, you cannot trust yourself to catch every bug with code review, and LLM output.

Aviation, for example, has very strict rules around rest requirements. There is also a specific rule that "No certificate holder may operate an aircraft without a second in command if that aircraft has a passenger seating configuration, excluding any pilot seat, of ten seats or more.". Other safety-critical professions have similar rules.

And yet, even in the age of the supposed "AI revolution", most software teams are still assigning every engineer a full feature load, not planning for any rest, and telling people to review code whenever they happen to have some "free time".

Maintenance of vigilance has to be your top priority. Regular, scheduled, inviolable rest periods where people do work without AI assistance, and are not exposed to any AI output for review or otherwise, would be crucial in order to stay mentally sharp enough.

The tools themselves should have this sort of thing built in. The mistake-review process described above should have a periodic spot-check mode where a second reviewer periodically reviews a chatbot log, doing their own independent verification of claims, to see if they spot the same errors. This could provide a feedback loop to determine how much rest is necessary to maintain continuous attention and actually spot hallucinations.

2. Skill Practice To Prevent Skill Loss

It is also well-known that AI use leads to AI reliance, and AI reliance leads to skill loss.

I like to use the analogy to dockworkers at a seaport⁶ adopting automation.

If you employ dockworkers to load and unload ships all day long, they are going to be getting tons of exercise. They will be able to lift heavy objects on demand, whenever. They might have plenty of health problems and injuries from this type of work, but "lack of exercise" will not be a problem.

With the development of standardized container ships and mechanized cranes, you are going to be changing their job description substantially: now they mostly spend all day sitting in a small cubicle moving a control lever back and forth, not lifting heavy stuff. They will get worse at lifting heavy objects.

In this analogy however, the cranes are not all that reliable. We know they break, and they drop their payloads sometimes, and the stuff needs to be manually moved. But this only happens a few times a week, at most. If you need whoever is driving the crane to be able to jump out at any moment and still move stuff around manually, then you need to make an affordance for that. You need to give them time to go to the gym and do some lifting for practice, or every crane failure is going to be a major emergency.

An organization doing an AI transformation would also need a massive increase to learning & development budget, both in terms of resources and in terms of schedule. If your people are going to lose skills because they've lost regular practice in the incidental course of doing their duties, then they are going to need deliberate, intentional, non-incidental practice of those skills to keep them sharp.

But rather than trying to accommodate new workflows and give time for people to adjust, most AI mandates are simply dropped on workers like a ton of bricks, with no time to adapt and no affordance for maintaining their skills. Operate the crane and stay fit and healthy and ready to switch back to manual lifting at any time and then get back in the crane cockpit right afterwards. Don't mess up.

Then an accident happens and everyone is surprised, as if this process weren't practically designed to produce a terrible result.

3. Mental Health Resources to Deal with Mental Health Risks

AI psychosis often begins with practical problem-solving, and beyond that, it can start specifically at work. Not to mention the more pedestrian condition of "AI brain fry".

If you are mandating your employees to use a hazardous tool that may seriously and directly damage their mental health, you need trainings and resources. You need in-house therapists and you need to be making sure to check in with people actively to make sure that this is not happening.

Again, the tool itself ought to have some way of dealing with this. An occasional "take a break" popup is easily dismissed; they need a user-visible AI personal dosimeter so you can see your cumulative usage over time.

I don't even know if "usage over time" is a sufficient metric to gauge risk. Maybe if your work chatbot start to talk about resonance too much, unless you literally work as an acoustic engineer, that should be flagged for someone.

We are, again, years into dealing with these tools, and we know these risks exist. Yet no serious mitigations are provided. Not even any way of measuring the risk exposure.

And More

There are also many other risks associated with the technology. There are intellectual property risks with the foundation models, due to recklessness with their training data. There are existential financial risks associated with the infrastructure build-out. The extent to which most "open" models are simply derivatives of frontier models is an open question.

What I Think

If any one of these things were regularly overlooked by AI vendors or users, that would be a totally normal product oversight. Room for improvement for the next version, but nothing catastrophic.

Shipping without any of them doesn't seem like lean product management, it seems like a careless attitude towards risk and a product design philosophy oriented entirely towards short-term demos, with no regard for how to realize actual productivity gains.

Furthermore, being available for years without anything like these features, despite hundreds of incidents demonstrating the risks, with hundreds of billions of dollars of funding, makes it seem to me like if they were to add all the features that would make their product actually safe and hypothetically useful, these features would reveal that it is actually not an improvement to productivity.

In the year since I first wrote about measuring the cost/benefit ratio of AI, I have heard from numerous people who have shown this to management to try to illustrate why their AI initiatives - like almost all AI initiatives - were either failing or burning out their engineers.

I've also heard from lots of people that have told me that it's obviously useful and they don't need to measure so carefully, because they are getting lots of work done that they couldn't have otherwise.⁷

I have yet to hear from a single person who has said "yeah, we measured according to your methodology⁸, and it turns out that our AI work is going great and that our ratio is 0.75".

Obviously, I cannot say for sure why this is; absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But at this point I think the null hypothesis is that AI tools provide, in aggregate, zero value. They make mistakes too often, and the externalities they produce are so bad and so difficult to control that even before we get to the places where they are just physically poisoning people, even the negative effects on their direct users end up cancelling out whatever benefit to they provide to their organizations.

If I were wrong, then including tools to measure an AI's effectiveness at the tasks their users are actually trying to accomplish, rather than meaningless benchmarks, would show big productivity gains. The frontier labs would be champing at the bit to add such features, and crowing about their fantastic results.

I think the labs know that if they did that, it would present a grim picture to their users. Such tools would let their users see that it's making mistakes much more often than they realized, that they're spending much more time with it than they want to be, and that it's just generally not fit for purpose.

If they prove me wrong by adding in all of these safety mechanisms, and in the process, they make all of their AI technology less harmful, I'll be thrilled to be debunked.

---

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!

28 Sep 2026 4:27am GMT

One of the issues that I have with the current generation of "AI" products is that they do not appear to take their own premises seriously. I look at a plethora of obsequious chatbots claiming to be serious tools for problem solving, and I think, this is not what a problem-solving tool would look like.

Even before we get to the tremendous ethical problems with the frontier labs, it is this impression of their composition as a product that makes me feel, constantly, whenever I am interacting with them, that they are less a software product than that they are a grift, a scam designed to make me feel like I am interacting with a product that has capabilities that it simply does not, to try to lull me into a false sense of security that I can trust it.

The frontier labs are of course the worst offenders, but every criticism here applies just as much to Ollama, which (if anything, due to the obviously poorer quality of the available models themselves) needs these features even more than the frontier labs do.

Here, I will set down a few features that might convince me that an LLM-based product, particularly one focused on research or software development, was actually serious about helping me do useful things with it.

Make "Checking For Mistakes" A First-Class Feature

This is the biggest issue, and the major reason that I was inspired to write this post.

It is a truth universally acknowledged, that AIs cannot reliably provide information.

I could cite a ton of news articles and studies about this fact, but there is no need. Every single chatbot admits this, up front, in a fine-print disclaimer as a core part of their user interface. Gemini says "AI can make mistakes, so double-check responses", Claude says "Claude is AI and can make mistakes. Please double-check responses.¹" ChatGPT says "ChatGPT can make mistakes. Check important info.".

Every time I see that last one, I wonder how I'm supposed to know what "info" is supposed to be "important".

All of these warnings are all small, gray text, painfully obviously included as legalese to push responsibility back onto the user rather than to help with anything. This is a core limitation of all these products. Checking their output is a part of the workflow for using them that:

1. you absolutely cannot skip or skimp on without creating risks to yourself and whoever you are conveying its output to, and,
2. it is very easy to skip or skimp on and you are encouraged at every turn to do so, because "just trust the output" is one of the quickest ways to save time.

A chatbot product that took this weakness seriously, as an actual consideration for using it, would put a checkbox next to every claim in its output. It would be a 2-column worksheet, where you've got the LLM output in the first column, and next to it, human notes in the second column, explaining what work went into checking this claim, and a big checkbox that you would only check off after you believe you'd checked its claims thoroughly enough.

Coding assistants would need to have some version of this as well. Right now, this is pushed off into code review, which means it is a dark pattern which subtly encourages the "author"² to offload this work to their code reviewer without ever looking. Once again, "it's probably fine, I don't need to check" is the quickest way to save time and churn out those PRs faster.

It might even be useful for coding harnesses to have some affordance for checking code before it even runs tests. As the vendors themselves have admitted, it's not just expensive to burn tokens on your "AI", you also end up burning far more compute on the AI. Being able to check your diffs before sending them over to uselessly exhaust your testing compute cluster would be useful.

If your product tells me that it makes mistakes and I must be the one to check for the mistakes, but then gives me zero tools to check for mistakes, I cannot take it seriously.

More Citations to Check, And More Details

Most chatbots prefer to give an answer, rather than a citation. In my own personal use, I find that when asked to provide a list of citations with clearly marked sources for each one, they will appear to "get bored" halfway through the list and simply stop including citations at some point.

When the bots include citations at all, present them as inline annotations that say nothing but the domain name of the search result, in a font so small that it's barely legible, and an equally indecipherable icon that is fewer than 16 pixels on a side.

This is backwards.

Now, I am aware that these citations do come from somewhere, and in an attempt to reduce hallucinations, all of the major providers support some form of "grounding"³, and that those little barely-readable citation links are referencing actual structures in the RAG pipeline and not just potentially-hallucinated tokens, but I'm not talking about the underlying machinery in the model, I'm talking about the presentation to the user.

Plus, regardless of whether a snippet of text came from a RAG query, we know that LLMs can never provide an authoritative result; it's a fundamental limitation of the technology. They can still garble the results of RAG as much as they can misrepresent any other training data. This means that it must never present its results as authoritative.

If you ask an AI to do research queries, every result should be presented as a list of citations. Moreover, the presentation should display each citation as a large object of in its own right, with clearly identified metadata, including not just the site where it was found but its publication date and, if possible, the name of the author. The literal, unmodified quotation (not from RAG, not a summary: a quotation extracted with a regular program and not an LLM) should be front-and-center, larger than any AI-generated text.

If the AI product wants to editorialize or summarize (which should not always be necessary!), the AI-generated text should be presented as small text underneath the citation that has been found, de-emphasized as much as the disclaimer is right now, at the very least until the user has verified that the summary is accurate. Perhaps, for a research project, a "did you read the citation" checkbox might even be helpful.

If your product openly tells me that it will scramble, misrepresent, or omit its citations in its summaries, and I must read the original human-authored citations to be sure, but then gives me no tools to track my reading of those citations or even any way to find them, I cannot take it seriously.

No First-Person Output, No Apologies

There is no reason for a software development or research tool to use first-person language to describe itself. They should not do so. In fact they should not be allowed to do so.

There is also no reason that they should ever apologize. It is a waste of everyone's time; it's a waste for the chatbot to generate the apology, it's a waste for the user to read the apology, and it's a waste for the user to respond to the apology. Yet they unfailingly do this upon every correction.

The vendors of these tools know that they are routinely causing mental-health crises. In response, they have added non-functional "guard rails" that can still, in 2026, easily be bypassed.⁴

A product seriously interested in helping with productivity would correct this glaringly obvious flaw, focus on the task at hand, and stop emitting useless verbiage.

In the previous two sections, I tried to focus on ways in which the harness would be constructed differently even if the LLM technology is fundamentally impossible to improve; in this case, I have to assume that the labs have some control over the model itself. But unless they are truly incapable of influencing their output (and all their "benchmarks" and "capabilities" seem to indicate that they can control it very tightly) they ought to be building models that are much less verbose.

More Non-Natural-Language User Interfaces

Although natural language could hypothetically be a powerful interface for interacting with a computer system, the practical upshot of LLM natural language interfaces is that these interfaces are imprecise and repetitive, full of superstitions masquerading as "best practices". The inputs are a mess and the resulting outputs are a mess.

The general way of addressing this unstructured mess is to allow the chatbot to directly take action in response to the user's input; in other words to supply it with "tools" via an MCP server. But again, this is backwards. If we cannot even express our intent clearly in the first place, why are we trusting this system to take potentially destructive and harmful actions on our behalf?

Instead, I would expect a product that was seriously invested in helping me accomplish specific tasks, to have user interfaces specific to those tasks. Is it supposed to be able to be a security scanner that can discover OWASP top 10 bugs in a codebase? Have a button for that. Build that functionality into your harness, train it directly into the model, use smaller models that can satisfy that functionality more effectively than throwing it at the planet-sized brain of Fable or whatever.

I'm aware that there are small software startups that do something like this, but they are bolted on to the side of the main model providers' APIs, not integrated into the core of the product and not using their own models and AI systems to achieve consistent and repeatable results.

Strong Data Provenance Indicators

Chatbots produce data tables pulled from websites, from APIs, from MCP tools or from summarizing and scrambling the user's input. In order to provide the illusion of a seamless interface, this data is presented in-line regardless of where it comes from. But some of these outputs are produced mechanically via regular old API calls, for example, from the result of calling a tool or querying a website, but presented uniformly.

But there is a huge difference between an authoritative data source being inlined as part of a chatbot conversation, being treated as input by the chatbot, and some ad-hoc hallucinated data being treated as output of the chatbot.

If a product is trying to help me make accurate, empirically-grounded, data-driven decisions, the source of the data is critical.

Integrated into the "check for mistakes" and "verify citations" workflow I described above, there's a necessary "verify data programmatically" pass as well; to have tools that will treat portions of the output as a regular spreadsheet, allowing regular-old computer arithmetic to verify things and showing where such arithmetic was used, and how.

Better User Control of Reproducibility

Anyone familiar with the technical specifics of LLMs will know that they have a variable called "temperature" which controls the degree of randomness that the LLM uses to produce its outputs. But most users don't know this, because it isn't exposed as part of the user interface by default.

This leads to a subjective impression that you asked ChatGPT, and you got ChatGPT's authoritative answer.

You can't just set the temperature to zero and still get useful results - I am aware that it does more than just scramble the output at random, and there are perhaps good reasons that simply exposing just a temperature setting would not be that useful to users. But if we followed some more of my earlier recommendations for making more structured UI elements to solve specific problems rather than having long back-and-forth chats where each refinement depends on the previous response, perhaps those elements could also re-play the process so that users can see how reliable the bot is at a particular task and develop a sense of how the stochastic nature of the process actually affects it.

Similarly, if a user is trying to solve the same problem repeatedly with a chatbot, and the chatbot product has numerous computational tools that don't really have anything to do with the LLM, such as deterministic data-processing tools, then having a way to freeze the non-deterministic parts of the transcript but re-populate a particular data frame with updated information and fork / continue the conversation from there would be a way to avoid introducing pointless additional randomness when you already know what tool you're trying to use.

The fact that every conversation is presented as this flat chat prompt that doesn't let me interact with any of the widgets that were previously produced except through more chatting, really makes me feel like the whole product is just doing predatory social-media style "increase time on site" optimization, just trying to lure me into further repetitive and unreliable chats, rather than letting me get in, solve my problem, and get out.

Context Visibility

Managing the LLM context is the ongoing challenge facing organizations that are trying to use "agentic" workflows. Filling up the context with too much information causes well-known problems. In response, advanced LLM users attempting to solve larger problems must break up very long prompts into "skills", give access to lengthy information via "tools", and delegating sub-problems to "sub-agents" rather than simply extending a single prompt indefinitely.

All of these strategies have flaws, because even on the largest models, compared to the breadth and depth of knowledge-work problems, LLM contexts are quite small.

And yet, none of these products will show the context to the user by default. There are third-party addons that can show you a simple progress bar but for addressing the premier engineering difficulty with this technology, that is below the bare minimum.

This lack of visibility means that almost all of the tools for extending the context are flying blind. Rather than responding meaningfully to a full context, everyone just kind of guesses how much state they need by guessing and trying over and over again with progressively more elaborate skill and sub-agent layouts. Even managing context compaction ends up being an advanced API-driven workflow⁵.

A serious product that was trying to help the user understand would not only show "available context" but explain the impact of context compactions, make it easier to see harness-generated prompts, and so on. This would be a first-class feature, combined with the aforementioned reproducibility / replay tools, would allow users to do real experiments to develop an understanding about how to make good use of the context window.

A Sandbox That Actually Works

I've been focused on the chatbot interface here because it is the most immediately egregious upon looking at the UI. But the "agentic loop" tools used for coding are equally dangerous, if not more so. Coding tools keep destroying everyone's data, over the course of years.

These catastrophic incidents that become front-page news are relatively rare compared to the amount of coding-agent use out there. But they also aren't the only kind of sandbox violation. Coding models will so routinely edit test code instead of the system under test that there are "pro tips" articles all over the web giving you the flawed advice to simply ask the agent not to cheat. News write-ups of the catastrophic incidents themselves will also offer glib and wrong advice, like "use a docker container". That might prevent it from literally deleting your operating system, but it won't prevent it from destroying all the local work you have in your codebase (it needs access to a checkout, after all!)

There is a flurry of activity in the infosec space where people are rushing to plug the gaps left by these coding harnesses. Everyone's got their own version of an MCP approval gateway where you can optionally place a proxy between your agent and your production infrastructure.

In the best case, though, all these mitigations and proxies and prompts simply turn the user into an auto-approval automaton, hitting Y, Y, Y, Y over and over again, until you finally are driven mad and hit "yes to all", turn on full-auto mode and submit yourself to the void. With nothing between your personal vigilance and disaster, there are no workflows left beyond decrementing your own vigilance until there's nothing left and then hoping the disaster never arrives.

The fact that some mitigations exist that can be deployed by extra-cautious users does not change the fact that "agentic coding" is an unsafe-by-default technology deployed without concern or guidance. Every frontier lab has tied a spring-loaded shotgun to a dog; the fact that dog owners can publish thoughtful blog posts explaining how you can teach your dog the basics of gun safety or how you can have your dogs play in a bullet-proof room does not mitigate the fact that the product should not have been allowed in the first place, nor should it continue to exist without VERY strong security controls.

I might believe that a frontier lab were seriously interested in providing developers with a useful tool if they shipped something that had safety built-in.

That means tools in the harness, detached from any LLM, independent of the prompt, that could:

• sandbox all filesystem operations and strictly limit ANY deletions outside of specified scopes, regardless of operating system,
• enforce snapshotting of the entire repo on every operation for easy rollbacks and minimal lost work,
• remove the disaster of "auto mode" (not to mention nonsense like --dangerously-skip-permissions) entirely, and
• carefully consider a structure for presenting plans to the user where, rather than provoking immediate alert fatigue by asking for checks on every action, make structured plans which can be submitted to the user as a group of actions and reviewed and approved as a batch.

In the same way that I suggested above that research-based tasks should have a way of re-issuing prompts to determine how reproducible a result is, or whether other sources might be found, agent-based tasks should have a way of being executed against mock services for popular APIs, so that the verification can match both on the front-end (review the plan for making the API calls before they're executed) and the back end (review the API calls that were issued to the mock service and verify that they matched).

Instead, the frontier labs provide us products that are disasters out of the box, give us "best practices" to build massive and elaborate, as well as incomplete and error-prone, security perimeters of our own design. Then they blame "operator error" when it inevitably goes wrong. I cannot believe that these design choices are intended to help us be productive.

Bonus: Human Processes

Organizations deploying AI also frequently come across as unserious, for similar reasons. In 2023, naive exuberance could perhaps be forgiven. But today, as we near the close of 2026, there are several well-known problems, that have been extremely well-covered in the press. None of these things should be surprising, but most orgs deploying these tools are still just letting them rip and hoping it all works out.

Organizations deploying these tools would need at least three kinds of major modifications to their internal processes, if they wanted to be serious about using them safely:

1. Shift Rotations to Prevent Vigilance Decrement

There have been several high-profile incidents where software developers' gradual acquiescence to accepting LLM output have lead to serious economic consequences for the companies deploying them, perhaps best typified by Amazon's "millions of lost orders" due to a gradual decay of their engineering processes from LLM use.

These outages, and other AI-related failures, are due to the difficulty of maintaining focus on the same problems. In other words, as I described above, vigilance decrement is a constant problem, because AI outputs are most often correct, but continue to be incorrect in surprising and non-intuitive ways. As I have previously written, you cannot trust yourself to catch every bug with code review, and LLM output.

Aviation, for example, has very strict rules around rest requirements. There is also a specific rule that "No certificate holder may operate an aircraft without a second in command if that aircraft has a passenger seating configuration, excluding any pilot seat, of ten seats or more.". Other safety-critical professions have similar rules.

And yet, even in the age of the supposed "AI revolution", most software teams are still assigning every engineer a full feature load, not planning for any rest, and telling people to review code whenever they happen to have some "free time".

Maintenance of vigilance has to be your top priority. Regular, scheduled, inviolable rest periods where people do work without AI assistance, and are not exposed to any AI output for review or otherwise, would be crucial in order to stay mentally sharp enough.

The tools themselves should have this sort of thing built in. The mistake-review process described above should have a periodic spot-check mode where a second reviewer periodically reviews a chatbot log, doing their own independent verification of claims, to see if they spot the same errors. This could provide a feedback loop to determine how much rest is necessary to maintain continuous attention and actually spot hallucinations.

2. Skill Practice To Prevent Skill Loss

It is also well-known that AI use leads to AI reliance, and AI reliance leads to skill loss.

I like to use the analogy to dockworkers at a seaport⁶ adopting automation.

If you employ dockworkers to load and unload ships all day long, they are going to be getting tons of exercise. They will be able to lift heavy objects on demand, whenever. They might have plenty of health problems and injuries from this type of work, but "lack of exercise" will not be a problem.

With the development of standardized container ships and mechanized cranes, you are going to be changing their job description substantially: now they mostly spend all day sitting in a small cubicle moving a control lever back and forth, not lifting heavy stuff. They will get worse at lifting heavy objects.

In this analogy however, the cranes are not all that reliable. We know they break, and they drop their payloads sometimes, and the stuff needs to be manually moved. But this only happens a few times a week, at most. If you need whoever is driving the crane to be able to jump out at any moment and still move stuff around manually, then you need to make an affordance for that. You need to give them time to go to the gym and do some lifting for practice, or every crane failure is going to be a major emergency.

An organization doing an AI transformation would also need a massive increase to learning & development budget, both in terms of resources and in terms of schedule. If your people are going to lose skills because they've lost regular practice in the incidental course of doing their duties, then they are going to need deliberate, intentional, non-incidental practice of those skills to keep them sharp.

But rather than trying to accommodate new workflows and give time for people to adjust, most AI mandates are simply dropped on workers like a ton of bricks, with no time to adapt and no affordance for maintaining their skills. Operate the crane and stay fit and healthy and ready to switch back to manual lifting at any time and then get back in the crane cockpit right afterwards. Don't mess up.

Then an accident happens and everyone is surprised, as if this process weren't practically designed to produce a terrible result.

3. Mental Health Resources to Deal with Mental Health Risks

AI psychosis often begins with practical problem-solving, and beyond that, it can start specifically at work. Not to mention the more pedestrian condition of "AI brain fry".

If you are mandating your employees to use a hazardous tool that may seriously and directly damage their mental health, you need trainings and resources. You need in-house therapists and you need to be making sure to check in with people actively to make sure that this is not happening.

Again, the tool itself ought to have some way of dealing with this. An occasional "take a break" popup is easily dismissed; they need a user-visible AI personal dosimeter so you can see your cumulative usage over time.

I don't even know if "usage over time" is a sufficient metric to gauge risk. Maybe if your work chatbot start to talk about resonance too much, unless you literally work as an acoustic engineer, that should be flagged for someone.

We are, again, years into dealing with these tools, and we know these risks exist. Yet no serious mitigations are provided. Not even any way of measuring the risk exposure.

And More

There are also many other risks associated with the technology. There are intellectual property risks with the foundation models, due to recklessness with their training data. There are existential financial risks associated with the infrastructure build-out. The extent to which most "open" models are simply derivatives of frontier models is an open question.

What I Think

If any one of these things were regularly overlooked by AI vendors or users, that would be a totally normal product oversight. Room for improvement for the next version, but nothing catastrophic.

Shipping without any of them doesn't seem like lean product management, it seems like a careless attitude towards risk and a product design philosophy oriented entirely towards short-term demos, with no regard for how to realize actual productivity gains.

Furthermore, being available for years without anything like these features, despite hundreds of incidents demonstrating the risks, with hundreds of billions of dollars of funding, makes it seem to me like if they were to add all the features that would make their product actually safe and hypothetically useful, these features would reveal that it is actually not an improvement to productivity.

In the year since I first wrote about measuring the cost/benefit ratio of AI, I have heard from numerous people who have shown this to management to try to illustrate why their AI initiatives - like almost all AI initiatives - were either failing or burning out their engineers.

I've also heard from lots of people that have told me that it's obviously useful and they don't need to measure so carefully, because they are getting lots of work done that they couldn't have otherwise.⁷

I have yet to hear from a single person who has said "yeah, we measured according to your methodology⁸, and it turns out that our AI work is going great and that our ratio is 0.75".

Obviously, I cannot say for sure why this is; absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. But at this point I think the null hypothesis is that AI tools provide, in aggregate, zero value. They make mistakes too often, and the externalities they produce are so bad and so difficult to control that even before we get to the places where they are just physically poisoning people, even the negative effects on their direct users end up cancelling out whatever benefit to they provide to their organizations.

If I were wrong, then including tools to measure an AI's effectiveness at the tasks their users are actually trying to accomplish, rather than meaningless benchmarks, would show big productivity gains. The frontier labs would be champing at the bit to add such features, and crowing about their fantastic results.

I think the labs know that if they did that, it would present a grim picture to their users. Such tools would let their users see that it's making mistakes much more often than they realized, that they're spending much more time with it than they want to be, and that it's just generally not fit for purpose.

If they prove me wrong by adding in all of these safety mechanisms, and in the process, they make all of their AI technology less harmful, I'll be thrilled to be debunked.

---

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!

28 Sep 2026 4:27am GMT

28 Sep 2026 4:00am GMT

You can now read the Python documentation online in German!

26 Sep 2026 12:00am GMT

Today I learned how to setup a Rust project that can be called from Python with PyO3 and maturin through uv.

When you follow the PyO3 getting started guide to create a simple Rust project that can be called from Python, the instructions you get assume you'll use a global Python installation to create a virtual environment and to install maturin into it. You can use uv through maturin, but if your project also has a Rust binary, things may break.

When you run a command like cargo run, cargo will see the dependency on PyO3 and it will then look for a Python installation. If you have no global Python installations - because you do everything through uv - or if your global installations aren't setup exactly like a vanilla, default installation, PyO3 might fail.

The fix is simple. In .cargo/config.toml add the environment variable PYO3_PYTHON that points to the Python inside your virtual environment:

# .cargo/config.toml
[env]
PYO3_PYTHON = { value = ".venv/bin/python", relative = true }

How to set up a Rust + Python project with PyO3 and maturin through uv

Here are all the steps to set up a Rust project that can be compiled into a binary executable and that can also be used from within Python:

% cargo new calculator
% cd calculator

Create the file lib.rs:

// lib.rs
pub fn add(a: i32, b: i32) -> i32 {
    a + b
}

#[pyo3::pymodule]
mod calculator {
    use pyo3::prelude::*;

    #[pyfunction]
    fn add(a: i32, b: i32) -> PyResult<i32> {
        Ok(crate::add(a, b))
    }
}

And update the file main.rs to depend on your calculator:

use calculator::add;

fn main() {
    println!("{}", add(1, 2));
}

If you run cargo run, you should get the result 3:

% cargo run
3

Add the PyO3 dependency from the Rust side:

% cargo add pyo3 -F abi3-py38

Update Cargo.toml to configure your crate type so it can be compiled for the Rust binary and for the Python bridge:

# Cargo.toml
# ...

[lib]
name = "calculator"
crate-type = ["cdylib", "rlib"]

Now, create a minimal pyproject.toml:

# pyproject.toml

[project]
name = "calculator"
version = "0.1.0"

[build-system]
requires = ["maturin>=1.0,<2.0"]
build-backend = "maturin"

Add the dependency on maturin and run it:

% uv add maturin
% uv run maturin develop
# ...
✏️ Setting installed package as editable
🛠 Installed calculator-0.1.0

Run Python with uv run python and test your package:

>>> from calculator import add
>>> add(3, 4)
7

At this point you're happy that you can use your Rust code from Python and may not realise that cargo run may no longer work, complaining about Python frameworks, not finding whatever it needs to link, or other weird errors.

Configure cargo to use the Python installation from the virtual environment by adding the file .cargo/config.toml:

# .cargo/config.toml
[env]
PYO3_PYTHON = { value = ".venv/bin/python", relative = true }

Try running cargo run again and note that everything still works:

% cargo run
3

Fixing issues with PyO3 +

...

25 Sep 2026 8:34am GMT

Open source is, at least in part, about you, where "you" refers to the user.

Open Source Is Not About "Open Source Is Not About You"

In other words: Rich Hickey was wrong when he wrote "Open Source Is Not About You" and I'm tired of pretending otherwise.

Of course he's not completely wrong, or his famous post would not have resonated quite so much in the first place. Obnoxious users who demand their personal use-cases be immediately addressed by volunteer maintainers for free should indeed be viewed as the pariahs that they are. Similarly, corporate users who want free support from the community that supplies their infrastructure to lower their costs. As should those who profit from this type of externalization by their own customers.

But the exchange of "open source" (or even "free software") is not as simple as "I have prepared some software for you, please enjoy it, you have no right to complain", and maintainers ought to have a precise understanding of the costs and benefits - as well as the ethical implications - of that exchange.

Right now we barely even articulate that the exchange exists, let alone that it establishes a long-term, subtle, and implicit relationship between maintainer and user.

Let's fix that.

What Are We Doing When We Do An Open Source?

Hickey, and his many acolytes in the years since his fateful post, asserts that the process of "open source" goes like this:

1. Maintainer makes a thing, and makes it available to users as a gift.
   1. Maintainer may "love working with the team".
   2. Maintainer may be "proud of the work we do".
2. Users accept the gift, and extract utility from it.
   1. (Users MUST be grateful for this.)
3. A tiny fraction of users reciprocally contribute to the thing.
   1. (Maintainers may be grateful for this.)

He makes various oblique references to the specific activities of his company, which does things vaguely related to his projects for money¹. These activities are exclusively characterized as for "customers", however, a subset of the aforementioned users so tiny ("fewer than 1%") as to nearly be an entirely distinct group.

Breezing past this process in an essay about obnoxious users demanding things they are not entitled to, one might nod along, as this sounds mostly sensible. Giving gifts is nice. I too love working with good teams and taking pride in things.

Examined more closely, however, it starts to logically fall apart. If you have consulting clients and that's where all of your money is coming from, why are you bothering (as he repeatedly insists) "doing [things] for the community"? What was the point of releasing this code in the first place? You could love working with your team and be proud of the work that you do in a lot of different contexts; why bother implicating this horde of entitled and obnoxious people, if that's all you're getting out of it? What's in it for you?

If we've left out something as fundamental as "why is the maintainer doing this", perhaps this story leaves out some other important bits as well.

Why Are You Doing This?

There are many possible motivations for releasing and maintaining open source software. They are often subtle, often overlapping, and rarely clearly stated. Maintainers are not a monolith and not everyone does it for similar reasons. But let's review a few reasons that someone might want to contribute.

Reputation

One reason that you might want to release some open source software is advertising. The most common form of this is self-promotion; if you are a visible, prominent contributor to an open source project, it stands to reason that you will have an easier time finding work in the domain of that project.

If you operate a consultancy, as Rich Hickey did at the time of his famous rant, then this reputational currency translates into advertising for your services. It's a practical demonstration of the skills of your team.

The trade in this benefit is most like the traditional "gift economy" that open source has been compared to. You give the code to your users, which has some value, but the users give you back some reputation, in the form of their attention, their esteem, and possibly even their money if they become customers or employers.

Influence

Infrastructure is the most popular type of open source for a good reason. Programmers working on a problem are often hemmed in by sclerotic architectural choices which prevent them from solving problems in the way that they'd prefer to solve them. Major infrastructural investments are difficult to justify in a planning process, as their benefits are hard to prove. Sometimes the benefits are highly personal; different engineers have different aesthetic preferences about what types of equally-valid solutions they'd prefer to work with.

If you can develop your preferred type of solution and release it as open source, then you can influence how everyone else solves this type of problem. As an individual, such a position of influence can allow you to have some transferable expertise between employers. You know how to use the tool you developed, so you can be very quick and effective with it, and you can shape it to your ongoing taste over time.

If you're an employer, and you can get everyone else to use your open source thing², this can reduce both your hiring and training costs. Potential employees can read the code, see that it's good, and want to work at a place that produces good code like that. They can also read the code and become familiar with it in advance of coming to work for you, which means that you have a ready supply of developers who already know how your internal systems work.

The trade in this benefit is more like "soft power" than a gift economy. You give the code to your users, which has some value, but the users give you back the ability to dictate their technological agenda. You gain both the ability to influence their initial direction, and, as part of ongoing maintenance, to dictate their behavior over time.

Improvement

As an engineer, you might want to improve your own skills. Writing something proprietary and commercial cuts against this in two ways.

First, you will want to build something that already exists within your skill set, so that it will attract commercial interest and actually be competitive. Within the context of a larger team, you will want to personally be able to be immediately effective for similar reasons. But you still need a way to learn new things.

Second, you will want to build something somewhat secretively, so that the value you are producing is captured rather than released to the community. This means that you will be cut off from external sources of expert feedback.

As an organization, you might want to build the skills of your staff in similar ways.

The trade in this benefit is code for knowledge. You release the code or changes, and in return you expect your users to provide you good bug reports, and to induce at least some of them to become co-developers.

Outsourcing

As an engineer, you can only do so much on your own. Perhaps you want to have some influence over your infrastructure so you want to write it, but you also want to have a communal place to keep your infrastructure such that you can make a change to something to suit your needs, but you know that even if you walk away, someone else will maintain that change and keep it working across years or even decades of changes to underlying platforms, hardware, etc.

This sort of communal maintenance effort can be shared among all interested participants; if a thousand companies all need the same tool, if even a few dozen can share it, that reduces even their own load massively, let alone everyone else's.

The trade in this benefit is more complex, since there's less symmetry between the main maintainer and peripheral community members who also contribute code. The main maintainer is actually trading a namespace, a central place for people to contribute, coordinate, and release changes, rather than the code. They are a sort of market maker where then all the other contributors trade code for code within that market-ish structure.

In practice, this motivation produces a game theory problem where, when maintenance drops below a critical threshold, it creates a big enough crisis that at least some freeloading stakeholders will be forced to start making contributions.

Ultimately, however, this saves all involved parties a ton on maintenance, more eager volunteers who do not freeload in the first place get all the other benefits mentioned above as well.

The Things that Aren't Supposed To Be Benefits

These categories could be made as explicit, rational trade-offs, even if they are often implicit and subtle in practice. They are transactions where the maintainer gets something and the user gets something.

However, not everything that you are getting as a maintainer is something you are actually supposed to use to your own benefit. Being given trust in service of a responsibility is not a transaction.

"Oops, All Root Shells"

Open source code is code. In our modern world of absolutely pathetic sandboxing, installing code from somebody else gives them control over your system, even if it is somewhat indirect.

There is an unwritten rule that if I create an open source library, and you use it, it probably shouldn't have a backdoor in it that gives me the credentials to your bank account. There is a trust relationship between the user and the maintainer, and here, we see the first obligation that the maintainer has. The maintainer is obligated not to use the user's computer for their own gain.

This rule might seem obvious and straightforward. It might even seem unfair to you that I call the rule "unwritten", because the rule is, in fact, written down in a few places: for example, in the npm Acceptable Content Policy, it says right there:

A few examples of unacceptable content:

…

3. Content containing malicious computer code, such as computer viruses, computer worms, rootkits, back doors, or spyware. This includes content submitted for research purposes. Tools designed and documented explicitly to assist in security research are acceptable, but exploits and malware that use the npm registry as a deployment or delivery vector are not.

I think we can all agree that a script which steals your bank credentials and sends them to me to buy a totally sick jet ski would qualify as "malware", so clearly that is forbidden.

There is also an enormous gray area here. npm also explicitly allows "Information on how to pay, donate to, and otherwise support Package development", but then goes on to explicitly forbid "Packages that display ads at runtime, on installation, or at other stages of the software development lifecycle, such as via npm scripts."⁴ How are the lines drawn around these gray areas? "npm will continue to apply its judgment when deciding what content is acceptable."

But also... this is forbidden by npm, not by the transcendental nature of "open source". I could give away code that displays all kinds of ads to its users as a "gift" on my website. The exact structure of this policy is not uncommon, but it also isn't exactly the same as other such sites. PyPI, for example, explicitly bans "cryptocurrency mining", which NPM does not. Is cryptocurrency mining "not open source"? A lot of judgement calls are happening here about what is allowable in these "gifts" that you are giving to your users.

But I digress.

My point is that policy-making around this concept is not clear, there are lots of little disagreements around the edges, but there is a very strong consensus that while the user is giving you their trust here, that is not a trade. The deal is not "you give the user some code, the user gives you unlimited compute and access to all their financial accounts". The user has made themselves vulnerable to your code on the strength of your reputation.

This creates an obligation for you to not do anything evil with that code, either intentionally or through negligence.

Security Updates Are Just Command And Control In A Funny Hat

All of this is just about the initial download of some code, and that is the way that Rich Hickey describes it, as if you just grabbed some code off a web page and put it in a folder that you like on your desktop. But that is not how open source relationships work today, if indeed it ever was.

The way it works today is that you add a dependency to your pyproject.toml or your package.json or your Cargo.toml and now your users are vulnerable not just to whatever you happened to upload in the first place, but to whoever happens to have your package index credentials.

This creates an obligation to maintain an operational security posture that protects your users from malicious updates.

The Roadmap Is Someone's Life

Another kind of trust that the user is placing in you is the trust that you are going to have at least some kind of regard for their usage of your software.

In a perfect world, the user's expectations could be clearly circumscribed. Whatever ongoing maintenance you commit to perform would be encapsulated in clear policies that you'd write up in advance, about exactly what kind of security response policy you have, how you will communicate when you no longer have the resources for maintenance, and so on.

But anyone who has been involved in any project at anything but the most extreme tier of operational maturity knows that 99% of the ecosystem relies on a set of loose conventions around how all that stuff works. We expect that maintainers will generally be around, that they'll use existing tools like an issue tracker for triaging user bugs, GHSA and CVEs for security reporting, that they will mark the project as "archived" and maybe do a final release before abandoning it, that they will maintain a ChangeLog explaining at least a little bit of what is going on.

Users assume that those conventions will be followed when there are any gaps in explicit policy, or indeed if policy is lacking entirely. This assumption is reasonable, because otherwise nobody could ever use any open source without a stack of service contracts that nobody has any time to write.

The strongest such convention is that an actively maintained program will, at least, more or less keep doing what it does as time goes on. A user who has elected to use a bit of open source software has made themselves vulnerable to changes and breakages in that software by the mere fact of using it. In the time that they have used it and invested in it, they have not invested in:

• creating alternative software to meet their needs,
• maintaining data in formats that other software can read, or
• learning how to use existing alternative software.

This can, and does, go badly wrong, when those expectations are mismatched.

How It Goes Wrong

Let's say a maintainer creates an open source paint program, OpenPaint.

An artist, known for their unique style of making blended collages, switches from their previous app, ProprietaryPaint, to this new OpenPaint to make these culturally significant works of art. However, the maintainer decides that the 'blend' tool is kind of a pain to maintain, and they remove it in OpenPaint 2.

A few months later, the artist's operating system vendor issues a security update that breaks OpenPaint, because older versions of OpenPaint were unknowingly abusing some platform API.

The maintainer releases a new OpenPaint 2.0.1 that addresses this incompatibility, but doesn't care about version 1.x any more so they don't bother to update that one.

This places the artist in an impossible situation. They can stay on an old version of their operating system, putting all their personal data at risk. Or they can upgrade to the new operating system, effectively either cutting off access to their livelihood, or forcing them to change their art style entirely.

Now, proprietary software can place users in similarly untenable positions (and in fact, it is more often proprietary software that does). But does the openness completely remove any obligation for this consideration? Should the OpenPaint team have to at least communicate the reasons for doing this, to give the artist some recourse?⁵

The only thing that "open source" does is that it allows the artist to pay a prohibitive amount of money to a new maintenance team to create a fork. This is rarely the kind of thing that individuals can manage.

This creates an obligation to at least consider how your users might be relying on you.

This is the most complex obligation of the bunch. Obviously it does not entitle every single user to infinite work from the maintainer, but it also shouldn't entitle the user to nothing for having trusted these subtle implied claims that the maintainer is making by making their work public.

It is a nuanced and ongoing negotiation and I do not think we have a clear moral intuition about how it should work out. But we do need to figure out a way to work it out.

It also raises a clarifying question.

Why Are We Even Doing This, and Who Are We Doing It For?

People generally like to do things for more than one reason. We live in an economy where people need to make money, but we mostly prefer to make that money doing things that are useful, and that make other people happy.

So, yes, we create open source for self-interested reasons to improve our reputations, to improve our skills, to increase our influence and to share our maintenance burdens. In so doing we take on some level of obligation to not abuse the trust that is placed in us, even if that level of obligation is not clear.

But if we are not doing it to serve those users at least a little bit, then those motivations are going to quickly ring hollow. We will not increase our reputation with a person if we respond to their every request by telling them that we owe them nothing and that their opinions are worthless. We will not gain influence over a community if we ignore their desires.

Many interactions with open source maintainers are unnecessarily adversarial. This is of course partially the fault of those users, who should calibrate their expectations appropriately.

Still: maintainers could do a better job of listening before these interactions become toxic. There's no reason that "open source users" should be an especially toxic group of people. At this point in history, that group is basically just … people with computers.

It's like that old truism. If you meet one person who is a jerk to you, that's their problem. But if everyone you meet, everywhere you go, is constantly abrasive to you and treats you like you're doing something wrong, maybe it's time to look inward.

If all open source users are entitled assholes, maybe it's time to look for a structural problem.

Surprise, It's About AI Again

Sigh.⁶

Users hate slop.

I know, dear AI-positive reader, your AI outputs are different from everyone else's, you aren't pushing thoughtless slop into your code, just because everyone else is and it is the inevitable terminus of using those tools. You aren't "lazy vibe coding" with Claude, you're doing "responsible agentic engineering", which is different because you're just built different.

Still, humor me, for a moment. Your users don't know that. They know what it looks like when products that they like adopt slop. They know that they will start leaking data. Developers know that it will make them personally less secure. They know that they can expect more outages and that your code will inexorably decline in quality.

In other words, your users are going to assume that this means you are violating that final obligation that the software should keep working.

Your users are going to tell you to stop, and they are probably going to get mad. Maybe you, or a plurality of your team, also want to stop, maybe you disagree with them, but in any case you need some way to have that conversation in a way that does not immediately overflow into every adjacent discussion forum. Users need to feel welcome in some space so they can have the discussion in that space, and not explode out into a thousand different group chats and social media threads.

This post was inspired by yet another prominent open source community discourse where a ton of angry users showed up to yell at developers to stop accepting LLM-generated code. I'm not going to link to any of these, because we don't need any more fuel for the discourse fire. But there is more than one such case and the pattern is becoming familiar.

On social media - usually BlueSky or Mastodon, but sometimes a user group forum - users become aware of some AI-adjacent policy. They show up in a horde to the developer forum or mailing list. They loudly start demanding the project take a hard stand⁷ against AI. This pressure is simultaneous, but uncoordinated; extremely repetitive, very diverse, often inconsistent, and pretty stressful, especially if you're a burnt-out maintainer with other things to be doing who may not even like AI yourself in the first place.

Believe me, I get it. It can be very unpleasant to deal with.

Like most problems that AI is causing, though, it's not really an "AI" problem as much as it is a pre-existing dumpster fire that "AI" is pouring gasoline onto. In this case, an online mob is the language of the unheard⁸.

If Users Are Mad It's Probably Already Too Late (But Maybe You Can Get Ready For Next Time)

One day, all of a sudden, you're getting feedback from a bunch of users that are using inappropriate channels to complain. But did they already have appropriate channels to use?

Did you have a place for people to congregate and discuss your project? To make orderly complaints in a way that will be legible to you? Or do you just have a GitHub Issues page, which non-technical users have no idea how to interact with, and a forum for developers, where users don't know the norms and any arriving brigade of pissed-off users will be seen as disruptive and inappropriate?

I don't want to be throwing any stones from within my particular glass house. Setting up such a place has gotten harder over the years. I don't really have one, either.

Could I have one, though? IRC has been slowly dying, mailing lists are unpopular and present increasingly annoying moderation challenges, forum software is expensive to operate and keep maintained, Discord is a confusing mess and the upshot of all of this is every community needs community management and forum moderation. Which means that for my own small solo projects, I couldn't possibly have such infrastructure because such infrastructure requires a dedicated second person to maintain it, and until someone volunteers for that, it's not really feasible. Even for my larger projects you'd be surprised how slim of a skeleton crew we are getting by with, and we definitely don't have a whole spare maintainer to go manage this, especially as we are under attack from the slopocalypse ourselves.

The nature of open source community is that most communities start too small to need such a thing, grow incrementally until one day they are suddenly way too big and needed one yesterday, and then suddenly they are too small again when interest wanes even a little bit. Even as we need it more and more, building and maintaining community infrastructure remains a challenge.

Even so, having a dedicated place for users - not maintainers - to converse amongst themselves, be an actual community, and present feedback to the developers, is fast becoming a necessary component of a successful community and not a nice-to-have.

In Conclusion

As trying as it can be sometimes, we maintainers all do get something out of open source, and it is good to be honest with your users - and with yourself - exactly what you want to get out of it. In order to know whether the juice is worth the squeeze, we must know both what the juice is, and what the squeeze is.

Part of the metaphorical squeeze is a set of obligations, and those are the most poorly defined of all. We should try to be clear about what those are too. Both about exactly what we believe we are signing up for, and also, about how we are willing to let our users hold us to account for them. Codes of conduct are a start here, but only the absolute barest bare minimum; "do not harass your colleagues or your users" is not a standard of excellence to aspire to, it's just basic manners.

I can't tell you exactly what your obligations are, only try to gesture at my idea of the outlines of the fuzzy moral intuition we've all been implicitly sharing up until now.

Drawing this line is not just for the benefit of the users, either. Maintainers already feel pressure, we already feel obligations. We resent that feeling of obligation. While there are a diverse array of reasons for that resentment, one big one is that it's not clear, even to ourselves where the obligations end. Lashing out by saying "I promised nothing and I owe you nothing!" followed by some choice expletives feels cathartic, but it doesn't really solve the problem, because we clearly don't really believe that's where the line is, or we would have already stopped there. We wouldn't feel the need to say it.

It is going to be a very big collective endeavor to figure out exactly where that line is. The best time to have gotten started on that endeavor was 50 years ago.

But the second best time is today.

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!⁹

25 Sep 2026 12:50am GMT

I get asked this rhetorical question a lot, in various forms:

Sure, datacenters might use a lot of energy, but you don't have to use a hosted frontier model to do software development. What if I just run a local open-weights model to do some coding, with an open-source coding agent? Video games also use my GPU. Is local model development any worse than playing a video game?

So I want to write down my comprehensive answer to this: Yes, using an LLM to write some code is worse than playing a video game, for a few reasons.

Video Games Are Interactive, LLMs Are Batch Jobs

Video games use compute to respond to human input. You are using your GPU while you are looking at a screen, displaying an image. When you are done playing, you shut off the game, and your computer goes back to idle. It's much less energy. By contrast, agentic loops with evals (the only kind of "AI" that is meaningfully any good at coding) are running hot, for days. To use the most recent example of such a thing, a very rough first sketch of an implementation of a Windows graphics API backend to help port a paint program to other platforms, it took 3 weeks of Claude time, "day and night". Do you play a lot of video games for 500 hours to make it past the tutorial level, while also using other computers for other things, as well as the rest of your carbon footprint?

Video Games Need Development, LLMs Need Training

Video games use compute to respond to human input during development, too. Your game has to be made, but your LLM has to be trained. LLMs use a historically extreme amount of power, probably using more than the entire Internet, but it's kind of hard to say. Still, it seems a reasonable estimate to within several orders of magnitude that even over a multi-year project with hundreds of developers, the power used to develop an individual video game is nowhere close to training even a small LLM.

This is true even for local models. OpenAI has openly claimed that DeepSeek "stole its intellectual property", and I have heard grumblings that none of the open-weights generalist models could realistically exist without the massive lift that the frontier labs are doing with their training, in various other ways too. Secrecy throughout the industry makes this kind of impossible to understand rigorously, but it seems fair to say that you are partially culpable for all that famously energy-intensive frontier lab training if you're using a local model.

And They Keep Needing Training

You also can't dismiss this as a sunk cost, because in order to stay current with industry developments, models need to be updated with new information from the rest of the world, which means that you need to keep training them. Beyond the energy for your own use, if you want a real-life agentic workflow that actually does useful stuff, practically speaking you would still need to update your local models over and over again, at least once every few months, which means you would be incentivizing continued energy consumption by whoever was doing that training for you, including the energy cost of scraping.

Let's Be Real Here, You Aren't Actually Using A Local Model

This question is a hypothetical thought experiment. Despite synthetic benchmarks that keep showing there isn't much difference between open weight and frontier models, nobody's actually using local models for much of anything beyond sharing those talking points. Depending on which benchmark you're looking at, maybe it's good enough or maybe it's worse.

As an inveterate AI hater, all these systems seem pretty bad to me, but it seems that people who find them useful tend to subjectively believe the frontier models are worth the premium, and that's what they're actually using. Once you have accepted that it is OK to use LLMs for coding at all, it seems like a very quick slippery slope on down to "we'll go ahead and use the frontier models for now anyway, but we could be ethically better in the future by switching to an open weights one, that option is always available".

There's A Reason We Have Data Centers

Devolving power usage to local LLMs might be good to make users responsible for their costs and decrease the impacts to communities that are physically next to huge concentrations of power utilization, not to mention generation. However, there's a reason that it makes sense for the providers to build these giant facilities: economies of scale reduce total power consumption, they don't increase it. If you do all the same stuff with a local model that they have to do in hosted environments, it will probably take more power, even though you will be incentivized to do different stuff. This incentive to "do different stuff" is why although local models can hypothetically hold their own against the frontier labs for some tasks, when people or businesses take their inference costs in-house they often find that it's too painful and move back to hosted LLMs.

There Are Problems Other Than Power

These are subjects for a different post, but you have to consider a lot of other externalities: AI psychosis, de-skilling, comprehension debt, cultivating a dependency, introducing security defects, limiting your design space based on what LLMs can understand, context rot, wasting time on invalid solutions, introducing unpredictability into your workflows. You still have to consider the total cost benefit ratio.

To Sum Up

Local LLMs might alleviate some of the harms from using the hosted frontier providers. There are fewer privacy concerns, you can measure your power utilization and be more directly responsible for it, you can build interfaces with affordances that are less oriented towards addiction and dependency than the major frontier labs' harnesses.

But they're not automatically "the same as playing a video game" just because they can use the same GPU.

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!

06 Sep 2026 10:57pm GMT