maplethorpe

I suppose I see the split a little bit differently. To me it's more that one camp of developers can still get a hit of satisfaction as if they built something themselves even if it was entirely generated by AI.

Would they get the same satisfaction from cloning a public repo? Probably not. It's too clear to their brain that they didn't have anything to do with it. What about building the project with cmake? That requires more effort, yes, but the underlying process is still very obviously something that someone else architected, and so the feeling of satisfaction remains elusive.

AI, however, adds a layer of obfuscation. For some, that's enough to mask the underlying process and make it feel as if they're still wielding a tool. For others, not so much.

A group of people with varying views can still exhibit bias towards one particular direction. The fact that the individuals within the group have distinct personalities does not eliminate this effect.

One of Dang's comments mentions that he removed some of the other rules because they are already embedded within the HN culture. Other prevailing views exist within the HN culture too. Maybe you just haven't noticed yet.

"A flock of sheep is not a single entity, but a group made up of distinct individuals", the sheep yells to onlookers, as it runs, with the rest off the flock in tow, off the edge of the cliff, and into the sea below.

How can HN be so pro-AI for the rest of the world, but anti-AI on HN?

Do we not think that other people want to see words, pictures, software, and videos created by humans too?

> good generated AI images that aren't wholesale copying take like less than 10% from the original source.

So would the model work if it only trained on the top 10% of pixels in every image? Or do they in fact need the entire image before they begin processing it, and therefore use the entire image?

> In addition, the idea that you need to pay rent on your observation of someone else's work is absurd.

I agree that's absurd. But training a model is no more "observing images" than an F1 car is "walking" down a race track. Just because a race car uses kinetic energy, gravity, and friction to propel itself, the same way a human does, doesn't mean it's doing the same thing as a human. That comparison you're making is the real absurdity.

No I didn't. It's use in a software product without my permission. That's never been allowed.

Just because you obfuscate what's happening by calling it "learning" and pretending your model is actually just looking at pictures the same as a human, doesn't make it true.

It's interesting you interpret the consumer's response as a desire for the expansion of IP laws. As an artist whose work exists in many of these training sets, I'm of a different opinion: IP laws can stay the same, but they should have purchased a license to use my art before including it in their training data.

Since the didn't, they should go to jail. The same way I would have gone to jail if I built Sora in my basement and sold it to the public.

Yes. Claude exists on physical media somewhere. Put that media in a cell with no access to the internet. No one must access Claude outside of visitation hours.

Just because it's difficult doesn't mean it can't be done. If you're claiming your machine should be treated like a human, then let's treat it like a human.

I mean, they've made the argument that their computer learns like a human, so should be able to get away with ingesting all the data it sees, the same way a human does.

Why shouldn't it also go to jail, the same way a human does?

I'd personally prefer to see the version with worse grammar, because I know it was written by a real person.

Do you find people respond better to your LLM-corrected posts, or is it mainly for your own comfort?

If those coworkers are still writing in their own voice at work, you should be thankful.

I'm kind of going through the opposite. I was alone until 38, and then suddenly I wasn't alone anymore. I'm now realising that I did indeed develop an effective strategy to combat loneliness over the years.

What you need is a personal project. A lot of people make the mistake of thinking this needs to be something with significant utility, but that's a lot of pressure to put on yourself. My recommendation is to make your project as specific to your life as you want, and as dumb as you want. It could be a radio station localised only to your house, or a chat app for you and three other people, or a mechanical toy for a friend. Then find some friends or a community you can share that thing with when you're done.

Think about what it would be fun for you, specifically, to do, or to make, or to achieve, go do that thing, and then share it. This technique got me through 38 years of loneliness (mostly) unscathed, so I'm confident it can work for others too.

In my experience, AGI always seemed to be the stand-in phrase for "human like" intelligence, after AI was co-opted to mean simpler things like markov-chain chat bots and state machines that control agent behaviour in video games.

If the definition has shifted once again to mean "a computer program that does a task pretty well for us", then what's the new term we're using to define human-level artificial intelligence?

A PM's job isn't the same as coding. It's a lot more than just writing words.

Probably the best drummer there ever was though.

> A tool can be efficient and still be intellectually corrosive, not because it lies all the time, but because it lies well enough. Its smoothness hides uncertainty, which is important unless you want intellect-rot.

I keep seeing sentiments like this, but to me they're still very much stuck in the past.

We once needed to develop our intellects in order to solve problems. It was a necessary part of the process. Solving a particular problem would flood our brains with dopamine, and we would feel good for achieving our goal, and thus continue to develop our intellect in the hope of achieving a similar rush in the future.

Now that we have a machine that can solve our problems for us, intellect just plain isn't necessary anymore. We can solve our problems immediately and skip the roundabout intellect-building process entirely. That's a liberating thing.

Honestly, I'm surprised they're not releasing more products. They have the capability to unleash a swarm of a million agents to design and build competitors for all the major apps in the world. They could become immensely profitable, solve all of their cash flow issues, and unseat Meta, Amazon, and Microsoft in 48 hours. Why don't they?

Rather than trying to fix the bugs yourself, have you tried asking Claude to fix them for you?

Hot take: only PMs need to code now. With Claude 4.6 Opus, the engineer skill set is no longer useful. Why are we hiring people with code writing ability when code writing ability has no value anymore?

> Edwards said that he was sick at the time, and “while working from bed with a fever and very little sleep,” he “unintentionally made a serious journalistic error” as he attempted to use an “experimental Claude Code-based AI tool”

I'm skeptical. I hate to be the one to say it, but I don't think this would have happened if he was using Claude 4.6 Opus.

I mentioned two as an example, but they expelled significantly more. In 1933 they brought in laws that immediately ousted many Jews from public positions, which caused a mass exodus of intellectuals from the country. James Franck was another prominent physicist who left in protest, and he went on to work directly for the Manhattan Project.

The Nazis drawing a distinction between "Jewish mathematics" and "German mathematics" was also very real.

It's hard to imagine these policies had no effect on their ability to do research, and that it was purely a matter of funding.

"Boris Stoicheff, wrote how the mathematician Edmund Landau was 'physically prevented from entering his classroom by about seventy of his students, some wearing SS uniforms.' They demanded 'German mathematics' instead of 'Jewish mathematics.' One estimate is that the 15% of scientists in Germany who had been fired accounted for about 60% of the country’s physics-based publications."

https://research.usask.ca/herzberg/resources/the-person/phys...

I don't understand how this is possible at all at Anthropic. Couldn't they, like, embed an agentic swarm into their backend that prevents any errors from ever making it into production? What am I missing?

I used to talk to strangers a lot when I was younger. But then I started getting older and more scary looking. I developed memories of older men making unwanted advances towards me. I became horribly afraid of making anyone else feel that way, so I stopped.

I know the article's advice is to take a chance, and if I scare someone else so be it. But something about that feels wrong to me.

Oh good point.

I mean, they definitely expelled Jewish scientists, people like Einstein and Bohr and other prominent physicists, who would have ultimately been very useful to them. Maybe their funding choices would have been different if they hadn't ousted so many researchers.

Those people can ask Claude to review the flaws for them.

I really didn't expect OpenAI to do something as immoral as this, despite their history of stealing the world's data to create a public-facing deep-fake generation machine. I am shocked and appalled.

> Do the human beings you know not have occasional brain farts where they recommend dumb things that don't make much sense?

I completely agree. I'm ashamed to admit, I've actually walked to the car wash without my car on more than one occasion. We all make mistakes!

Around 6 months ago, the company I work for bought Cursor subscriptions for everyone. I thought to myself, "this is it".

The majority of my coworkers now push AI-generated code each day, and it has completely absolved me of any fear whatsoever that AI will take my job.

> The Information had previously reported that $35 billion of Amazon’s investment could be contingent on the company either achieving AGI or making its IPO by the end of the year. OpenAI’s announcement confirms the funding split, but says only that the additional $35 billion will arrive “in the coming months when certain conditions are met.”

Incredible.