figassis

RN the market is not you. The amount of investment being pushed to AI dwarfs what you collectively spend. So the market now is driven by the IPO dream where you'll hold the bag, jobless.

> the goal seems to be to create as many things as fast as possible, throw them into the world and see which ones gain traction, whether or not they serve a real need

The goal was never to solve a real problem, like we evangelized for decades. That was how it was explained when resources (mainly time, but also money) were scarce and we could not just throw things at walls. Now we can, and you won't see anyone talk about "make something people need".

Things will be low quality until something sticks, and then money will be poured into it. It's not a bad strategy, but my takeaway from this is: there are multiple plausible explanations for the same thing. People have an incentive to not give you the correct one if it helps you compete with them. But they will give you a sensible one. AI won't protect you from this, experience and real knowledge will.

Everyone will wake up in 2028 and realize Anthropic is the new Google. Not OpenAI.

So because I think it will help us, others might do it first, don’t worry, open algos. Isn’t this everyone’s reason to do something controversial? Also looks like the OpenAI route no?

And it’s too soon to have these norms. Employers today are willing to part with them at the hint of the slimmest efficiency gains, you’ll waste time. So I think the correct response today is wait for it to settle. Norms will form on their own.

It seems this is getting downvoted, no promotion. Understood, thanks for the reminder.

I may have a solution for you and could use some beta testers. Please reach out to me if you don't mind. Info on my profile.

It threatens because we aren’t just talking about selling your art. Artists get hired at companies to produce all kinds of work that will now be replaced by AI.

I shared this here before, I think we're trying to over engineer identity. How about decentralized verification?

https://humanidentity.io, https://protocol.humanidentity.io

Disclaimer: I am the author, feedback appreciated

Thank you for this. Honestly, please earn something. You should at least make it optional to buy/donate. I wanted to, couldn't.

Over editing is one of the biggest tells of junior engineers. Often, a very big task is reduced to a 1 line change if you spend the time to understand the core problem.

I feel like this was one of the most valuable skills an engineer could learn, as it protects the integrity of the system by making minimum viable changes. If you need to refactor something, it should be clear that that is the task.

But we're all tokenmaxing now.

I think HN is the crowd that values MVPs. And LLMs are the best tool to quickly materialize an idea. So I think we should judge these submissions on merit and not on our collective rejection of reality. If they succeed I’m sure (or hope) their user facing app won’t remain vibe coded.

What is true and ironic here is SWEs never thought they’d need to unionize.

Maybe I’m need coffee, but I don’t understand what DebtDrone actually does.

The interesting thing is this: no matter who they hire (because certainly they’ve already been hiring the best), will make a bank Mythos proof. It likely won’t even make it regular attacker proof.

The reason banks aren’t being hacked daily is a mix of physical and digital access controls, and processes, as well as the real threat of the FBI knocking on your door. It is not because the systems are hard to hack.

But now, they panic because some company told them their systems were not 100% secure? And how will they solve this? My making it 99.99% secure with a $10B yearly Mythos subscription?

I would just settle for not leaking any more s3 buckets. Start there.

I see this pattern for a long time. Large companies always release the same products at the same cadence, hours or minutes apart. Are they having the same ideas? Spying on each other? Are these products just the natural next step from the previous so as long as you’re not stopping, 10 companies would release the same products?

This is correct, and I avoided it for this reason, did not have the bandwidth to get into any cpp rabbit hole so just used whatever seemed to abstract it away.

Thank you, this is very early stages. Still trying to validate the idea. But yes, the reason there is a sovereign verifier tier is because I am sure governments will want their own rules, and the protocol is meant to be decentralized. So one govt can legislate that they are the exclusive verifier for their country, while another takes a more hand off or hybrid approach.

If this is the case, this can be gamed. People can use stolen documents. Nothing says a person can’t own multiple computers so what happens if someone uses your id in 20 laptops? Will the companies just claim “but the machine said they where old enough?” The law may not have teeth, but will violate privacy.

Something like https://protocol.humanidentity.io (disclaimer: I built it, sorry for the plug) or any other privacy preserving service might work better. A platform can then require that a person verifies age in a privacy preserving way before viewing adult content.

From what I’ve seen, this always ends in some small fine/settlement and “no admission of guilt”. This type of protection is the source of these mishaps.

This is a hard problem. I understand DEI, and I understand anti DEI, and agree with both in that DEI aims to close a gap in disadvantaged groups that were discriminated against in the past to the point that they are demographically cut off from wealth because they can’t gain any escape velocity to allow them to acquire assets that work for them. They’re locked into the jobs the wealthier don’t want, regardless of their skill level. And even getting to that skill level is a challenge because they’re too busy working 3 low paying jobs to attend school.

On the other hand, members of a demographic that indirectly benefitted from discrimination in the past, but were themselves not direct beneficiaries can’t be punished for that. They apply to jobs just the same, compete just the same, and aspire to be successful just the same. And just because they can’t relate to the fact that the other demographic has it harder, doesn’t make them evil.

So where’s the balance? What’s the solution? And companies implemented DEI bc they were pressured to do it, and now they’re pressured in the opposite direction. Will they be sued again in a few decades for the other kind of discrimination of “we only hire the best, it just so happens that all the best are of X demographic”?

This is why you only use virtual cards for subscriptions. I have never had this issue. Even adobe couldn't get a cent over what I was willing to pay. Didn't let me cancel the account, fine. Kill the card. You don't have to beg to these companies.

It's not the feature itself, it's how/what the llm tries to use it for. It uses it to cross any and all architectural boundaries.

My process: start ideating and get the AI to poke holes in your reasoning, your vision, scalability, etc. do this for a few days while taking breaks. This is all contained in one Md file with mermaid diagrams and sections.

Then use ideation to architect, dive into details and tell the AI exactly what your choices are, how certain methods should be called, how logging and observability should be setup, what language to use, type checking, coding style (configure ruthless linting and formatting before you write a single line of code), what testing methodology, framework, unit, integration, e2e. Database, changes you will handle migrations, as much as possible so the AI is as confined as possible to how you would do it.

Then, create a plan file, have it manage it like a task list, and implement in parts, before starting it needs to present you a plan, in it you will notice it will make mistakes, misunderstand some things that you may me didn’t clarify before, or it will just forget. You add to AGENTS.md or whatever, make changes to the ai’s plan, tell it to update the plan.md and when satisfied, proceed.

After done, review the code. You will notice there is always something to fix. Hardcoded variables, a sql migration with seed data that should actually not be a migration, just generally crazy stuff.

The worst is that the AI is always very loose on requirements. You will notice all its fields are nullable, records have little to no validation, you report an error when testing and it tried to solve it with an brittle async solution, like LISTEN/NOTIFY or a callback instead of doing the architecturally correct solution. Things that at scale are hell to debug, especially if you did not write the code.

If you do this and iterate you will gradually end up with a solid harness and you will need to review less.

Then port it to other projects.

Hadoop is open source: https://hadoop.apache.org But perhaps if one learns Google they could have found it? It's a tough chicken and egg problem.

I think of it not as "last step in thinking", but as "first contact with reality". Your mind is amazing and lying to you, filling in gaps and telling you everything is ok. The moment you try to export what's in your mind, math stops mathing. So writing is an important exercise.

This is fine. But companies seem to not have a control lever for employee wellbeing. If humanity works to solve problems, don’t you think overwork is also a problem that needs to be addressed?

Where are the lessons?

“The rationale for the change, according to Rodriguez, is that interaction data makes company AI models perform better. Adding interaction data from Microsoft employees has led to meaningful improvements, he claims, such as an increased acceptance rate for AI model suggestions.” Things the problem with promises. Of course using the data makes your model better, and everyone new this and that you’d be tempted to use it, and that is why you felt motivated to promise not to use it in order to gain adoption. So rug pulling by saying it helps improve your model is meaningless. You can say you lied. Lying is a real word, it should be used when it applies.

This just means we're in a simulated universe. He's respawned elsewhere.