gronglo

I thought I'd never played it until I read your comment, which brought back a memory. I guess I must have played it at least once.

Opus, in my opinion, is steps away from AGI. 4o doesn't come close.

You could have saved yourself another 2 hours by getting Claude 4 Opus to write out the specs for you first. Why did you need to write them at all?

I guess I figured that, if someone told me they were scared of dying, and I happened to possess the secret to immortality, it would be worthwhile to share it with them.

Can anyone explain what sort of "detector" is used to detect the photons? Is there a standard across all double-slit experiments?

I feel like the type of detector would have a significant impact on the outcome of the experiment, but explanations for layman always leave it out.

I get downvoted every time I praise Claude. But everyone in this thread is getting upvoted for saying the same things. Can someone explain to me the difference?

I think this should be renamed "I know when you're vibe coding with a last generation LLM".

Claude 4 Opus would not make any of the mistakes mentioned, because it knows and understands everything in your codebase. It would know when there's an existing utility function for that particular task, or that you prefer a functional rather than OOP approach. You say you want developers to care about the code they write, well, this is the next best thing; I believe it's as close as we'll see to a machine being able to "care" in my lifetime.

> But now, you're wondering if the answer the AI gave you is correct or something it hallucinated. Every time I find myself putting factual questions to AIs, it doesn't take long for it to give me a wrong answer.

I know you'll probably think I'm being facetious, but have you tried Claude 4 Opus? It really is a game changer.

Mark Zuckerberg himself predicted that AI would replace all mid-level engineers at Meta by the end of this year, with senior engineers continuing to work on tasks such as planning and architecture. With the release of Claude 4 it feels like, if anything, he was too conservative with his prediction — we're already there, and Mark must know it. So what's he playing at?

Why is Meta still interviewing SWEs, is my question. Surely, at this point, an agent can beat any human candidate at any task. What am I missing?

> I couldn't even imagine spending the time and effort into integrating someone else's assets into my game and keeping things balanced

Isn't this something that AI could take care of? I feel like if you gave Claude those same instructions you'd probably be pretty amazed.

> it's an insane amount of work to get an item in game A imported into game B

I understand why that would have been a road block in the last, but my hunch is that this type of problem (mapping visuals and item properties) is something AI would make quick work of.

> but if you want it all to actually work, you'll need to dive into the details eventually.

I don't think that's true. I'm wondering if the author has tried Claude 4 Opus.

Imagine a list of 10 items that gets shuffled so that the order is completely rearranged. With no animation, it would take a lot of additional cognitive load to find where each item went. With animation, your brain would track the general movement of each item much more easily.

Basically, animation provides additional information about object state. Removing that extra information increases cognitive load.

This isn't to say all animations are useful. Many animations are excessive or completely unnecessary, which is probably what has given you a negative view of them.

> In 99% of cases I do not care at all about the "artistic vision" of the UI designer and in the other 1% of cases (say an in-browser game or some useful data-viz) I could choose to allow the tab to go crazy with my resources.

I'm with you 100%. Although I'd go one step further and say CSS just isn't needed at all, and should be removed from all browsers. Same goes for WebGL (if you want to play a game, download Steam).

This would fix all of your issues and save an unbelievable amount of energy across the planet. Unfortunately people like us are a dying breed!

I would have loved if they had an actual excuse for me, such as a plane change. All they could tell me was that I was late to check in, so they couldn't guarantee a seat for me on the flight.

My understanding is that there are no "rules", only relationships between words. I picture it as a vector pointing off into a cloud of related words. You can feed it terms that alter that vector and point it into a different part of the word cloud, but if enough of your other terms outweigh the original "instruction", the vector may get dragged back into a different part of the cloud that "disobeys" the instruction. Maybe an expert can correct me here.

It's still offensive in Australia, and is mostly used as a pejorative term. It just carries a lot less weight than it does in the US, and is not strictly used to refer to women.

It can technically be used as a term of endearment, especially if you add a word like "sick" or "mad" on the front. But it's still a bit crass. You're more likely to hear it used among a group of drunk friends or teenagers than at the family dinner table or the office.

Yes they do. It quite literally happened to me, which is why I wrote that comment.

I had to wait at the gate in the hopes there would be a no show. I wasn't the only one waiting, either. There were two of us. "Good news", they told us after everyone else had boarded. "We have seats for both of you."

They hand-wrote me a ticket and I walked onto the plane, only to find that the seat they'd assigned me was already taken. I stood in the aisle for about 10 minutes, clutching my bags, the only person still standing, until a flight attendant came and told me there wasn't actually a seat for me and that I needed to leave the plane.

I've never bought a bus ticket and then been told that the bus is overbooked and that I have to get off the bus.

There's a fundamental problem with your question, which is the suggestion that technical interviews are still needed at all. Technical roles can be replaced with roles that are more akin to production managers, and we should absolutely be testing those candidates for LLM competency.

You could run it in a loop, asking it to improve the code each time. I know what the ffmpeg devs have done is impressive, but I would be curious to know if something like Claude 4 Opus could make any improvements.

> I think a lot of people (who love crafting) will be leaving the industry in the next 5 years, for better or worse.

I think you're spot on. It was once necessary to acquire knowledge in order to acquire productivity. This made knowledge valuable and worth attaining. Now, with LLMs, we we can skip the middle man and go straight to the acquisition of productivity. I'd call it the democratisation of knowledge, but it's something more than that — knowledge just isn't needed anymore.

I got shadowbanned for writing posts with chatgpt while this guy hits the front page.