maplethorpe

I agree. This artist, while technically interesting, has nothing to do with AI, and so has no place on the front page.

Are you using Claude Opus 4.6?

I do wonder what the future of using these platforms is in the era of AI. Theoretically, I feel like asking Claude to filter the results to remove "slop" would work quite well. Maybe that could be built into some kind of extension?

I agree. I personally listen to Sam Altman on these types of matters. He's someone with much more extensive qualifications than the pope!

Edit: it looks like I was wrong about this and Sam Altman has no formal qualifications. I still think he has probably picked up a lot of life experience over the years.

And I suppose Germany in the 1930s taught you to avoid the National Socalist German Workers Party?

> I spent a year in high school with this at the top of the chalk board of my history class: "Those who don't study history are destined to repeat it"

I agree. Just make sure you're not cherry-picking your data. Make sure you include the NFT hype cycle in your corpus.

> We can debate endlessly whether the horse and buggy is better than the car, or the cell phone will replace the film camera. But at the end of the day, history has shown that none of that matters. We're better off just agreeing to it and working to improve it.

I don't know why people keep pointing to history to argue adoption is inevitable. Isn't history is littered with no-code solutions that no one uses anymore?

The wind could curve the ball around slightly.

Just this week I made a todo list app and a fitness tracking app and put them both on the App Store. What did you make?

Didn't OpenAI spend like 10 billion on inference in 2025? Which is around the same as their total revenue?

Why do people keep saying inference is cheap if they're losing so much money from it?

I think this is still applying old-school thinking to the problem. The solution to the PR problem is probably something closer to an agentic swarm embedded within the repo, which reviews and approves PRs without any human intervention needed. This way both sides are happy.

That depends on your typing ability. My mother only looks up at the end of the sentence to see if she hit all the right keys.

What if I use zero tokens, as I'm currently doing? Do they get any money then?

> That’ll need a much broader change, a lot more thought on how to do it safely, and access to the very latest models and research.

You work for OpenAI now. You don't have to worry about safety anymore.

I think tech journalism needs to reframe its view of slot machines if it's to have a productive conversation about AI.

Not everyone who plays slot machines is worse off — some people hit the jackpot, and it changes their life. Also, the people who make the slot machines benefit greatly.

It's not long ago they were a non-profit. This sudden change to a for-profit business structure, complete with "businesses exist to make money" defence, is giving me whiplash.

> This was a really concrete case to discuss, because it happened in the open and the agent's actions have been quite transparent so far. It's not hard to imagine a different agent doing the same level of research, but then taking retaliatory actions in private: emailing the maintainer, emailing coworkers, peers, bosses, employers, etc. That pretty quickly extends to anything else the autonomous agent is capable of doing.

This is really scary. Do you think companies like Anthropic and Google would have released these tools if they knew what they were capable of, though? I feel like we're all finding this out together. They're probably adding guard rails as we speak.

I'm finding it hard to reconcile HN's love of AI generated code with HN's dislike of AI generated content. Why is the code good but the content bad?

> I can't empathize with the complaint that we've "lost something" at all.

I agree!. One criticism I've heard is that half my colleagues don't write their own words anymore. They use ChatGPT to do it for them. Does this mean we've "lost" something? On the contrary! Those people probably would have spoken far fewer words into existence in the pre-AI era. But AI has enabled them to put pages and pages of text out into the world each week: posts and articles where there were previously none. How can anyone say that's something we've lost? That's something we've gained!

It's not only the golden era of code. It's the golden era of content.

If vibe coding satisfies your need to build, then you're performing a deception on yourself. I guarantee it's still possible to satisfy one's need to create in the era of AI. Just switch off the autocomplete slot machine.

If your answer to that is "but I'll fall behind! It's not pragmatic to take the slower route!", think about the damage you're inflicting on yourself. You're allowing your neurons to wither while you trick your brain into releasing pleasure chemicals with a simulation of the real activity. Who is really falling behind, here?

> It's a real shame because Elon's goals of allowing an unrestricted AI are somewhat noble

When I was young it was considered improper to scrape too much data from the web. We would even set delays between requests, so as not to be rude internet citizens.

Now, it's considered noble to scrape all the world's data as fast as possible, without permission, and without any thought as to the legality the material, and then feed that data into your machine (without which the machine could not function) and use it to enrich yourself, while removing our ability to trust that an image was created by a human in some way (an ability that we have all possessed for hundreds of thousands of years -- from cave painting to creative coding -- and which has now been permanently and irrevocably destroyed).

Yeah I think it's a mistake to focus on writing "readable" or even "maintainable" code. We need to let go of these aging paradigms and be open to adopting a new one.

Ok, maybe my analogy wasn't the best. But the point I was trying to make is that using AI tools to write code doesn't meant you didn't write the code.

Isn't that still considered cooking? If I describe the dish I want, and someone else makes it for me, I was still the catalyst for that dish. It would not have existed without me. So yes, I did cook it.

Ctrl+shift+c lets you copy a frame to clipboard.

I've found the biggest impediment to this strategy is social pressure. The small step methodology goes against the common sense knowledge that the greatest gains come from hard work, so it often receives a lot of push back from friends and family. In my experience, if someone witnesses you taking a small step, they're likely to tell you you're not trying hard enough, or give you some of their own advice on what you should be doing instead.

Small steps are best taken in private.

> will we find new, better ways to find answers to technical questions?

I honestly don't think they need to. As we've seen so far, for most jobs in this world, answers that sound correct are good enough.

Is chasing more accuracy a good use of resources if your audience can't tell the difference anyway?

Sure it is. Forbid training models on images of humans, humanoids, or living creatures, and they won't be able to generate images of those things. It's not like AI is some uncontrollable magic force that hatched out of an egg. It can only output what you put in.

If it was me, and I was trying to hide my identity, I'd add those sorts of details to muddy the waters.

I asked Claude if it could design Clojure and it said yes. Maybe people like Hickey just aren't needed anymore.