pickleRick243

"Normal people" are not that political. They don't automatically change their opinion about a picture they like because they find out it was AI generated. They say, "oh that's interesting, I guess I should keep an eye out for this AI generated stuff. I heard a lot of it is slop, but it seems they can make some really cool stuff now".

He's just trying to meet the graduates at their intellectual level, since the graduates' boos operate at about the same level of depth.

No, the phone connects to your local device. This isn't "codex web" on mobile. Basically you work through your desktop on your phone. So to be clear, there are security risks (you can wipe your entire desktop from your phone).

(Someone deleted a comment about why you'd want a mobile Codex app. This is the answer I wrote.)

Once you've used these coding agents a lot, you develop a pretty intuitive feel for how they work, what they're capable of, what they're good at, and where their weaknesses are. Hopefully, you're already pretty familiar with the code base you're working on. Combining the two, this means you can get quite far essentially "vibe coding" (i.e. not looking at the actual code) on a new branch.

So if you have some idea or some issue you want to fix on the go, you just iterate with the agent for a bit (presumably no more than a couple hours) until the agent outputs an implementation. Here, I do claim there is some "skill" (which is a function of your codebase familiarity, general SWE ability, and facility with AI agents), and if you're good, this implementation will be halfway decent a high percentage of the time. Then when you're back at your desktop, you can review the changes carefully/do some proper testing/debugging etc. But you've saved a good chunk of time- an initial draft is already waiting for you.

The style of writing and the inclusion of the word "mandarin" made me assume that you were implying WASPs were not participating in the "high stakes struggles". You still have not explicitly stated your view one way or the other. As you can see from the other comments, almost everyone read an undercurrent of xenophobia in your post. I sense you're a skilled interlocutor- I concede I fell into your trap.

My types? The person I was responding to claims that if I have a problem with someone shoplifting alcohol and condoms from Walgreens, then it's a moral failing on my part. I responded because I found that absurd. For the record, I do not condone managers editing timecards.

The numbers don't play out because international chinese students only make up 5-7% (maybe less) of the undergraduate student body. Self-reported cheating frequencies are much higher.

WASPs in this day and age are no more immune to "high stakes mandarin style death struggles".

What? It's a moral failure to have an issue with people shoplifting from Walgreens? Do you think they're stealing milk, eggs, and bread?

What are "U.S. countries"?

This viewpoint is curdling rapidly. The definition of "reasoning" and "intelligence" will be debated for ages by philosophers and cognitive scientists, but whatever type of logical/critical thinking is going on in the heads of software engineers and mathematicians, frontier LLMs can now emulate to a very high degree. For mathematics in particular, examples like the following will become common place:

https://gowers.wordpress.com/2026/05/08/a-recent-experience-...

This happens whenever a disruptive technology is introduced to a field and I will never get over the irony of a software engineer (in a profession whose entire goal is to automate tasks) not noticing the hypocrisy.

"Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results."

There is certainly randomness in model output that the user has to work around, but sending the same prompt with the same context (or even worse- with added entropy leaving the previous failed prompt in the context) over and over again akin to pulling a slot machine lever is certainly user error and not the way to "hold it".

"Opponents of obscene wealth/income inequality are typically not motivated by envy – that is your own projection."

That's literally what you wrote to start the thread.

With this paper by Microsoft and the infamous paper by Apple last year, it seems the tech giants that don't have their own models are getting a bit insecure.

a little glib, but there is in fact long term learning. It's just that you are not the one mentoring- the models go to intensive OpenAI/Anthropic/Google school for a quarter or half a year and come back (hopefully) improved. You just hope they're getting a good education. Certainly it's a very prestigious one.

The author might also simply think it is plausible because of the high profile incident with Gemini back in 2024 when it was exposed that political correctness bias was clearly being explicitly programmed into the models.

I agree. Also, Linkedin and CV's shouldn't exist. Self-promotion is gauche.

I don't see how "wordcel" brain is bigger on thinking and agency than "shape rotator" brain unless you have a very biased view of what each is.

Also, it really doesn't matter who does or doesn't hate AI. It's like the automobile- it's inevitable and society will adapt to its endemic use.

It's fine if the "rambling" is logically coherent. So the communication ability isn't really about expressing your thoughts eloquently, but just effectively and clearly. Run on sentences and train of thought is fine as long as you are saying something meaningful. But no AI will be able to read your mind and know exactly what you mean by "make really cool looking website, not lame please, also nice colors, not boring". Declarative programming through natural language will become incredibly powerful.

I can't tell how much of this post is describing/LARPing a point of view, or expressing your actual beliefs. The last few paragraphs make me think it's what you actually think though.

Glorious as a personal sentiment isn't exactly how I'd describe the French Revolution.

Yes, stirring up anti-AI hatred is fine as long as it's directed at your I-Banker/PE friends from school who majored in economics, but totally bad if it's directed at you since you majored in Comp Sci (the source of AI to begin with) and went into tech.

"Just that framing, means that a bank "performs" better, when it minimizes deposits and maximizes loans"- is this how you think finance actually works? Maybe first learn how things work before inventing your own terminology or "notation" like sign-flip institution. It's not worth 20 IQ points if it's wrong. The younger generations (and I am a member) are certainly no smarter or wiser than previous generations. Many sure seem to think they are though.

How? Most of what was mentioned requires discretion and judgment. You can question whether an LLM would be able to offer that, but there’s no script that can do b it.

probably dynamical systems, ergodic theory, etc.

I was looking for the first comment along these lines. Regardless of your views on this topic, everyone has an opinion and it's funny how the entire comment section finds a way to self-censor.

I always find these "anti-AI" AI believer takes fascinating. If true AGI (which you are describing) comes to pass, there will certainly be massive societal consequences, and I'm not saying there won't be any dangers. But the economics in the resulting post-scarcity regime will be so far removed from our current world that I doubt any of this economic analysis will be even close to the mark.

I think the disconnect is that you are imagining a world where somehow LLMs are able to one-shot web businesses, but robotics and real-world tech is left untouched. Once LLMs can publish in top math/physics journals with little human assistance, it's a small step to dominating NeurIPS and getting us out of our mini-winter in robotics/RL. We're going to have Skynet or Star Trek, not the current weird situation where poor people can't afford healthy food, but can afford a smartphone.

we should give a little more credit to the readership of HN. I'm not sure it's that much lower than the average academic publishing on arxiv.

except it's sort of true and a reasonable assumption to make? Just as when a master painter makes something that looks "sloppy" to the layman, one immediately assumes there is some deep artistry behind it as opposed to poor technique, whereas when a child does it, one does not extend the same charitable attitude.

I was surprised at your result for ChatGPT 5.2, so I ran it myself (through the chat interface). On extended thinking, it got it right. On standard thinking, it got it wrong.

I'm not sure what you mean by "high"- are you running it through cursor, codex or directly through API or something? Those are not ideal interfaces through which to ask a question like this.

But also why would you ask whether you should walk or drive if the car is at home? Either way the answer is obvious, and there is no way to interpret it except as a trick question. Of course, the parsimonious assumption is that the car is at home so assuming that the car is at the car wash is a questionable choice to say the least (otherwise there would be 2 cars in the situation, which the question doesn't mention).

what is it about?