jddj

Reminds me of this lovely book of Spanish restaurant serviettes: https://antennebooks.com/en-eu/products/servilletas-spanish-...

And another of beer coasters from the bars around Barcelona: https://antennebooks.com/en-eu/products/posavasos

To be clear, you mean shot?

It can be as similar to or as far from outsourcing as you allow it to be.

The "if AI code breaks, who will fix it? -> "AI will fix it" exchange has (anecdotally) been very common among executives, which is much closer to outsourcing than programming.

Somewhere there are surely llms being trained on all the standard pirated material but with Manchurian Candidate trigger words carefully worked in

Highly doubtful

I think they probably understand that those complaints hold weight within a <=2010s ethical framework but now we live in the brave new world.

It's an economic crisis where they cut taxes and start wars though

The greed index is off the frickin' charts right now across the board, that's why

...and are all now on 200k, right?

On the contrary. There are many benchmarks, some small subset of which are intended to reflect the whole market.

There are indices for every little thematic and niche corner or strategy or idea, there are broad-as-possible indices, and there are indices with requirements like listed age and profitability.

Maybe you know this already, but this reads like exactly the kind of reasoning that people looking back at irrational market euphorias point to as a sign things were about to go awry.

All of this noise and velocity will provide significant cover for the Jia Tans of the world.

> OpenAI are very keen to suggest it's legally equivalent to a human when it suits them

When is/was that?

(Not rhetorical)

Index funds buy companies, for the most part, according to their market capitalisation.

They own more of bigger companies than small.

There's the option of "equal weight" or other strategies but the overwhelming majority is market cap weighted.

Index funds are also really, really big now and contain a lot of money earmarked for retirement/pensions.

In theory if you had a temporarily very frothy market into which you could sell a part of your unprofitable company to some people at a very high valuation, index funds would then mechanically move in and need to purchase and add significant support for insiders to sell into.

Presumably there is some time component, i.e you need to use the machine quickly or risk losing it.

Also, it's better to double $2 instead of $1, and then pay back that $1.1 and end up with $2.9 instead of $2.

But it was a more facetious comment than I would have preferred to make, I actually went to delete it but you got in too quickly.

There are many reasons it's wrong, too, eg. at some level of risk debt becomes more expensive or impossible

But the intent of the comment was to say that if you owned as sure a thing as the GP proposed you'd do what you could to avoid selling parts of it.

If you have a machine that reliably takes $1 and makes $2 you raise debt not equity

At one point (1.5 months ago) Bloomberg posted a piece saying the private market was apparently drying up for openai due to anthropic sucking all the oxygen out of the room.

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-04-01/openai-de...

Is that the case? What about gpt 4.5? o1-pro?

A little too much Michael Bay

Jonestown, right? Recordings from Jamestown would be quite a big deal.

Claude the other day wrote code where one of the bytes in the array was 0xO5.

That's zero ex oh (the letter) five

Language nit: in english, "add to that" is more natural

For the most part I think we get the benchmarks we deserve.

Many SWE-bench passing PRs would not be merged: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47341645

Top model SWE bench scores may be skewed by git history leaks: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45214670

Getting to that point is likely going to involve a lot of (the business and personal equivalent of) Teslas electing to drive through white semitrailers.

Once you've seen a few results of an LLM given too much sway over product decisions, 5 effort modes expressed as various english adjectives is pretty much par for the course

Looking at the account's other comment there are subtle grammatical errors in that one too.

Would be good to see the prompt out of morbid curiosity

What throws me about this comment is the missing space between the period and the T in the last sentence.

Did the model itself do that? Was it a paste error?

Is your premise here that LLMs have a unique or enhanced insight into how LLMs work best?

What if it impairs judgement?

People thought grand theft auto would do it, but in the end it was twitter and facebook.