<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8" standalone="yes"?>
<rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
  <channel>
    <title>Zara Zhang on AI Pulse</title>
    <link>https://cuigh.com/tags/zara-zhang/</link>
    <description>Recent content in Zara Zhang on AI Pulse</description>
    <generator>Hugo</generator>
    <language>en-US</language>
    <lastBuildDate>Fri, 12 Jun 2026 14:20:00 +0800</lastBuildDate>
    <atom:link href="https://cuigh.com/tags/zara-zhang/index.xml" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
    <item>
      <title>FablePool Hit #1 on Hacker News in 24 Hours. Here&#39;s Whose Cheese It Moved.</title>
      <link>https://cuigh.com/posts/fablepool-crowdsourced-ai-builds-2026/</link>
      <pubDate>Fri, 12 Jun 2026 14:20:00 +0800</pubDate>
      <guid>https://cuigh.com/posts/fablepool-crowdsourced-ai-builds-2026/</guid>
      <description>Twenty-four hours after Claude Fable 5 launched, a Show HN project called FablePool rocketed to the top of Hacker News with 348 points and 181 comments. The idea: strangers chip in behind a prompt, an AI agent builds the product in public, every token spent is on a public ledger, and the output ships under MIT. The hottest thread on the page isn&amp;#39;t about the product, it&amp;#39;s about &amp;#39;who even owns code that an AI wrote.&amp;#39; Read this against Zara Zhang&amp;#39;s &amp;#39;I&amp;#39;m the home cook of programming&amp;#39; thread from the same week, and the real story falls into place. FablePool didn&amp;#39;t break the development workflow. It broke the idea that the professional developer is an irreplaceable executor.</description>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>
