johnfn

I don't understand the motivation to reattribute the death of SO to anything other than AI, which it unquestionably was. GPT-3.5 was able to answer some small chunk of my programming questions (like 10-20% of them), which seems clearly reflected in the graph.

Maybe just imagine what one might think? How would you feel if you hadn't eaten breakfast?

Do you think that Super Mario Odyssey is better than Super Mario Bros for the NES? Is Breath of the Wild better than the Legend of Zelda? I mean -- take off your nostalgia-covered glasses and imagine if you handed them both to a kid who had seen neither which one they might be more interested in. Why do you think that is?

It's incredibly easy for new engineers to pick up. On the spectrum between "features easy for beginners but nightmarish for experienced engineers" and "features complex for beginners but great for experienced engineers" it always makes the tradeoff for the former.

Genuinely incredible comment to see on hacker news.

Because they legally do?

Wasting time is not theft. If it was there’d be a massive class action lawsuit on the DMV.

How are ads "stealing dollars" from you lol? It's entirely within Disney's rights to put ads on their streaming service. Maybe you don't like ads, but that's pretty far from them stealing money from you.

I responded directly to your point. How do we kill the industry without international cooperation, and what is your plan there?

Ok, so the plan is to stop z.ai, DeepSeek, and all other non-American labs from developing models entirely, full stop? How do you plan to enact this large scale system of international coordination? Asking politely?

How do you plan to solve z.ai distilling Anthoropic’s model into a cyber-capable open source GLM-5.5?

As I already stated, it's only against your personal interpretation of the rules -- an interpretation that has curiously few other subscribers. Saying "the community guidelines mean what I want them to mean, now stop talking" is not a way to argue your point.

I mean I’m kind of curious why you left this comment about WASM decomp, which is about as malware safe as one could possibly get!

Who said I was "ideologically charged"? I like AI and I use it every day. I simultaneously hate AI writing. It is impossible to parse. If you can read it fine, good on you, but you seem to fundamentally misunderstand that other people perceive the world differently than you do. No one is "dissecting" this article under a microscope, it's obvious.

Curious how you see low-effort writing as a "shallow dismissal" or "tangential"

All these problems are solved.

> Agents can’t manage tasks

Say "use subagents".

> Agents can’t delegate

Say "use subagents that are Haiku/Sonnet"

> Agents have never heard of agents

This isn't even a problem: the author is just confused why Anthropic didn't bake all of Claude Code documentation into the harness, but of course it makes no sense to pollute context like that.

> Agents suck at communicating plans

True, communication could be better.

> Agents take any excuse to stop working

Just use /loop.

> Agents are only useful when they take unnecessary risks

Just use a sandbox. OK, technically, this one isn't literally solved by Anthropic/OpenAI, but it is solved by a million agent sandbox startups.

Isn't this the exact opposite? When people were saying that saying, the connotation was that IBM was an old, stodgy company that had been around forever. (These days I often think "No one got fired for choosing AWS"). Typesafe is a hot new startup that could, to my eyes, easily burst into flame or die in the next year.

This implies you didn’t run any sort of evaluations? It is not realistic for any sort of production use case to do this.

You are correct, I softened the wording a bit. And thanks for the heads up on the typo!

Sorry, you are correct - I modified my original post. I get frustrated every time there's a model release and 1 week later everyone is saying NERF! NERF! 99.9% of the time these people are wrong, but you are right that it's technically not 100% due to a few edge cases.

I am more skeptical about the compute provider claim - do you have any evidence of that?

It's not about doing more complex things - complexity is more dictated by how large your codebase is, etc.

> It’s not a crazy conspiracy that the same model can be stupider

Sorry, I really do think it's a conspiracy. If nerfing were real, it would be trivial to prove. DeepSWE, SWEBench, and other benchmarks are all available for anyone to run. A "nerfing" hypothesis has to survive the fact that a statistically significant dip in benchmarks has never been observed.

"Nerf"ing models isn't real in the vast majority of reported cases. Benchmarks like this or the 100 other "let's see if nerfing is real" copies would have shown it by now if it was.

I made a graphic to explain why people feel like the models get nerfed:

https://x.com/thesilenceturns/status/2103551351825543610

The idea is that new models can handle up to a certain level of complexity, at which point they fall apart. Every new model can handle more complexity, so there's a wonderful time upon release when you feel like you can do anything, only for you to hit the complexity ceiling a few days later when you saturate it. Rinse and repeat for the next model.

I mean pixel art is kind of weird, in that I rarely just look at a single screen of pixel art and say, wow, I feel more connected now. It’s often taken in context of a larger whole, like a game or animation where the artist is usually trying to express something, and the specific art is some small part of the overall expression. It’s kind of like how no individual still image from Spirited Away will convey the meaning of the whole movie.

I use a compiler to perform a task. I don’t use pixel art to perform a task, other than to feel connection to another human —- something AI makes more challenging.

Did no one in this entire HN thread read past the headline of the post from Amodei? He wrote a very clear set of actions Anthropic is taking.

I just typed dash twice into iPhone. Hardly a “non-standard” web interface. Also, I’d like to think my comment was higher quality than anything an LLM could generate! At least, yet.

It’s a tale as old as time — people don’t understand that marketing and branding are just as important, if not more so, than the product. Jev is exceptionally-well branded. Anyone can look at the webpage and understand it, and the implications, instantly.

OPs “marketing” is a single post on Reddit titled “ Predicting sales conversion probability from conversations using pure Reinforcement Learning”. Can you understand what that means? I can’t, and I consider myself reasonably technical. Is it obvious it has the same implications as Jev? Again, no idea. And it was just a single post on a subreddit that I don’t even browse! I see people on this thread saying “Jev is just BERT”. Sure, and Dropbox is just a ftp account mounted with curlftpfs!

I do feel bad for the author for finding something cool and being unable to brand it. But the full definition of “product” INCLUDES being able to coherently communicate it. In some sense the branding is just as much the “breakthrough” as the model.

Pretty impressive to accuse the author of not knowing formal verification when even minutes of research would immediately prove the opposite (https://x.com/victortaelin/status/2100942399132312059?s=46, https://x.com/victortaelin/status/2100374221671051472?s=46).

Some guy at OpenAI asked AI to solve a task and it ended up hacking RubyGems. Interesting that that never happened when I ran Bubblesort.

Wow totally missed this, thanks for sharing