I doubt we've seen any HN frontpage story this year that did not have a bit of upvote coordination from the author messaging their friends they just posted.

You can just do a quick scroll through the second page of 'new' to see how stories end up for people who dont.

Sounds to me like people understand different things under a software factory.

I believe a software factory is just the next step in the mantra everything is code.

One wants to write a feature description and acceptance criteria into the "box" as fuzzy and with least details as much as possible.

To enable this, one creates for the factory access to information of the domain, requirements and software stack as required by the environment.

And this one attempts all with tools, documentation and processes optimized for the ai.

All with the goal use less tokens, context and speed up every action taken by an agent as much as possible.

That's why there is a trend to plugin based self evolving harnesses which try to automate this with opionated solutions.

Therefore I don't see a reason why building tools for easier testing and less tokens usage is a waste of time especially because one learns more a more areas in ones work one can automate and because depending on your tool choice it can be done without your input and one misses the chance to experiment if ones input in that regard will improve the factory or not.

Would you not then also copy the investments? Or are you trying to inverse the trades by an unpredictable time factor reasoning that thanks to AI the underlying stock is over- or underpriced?

A lot of algorithmic trading is short-term, essentially trying to guess what other parties may be selling or buying so that you can front-run them and then collect a fee. Kinda like ticket scalping, except we accept it and have a retro-justification for why it's good ("improving liquidity").

Or, in the best case, you're trying to mine signals few days before earnings or some other big story and bet on the directional outcome of that.

Fully-algorithmic long-term trading is of dubious benefit simply because that's driven to a much greater extent by geopolitics and macroeconomic trends, unforeseen scandals, successful product launches, and so on. As an example, you can believe that AR / VR is the future; I don't disagree. And in 2013, you might have inferred that Google is working on a revolutionary miniature AR headset. But you would not have made money if you bet on that turning out to be a hit. So even if you had a way to automate this bet, it would not have been a good bet.

I was under the impression that front-running was something that happened in the span of seconds (or milliseconds), not a timeframe compatible with LLM inference time.

By which reason can they cap the knowledge workers displacement at 39.7% in the extreme case? Maybe they want to reason that without robots its impossible to replace the last 22% but even specialised devices would be enough in the worst case.

I think in the worst case knowledge work will go to the capital rich 1% as legal representative for the companies and their shareholders.

And with robotics all 99% of the workforce could be gone. Because AI does not need to be perfect it only needs to be cheaper and good enough.