The agent publish the news of the website daily.

Alors qu'en janvier 2026, Elon Musk twittait « Grokipedia connaît une croissance fulgurante. Elle dépassera largement Wikipédia cette année »

Five Rust working groups stance on the AI usage on Rust lang

But it does harm accessibility

L'IA est un outil, qui permet une certaine automatisation du métier de développeur.

Un autre discours qui dénonce l'IA et ö

Les promoteurs de l'IA passent leur temps à dévaluer ce que signifie être humain.

Note: leurs arguments peuvent être justifié, si l'IA elle-même est justifié; nous avons vu l'exemple d'AlphaGo jouer au go contre le champion du monde.

The struggle itself is a learning. It forces the brain to build the connections. The process is the learning.

One tip to use AI correctly is:

Use AI like a coach or a reference book, not always like a substitute for thinking. Leave room for your brain to struggle, because that struggle is where durable understanding is often formed.

So the method is to keep some hard thinking even with the strain:

• take handwritten notes
• attempt coding or writing from scratch
• spend time with difficult material before engaging for help

What could go wrong if legal documents are not read properly ?

The AI rewrite of Bun costs more than what is annouced in https://bun.com/blog/bun-in-rust

The costs is estimated to at least 10 times more than annouced.

Anthropic vise plutôt 50% moins cher que de rivaliser avec Fable.

Debian stance on the LLM usage. It is open for discussion.

It's a stance; never about quality, voice and/or style, around for other human made products.

I 100% agree.

It's useless to argue with "by AI". What is it solving for me? Is it good and reliable for me?

And it doesn’t really matter if these features are branded as “AI”, “smart” or “automation”. However, they must work well for people using them. And that means that people must be aware of use cases where it actually helps them, and be inspired to find more use cases on their own.

Sans surprise

We don't have to follow the trends.

I've started asking clients a simple question when they bring it up. Not to be difficult, just to understand: "Do you actually use chatbots when you visit other websites?"

Simple is the word that keeps coming up. And I've learned that when a client says simple, they don't mean easy to use. They mean not impressive enough.

The pressure isn't really coming from clients anyway. It's coming from the web itself, from a decade of bloated pages, dark patterns, and feature arms races that quietly redefined what a "real" website looks like. Clients are just reading the room. The room is wrong, but they're not imagining it.
The shift might come from users, not decision-makers. It might come when enough people notice that the fast, calm site was easier to use. That they actually found what they came for. That they didn't have to close three things before reading a single line.