“We should be more ambitious with the software we build”

Since early this year, Michael Malis (of pgrust) has been showing me interesting things he's done and saying
[W]e should be more ambitious1 with the software we build
There is, understandably, a lot of skepticism about projects like pgrust because there are so many low-quality AI-generated projects out there. If I didn't know Malis and didn't look into it, I would just assume that pgrust was another vibe slopped project that's never going to work. But I know Malis well enough to trust his work without looking into it, and if you look into it a bit, you'll see that in testing pgrust, he's testing thoroughly enough that he's even uncovering real bugs in Postgres, such as this numerical bug that can cause valid SP-GiST operations to fail, this format cache bug that can cause incorrect results from JSONPath, this pgcrypto bug that can cause later operations to fail, multiple memory safety bugs in the dictionary loader2, this money overflow bug, etc.
This isn't to say that pgrust is bug free3, but it does indicate that there's a substantial amount of testing happening and, even if pgrust itself is never successful, just making the attempt will have improved Postgres in a durable way. The main pitch for pgrust is actually performance, and that's where the really interesting work is happening; if pgrust fails, it's possible that some of the optimizations they've demonstrated will make it into Postgres, Clickhouse, etc., but that's obviously less direct than filing Postgres bugs which get fixed.
That being said, I find it understandable that, every time I see pgrust discussed on a news aggregator, most people dismiss it as vibeslop garbage because almost all of these rewrite projects are slop. If I didn't know Malis, I would make the same assumption, because who has the time to look into all of these projects? Because I know Malis, I didn't bother to look at it; I just trusted him (I only found the above because I wanted to check on pgrust before using it as an example for this post).
As a consumer of software, everywhere you look, there's slow software that the creator is claiming is fast because the creator is touting some slop benchmark, e.g., here's one of multiple examples I saw yesterday, and of course low-quality software that doesn't work is more common than ever.
But, as a builder of software, it doesn't matter that almost all of these projects are vibeslop, that other people are out there shoveling out huge piles of crap and calling it gold. You can build things like pgrust or other projects that would've been too large to really be feasible in the past and, if you do a reasonable job with testing and benchmarking, that stuff can actually be good-enough quality to use.
If I were writing it, I would say "we can be more ambitious with the software we build" and not "we should", but Malis has been casually chatting with me when he's said this, so maybe he would say the same in an actual post; don't read too much into should vs. can here. What's interesting to me is how capabilities have advanced such that we can do a lot more.
Just for example, after hearing that OpenAI was going to use Cerebras for their SOTA models and not just fast-but-low-quality models like 5.3-Codex-Spark, I looked at where time on my computer would go if I was using a SOTA model, but 10x to 100x faster; some things that were already sometimes a bottleneck that would only get worse with a faster model were:
At the level of a "works for me" project, these are all things that can seriously be improved. I don't have much spare time at the moment but, even so, I built this regex engine that can be tweaked to be faster than other general-purpose regex libraries on any particular workload I care about, this ripgrep fork that uses the native code compiler from the regex engine and is faster for my codex ripgrep workloads (of course a text index is the better solution, but I've already worked on text indexing and this was a "just for fun" project where I wasn't trying to do the optimal thing), and a Rust that sped up builds for my projects (huge improvement for cold builds, moderate for warm, limited by wanting to avoid forking the Rust compiler front-end). For syscalls and filesystem overhead, just switching development from Mac to Linux improved this a lot, and of course this is another thing that can be sped up a lot as well, especially when agents are hammering lots of small filesystem operations (it's not uncommon to see my machine waiting on filesystem ops because the standard OS filesystem interface wasn't designed with modern disk performance in mind). With modern disks, there's no reason to use the *nix filesystem API. In the past, writing a developer toolchain that uses direct I/O instead of normal filessytem operations or building a custom OS or a funny layer that fakes out syscalls would've been an absurd endevaor, but that's totally doable now.
For someone like me who doesn't know anything about regexes, string matching algorithms, compilers, interpreters, etc., this set of projects would've taken a year or more to get to "works for me" quality. Instead, this was a low single-digit number of hours of my time. If I wanted to make any of these things meet a "useful product or open source project" quality bar, that would be a lot more work0, but it's still pretty incredible how much this process is sped up.
My read of Malis's meaning when he says “we should be more ambitious with the software we build”, is that it doesn't even occur to people to do these things that are now easy. For weeks, every time I logged into Twitter, I saw someone complain about how Rust compilation is slow and is limiting development velocity (I think this wasn't actually true when I saw the complaints, in that this was before 5.6 Sol and 6 Astra were available on Cerebras, and if you measured where the time actually went, Rust compilation time wasn't actually that much of a bottleneck at the time). Sure, Rust compliation is slow. You can