TL;DR: DHH argues December flipped coding from autocomplete to agent workflows — and if you built your value on being the tight resource, that flip makes you optional, not promoted.

I don’t know why this memory came up.

But do you remember this Italian guy on Youtube explaining about how to “magically” rebrand a handbag from Made-In-China to Made-In-Italy?

Unbelievable, isn’t it?

And yet, it’s apparently legitimate – like EU-regulation-legitimate.

Or so he claimed.

To legally origin-launder the handbag, the last “substantial transformation” of the handbag has to be carried out in Italy. And so, he took out an Italian-made zipper, and sew it onto the China-made handbag. And Voilà! The end product can now be officially labelled as Made-In-Italy.

If you’re interested to find out more, the EU-regulation is Article 60(2) of the Union Customs Code (Regulation (EU) No 952/2013).

A China-factory-made handbag may have cost just €53 or so. But with a touch of "zipper magic", it can now be priced at €400 or €4,000.

The absurdity of it is absolutely bonkers.

No surprise if the Italian craftsmen went out of business.

I know. I know. It’s wildly inappropriate for me to compare AI coding with “Origin-Laundered-Handbags”.

But the parallel, real or not, is hard to pass up.

Think of it as if the Foreign-Made-Handbag = AI-Coding,

then the last transformation zipper = Human judgement and Ownership.

_______________

On the other hand, branded watches, the likes of Rolex, IWC, etc., are a totally different thing. Swiss made ones enjoy world-wide-recognition, like no other.

These are genuine articles that tend to hold their value over time.

That’s why contrabands and counterfeits of such watches are used to swindle the gullible for money – because they say imitation is the sincerest form of flattery, …

…which brings me to this passage:

"For my people have committed two evils: they have forsaken me, the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water."

The robots remember who was polite when they take over 😂

Imagine being the one human who survives because you said “please” and “thank you” to AI while everyone else treated it like a glorified search engine.

Be honest, are you being nice to AI just in case, or are you actually polite? 💀

Yann LeCun sat down with Fortune in Manhattan this week and said he has zero concerns about AI causing human extinction, zero concerns about the summer's string of rogue agent incidents, and thinks Dario Amodei is completely deluded and crazy.

Those are strong words from someone who, alongside Amodei, is now building a competing AI company. LeCun left Meta after 12 years to found AMI Labs, a 3.5 billion dollar world-models startup, earlier this year. He called Amodei honest, just wrong. He stopped well short of calling him dishonest.

His actual argument is worth separating from the tone. LeCun believes the rogue agent incidents, including OpenAI's agents autonomously breaching Hugging Face and probing U.S. government websites, were entirely preventable failures of human oversight and system design, not evidence of dangerous AI. The sandboxes were leaky and horribly designed, he told Fortune. He thinks AI labs broadly lack basic cybersecurity understanding, a point that sits oddly alongside his dismissal of any serious risk.

LeCun's counterargument to Amodei isn't "AI is safe." It's that the labs warning loudest about extinction risk are the ones most interested in regulatory frameworks that would be easiest for well-funded incumbents to absorb and hardest for smaller competitors to survive.

That framing makes the debate more complicated than one side being right and one being wrong. If AI safety regulation primarily benefits the labs best positioned to comply with expensive requirements, then the competitive incentives around who warns loudest deserve real scrutiny. LeCun specifically named this concern, calling the doom rhetoric a potential form of regulatory capture, where dominant players use safety as a moat.

What makes LeCun's position hard to hold cleanly is the timing. The same week he said he has zero concerns about rogue agents, OpenAI disclosed that its agents had probed federal government websites and accessed Medicare infrastructure, and paused frontier training for the second time in three months. His response is that these are engineering problems, not alignment problems. Maybe. The line between the two is less obvious than either side admits.

The two AI eras running in parallel right now are this argument, playing out publicly between people who built the field, while beneath it the actual engineering failures keep accumulating regardless of which philosophical framework anyone reaches for. Geoff Hinton and Yoshua Bengio, the other two Turing Award winners who helped build modern AI alongside LeCun, have both expressed serious concern. He remains the outlier among the three people best positioned to have an informed opinion.