The real point is that AI agents, for people rather than for coders, must be 100% bulletproof. As the post said, people have to be able to use them while drunk. They have to be able to use them while distracted.

Coding agents? The users are, presumably, both sober and paying attention. The general public? They won't be.

Hrm. I'd say that all of these things are possible when using services of companies that are valued at billions/trillions in the stock market. So "impossible" might be too strict.

So, I just took a look at blogger.com, instagram.com, and youtube.com. They all seem to run on html and javascript. If someone thought normies were going to write javascript by hand that was never, ever going to happen and is not a tick against html/js. In fact, the dotcom bust is what made html and js more robust. I have lots of money creating html/js for people and businesses.

> Html is not a good form of self-expression. It’s hard to secure. It’s hard to distribute. It’s hard to reason about. You need to learn how to code.

HTML is no worse than Word, paper, or the printing press. It's not hard to secure at all because html carries no risks, it's a markup language. It's not hard to distribute at all, not even a tiny bit. I don't even know what one would "reason about" with html. Do they also struggle to "reason about" paper? What exactly IS "reasonsing about" html? Learn to code? Are you for real? In 2026? People haven't been forced to write html by hand for almost 30 years.

> Second: it missed that 90% of the internet’s traffic would come through video.

No, no one missed this. There's an easy way to prove it, too. Look at all the video sites created 20+ years ago. Hulu, Netflix, Youtube, etc. 20+ years ago. No one missed video being the next big thing except this author.

> Not correct: > Fiber usage would scale with number of websites > People in the network would scale with number of websites

I agree these are not correct, but that's like saying "the moon is a rabbit that likes to hum Mozart" is wrong. Yes, it's wrong, but no one ever argued that was true.

> It would be more true to say: > Fiber usage would scale with video streaming > People in the network would scale with social media adoption

It would, and these are the things everyone DID predict.

This whole post is nonsense.

So, the same as in not actually 0%? Even though the video streams themselves were never used for attacks[0], the contents of the videos frequently have been. The closest analogue to phishing would be the fake "SpaceX launch" streams that were actually a carrier for a crypto scam payload. Or for malware, it doesn't matter that the video itself wasn't malware as long as a video showing a fake Fortnite hack could get the viewer to install malware thinking they got the hack.

AI agents need to be substantially better than humans at this, but they don't need to be perfect.

[0] As far as I know! It seems very hard to smuggle a vuln past the transcoding, but I guess technically possible.