anonymous908213

Please delete my account. I want no association with this site if you're choosing to ignore your own rules to actively promote bot-generated spam over human content.

[flagged]

Why are you stating something that is not true as though it were a given, and then using that unearned precondition as the basis for your question? The premise is false. Artcraft is a complete fucking trainwreck, nothing more than scamware that falls apart as soon as you poke beyond the deceptive facade that was used to build hype.

(That said, on the scale of blame for it being bad, I would say the GUI framework accounts for 0% of that and the programming methodology accounts for 100% of that)

> It's extremely difficult to find, hire, and then put into the right position a competent security engineer.

It's not that difficult. If your security is bad, somebody finds and tells you. Then you have five options: (a) attempt to prosecute them, (b) thank them for their volunteer work and tell them to fuck off, (c) give them some loose pocket change for their help, (d) actually pay them a real bounty, (e) offer to hire them. ~0% pick E, ~10% pick D. The people who can help them literally come to their door with hard proof of their ability to help, voluntarily, and 90% of the industry snubs their nose at the very people who can take advantage of bad security. This problem is entirely self-inflicted.

I've done it a dozen times in gamedev, where interfaces and interactivity are routinely built from scratch without any help of a framework. I didn't work on web applications in 2010, but even with the clusterfuck that the web is I find it difficult to believe it was that hard to do.

> draggable ghost

Okay, you've added a requirement. Poll the current cursor position after the first hit-test sets the dragging state and call a function to render your object with X% opacity at a higher Z level than anything else. Your 30 minute job has become a 60 minute job.

> As is deciding whether the ghost should affirmatively snap out of and into the source and target containers (that is, whether the destination container should appear to “make room” for the ghost at some point), whether there’s a transition on that,

Most applications don't go this far, including your operating system like Windows that sets baseline UX expectations, so you're well beyond the default expectation for drag-and-drop. If someone asks you to implement drag-and-drop without specifying they want all the bells and whistles, and you respond it's going to take you a week because you're planning to go all-out beyond necessary business requirements, they'd have a valid reason to be like "WTF mate?". Also this is still pretty paltry and not a week's worth of work.

It's more accurate to say that there's an OpenAI-Anthropic-X bubble. Financially sustainable investment in LLMs is useful and not going anywhere, as China shows. Dumping trillions of dollars into companies that make models that are 1.2x better than Chinese models at 100~1000x the cost, ehhh... good luck with that.

I was curious, so I researched it (aka prompted ChatGPT). SFO-PVG was established in 2000, long before Apple offshored all of their manufacturing to China. An article from the time describes it being something that was in demand among Silicon Valley in general[1] rather than Apple particularly. In 2019, United revealed that Apple does spend $35 million/yr on that single route, averaging 50 seats/day[2], so I suppose that's the source of the legend.

[1]https://www.sfgate.com/business/article/shanghai-to-s-f-flig...

[2]https://www.macrumors.com/2019/01/11/apple-united-airline-pu...

I mean, maybe we're missing context here. Is that what your boss was actually asking for? 99% of web applications (or, hell, desktop applications) don't have ultra-interactive, fully-responsive-animation drag-and-drop. If he was asking for functional drag-and-drop and the team was implementing top 1% cosmetic drag-and-drop, that's certainly one avenue for a mismatch in expectations.

Hit-test where the mouse-down event is fired, hit-test where the mouse-up event is fired. What the hell do you need a library for?

> If anyone can dig up an ancient library on GitHub for drag-and-drop back in those days, I'd imagine it would be several thousand lines long,

I bet, the JS devs who do write code overcompensate for the ones who can only stitch together libraries. I suppose because the expectation is that the library consumer is incapable of writing their own code extending it, so the library itself must support every possible combination of use cases for a million different users, even though the code any individual consumer actually needs is more like 100 loc.

> She was being monitored by the CIA, who believed she was a spy.

MLK Jr. was being monitored by the FBI and CIA, who believed he was a Communist.

The system shares some blame, but the individual is also the one exploiting a confluence of factors. Should the system prevent one person from purchasing 40% of global RAM production with fake money, yes, it should. But our systems are glacial to respond to edge cases they were not prepared for, and this is an extreme edge case - people who are not Sam Altman could not pull off purchasing 40% of the world's RAM production capacity on an IOU. Only a very few individuals in the world could have exploited this gap in the system, and the one who actually did deserves blame for it.

> he's clearly just talking economics

...just economics that benefit him. The economics of rental for consumers are horrific. It doesn't even have to be about an abstract sense of ownership and freedom, even if it's "just economics" this is still an insanely self-serving to say because he's talking about economics that benefit 00.01% at the expense of the other 99.99%.

"A lot of people want local inference. And somehow, they assume that like the problem is solved now. Because we are going to have open-source models. We're going to be able to run them on our computers. And so we're not gonna need all the stuff in the data center. But from a global allocation perspective, actually, it's quite terrible to have everybody, like, have a bunch of the world's limited supply of DRAM sitting in their own computer. And being used 5% of the time."

I've seen the video where he says those words out loud, on mic.

Calling it a "free and open channel" when 80% of consumers are on Microsoft/Google addresses that control who can deliver e-mail is laughable. It's dead, Jim.

> You get a clean error message that tells you exactly what to do

We are literally talking about a situation where this is not happening! And the problem is that it's not just this. Once you give them a license to police e-mail, they start policing e-mail for all kinds of arbitrary and inscrutable reasons. If this were going to be done, it should really be formalized as an industry standard by an independent consortium, not up to the whims of Microsoogle.

> but is it an undue or unreasonable one in the current landscape

Yes. In the first place, this should not even be a thing. Two corporations should not be in control of who can send e-mail. If they want to mark not having DMARC as spam, mark it as spam, or better yet flag it with a specific warning about the domain, but these games with refusing to deliver are just bullshit and essentially force a monopoly where other e-mail providers cannot compete because their e-mails aren't delivered.

Excel macros are deterministic, don't leak BI and PII, aren't malware, and don't cost an extra engineer's salary per engineer. Comparing them to Claude is quite a disservice.

It was possible, devs were just sleeping on WASM. What the LLMs are doing with this shit is trivial that you literally could do in a day by hand. Literally all of the hard work is already done for you/the LLM by the people who implemented C-to-WASM compilation.

While OP's tests are indeed of the vague DeepSWE variety, I still reference them because the exact same failure mode occurs in my own tests even for trivial scope tasks, down to the level of having one single constraint for a variety of <10 LoC tasks. As you say, though, this is a pointless argument, and I'm not going to burn my existing benchmarks to try to convince anyone. Feel free to use inferior models and workflows if that's what suits you.

You are sorely missing the point. You made the constraint the specific and only focus of the task. The example from the OP pertains to non-filename-related-tasks that have an additional specification added on to them. If your filenames need to be lowercase for all tasks, not just specifically filename-related tasks, you start running into problems.

> you're expecting to use it without steering

If I have to manually "steer" every mistake it makes on every trivial task, instead of being able to deterministically eliminate classes of failures so that fixing the task one time ensures that failure never happens again on similar future tasks, it is in fact faster to just type the fucking code myself.

The specification constrains the implementation details. Repeating the demonstrated example, again: filename must be lowercase is a perfect example of such a specification. You can have a hundred different tasks that require different things but all require that common specification.

> there is nothing deterministic about using llm's for codegen

And if you're okay with that, you're more like a farmer eating the slop meant for his pigs than an engineer. Using Sol Max, you can get near-deterministic output for a much wider range of tasks and specifications. Not all specifications; at a certain degree of sufficiently detailed specification it will begin failing again. But some, which is better than none.

> you want to write a handful of paragraphs and have a sota model vibe out a +1000loc diff

Wrong. What I want Luna to be able to do is ~deterministically make small edits or generations of 1~10 LoC according to a specification, and it literally cannot even do that. It violates specifications no matter how small you aim.

> underspecified prompts

This is the same stupid argument trotted out repeatedly in the thread, and it doesn't hold up to reality. Would you care to explain how adding specifications helps a model that demonstrably ignores specifications? A model that cannot even handle the trivial specification of "the filename must be lowercase" is not going to get better when you add more specifications it ignores. I would guess that you're actually significantly underspecifying relative to me. Perhaps you're happy with whatever slop you get and don't notice Luna's overwhelming incapability to actually provide what one requires, because you don't have requirements.

Funny, I was just talking about this on HN a couple of days ago[0..2] and had a thread full of anklebiters telling me I'm using Luna wrong. It's clear that the vast majority of people never privately benchmark, because anyone who does knows models like Luna aren't remotely close to the performance the published benchmarks claim, immediately failing when even a single unexpected specification is introduced, no matter how trivial it is, exactly like Maxxbench's "filename must be lowercase". It's nice to have a public one to point to, but unfortunately every time you publish your private benchmarks they become targets for the next round, and as soon as the next generation of models releases you're back to arguing with people who take benchmaxxed results at face value.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50373961 [1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50374111

Another day, another Anthropic marketing article trying to deceive people into believing Claude is conscious. Absolutely insane anybody takes this company seriously when they describe "writing notes into an .md file to be re-injected into context later" as ""dreaming"".

> Do you feel this strongly about being able to replace the engine in your car with one you made yourself?

I am not one of those people, as I do not do cars, but I would hazard a guess that most car people over a certain age do in fact feel very strongly about what modern cars have become. The ones who grew up without knowing what ownership feels like less so, which reflects the exact same dynamic with younger generations who are growing up without ever knowing what it feels like to own the hardware they use.

You couldn't be more right. This is in fact exactly like the dotcom bubble. LLMs are a useful technology, just like the internet. And yet the people losing their goddamn minds in the hysteria are the ones who are going to be bankrupted. I would almost be happy about it, if the ones most responsible weren't convincing a bunch of gullible saps to hold the bag while they make off with their ill-gotten gains.

> The result of the study is only a description of how the IDE looks and behaves: which menus exist and in what order, which options each dialog holds, how the Message window tracks errors, and what the diagnostics say.

LLM-generated blogpost. The stench is all over it.

> "PhotoCraft" is itself an admitted scam from its own prompter, who outright confessed here that he lied about its capabilities on Reddit to build hype

I know AI bros are allergic to reading, but at least feed my reply to a clanker and get it to summarise for you before ignoring what I wrote. This lying con artist went on a media hype tour claiming, with no qualifications, that he would have "100% parity" with the entire Adobe suite in a month (this was a month ago, by the way). He then admitted here on HN that he was lying in other places to build hype and that that claimed goal of 100% parity in a month would not be accomplished[1][2]. His own clankers have revised their own made-up estimate from 82% parity down to 45%:

> These numbers replace the 2026-10-03 estimate (82% "of the way", 140–220 agent-hours to 95%, kept below for the record). That estimate counted feature surface and was far too optimistic"[3]

[1]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49962334

[2]https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49961661

[3]https://github.com/storytold/photocraft/blob/main/docs/targe...

You people, really this entire industry, are completely bereft of a single intelligent thought, the only thing you all can do is lie, lie, lie. The multi-trillion dollar scam, the entire US economy centered around how long three of the world's most notorious liars and their army of MLM artists can keep the charade going and get rubes like you to unironically shill their scamware as though any professional in the world is using it over Photoshop.