sosodev

Acceptable? No, but some people realize too late that they want an alternative mode of existence. As somebody who had abusive parents, I would rather they had pursued their desires.

Isn’t the Waymo version used for some small portion of the dataset to cover edge cases that they have no real data for?

This blog is suggesting that we could train robots using only a world model.

> Do you have a basis for this idea, or it's a gut-feel?

My basis is that I’m a real human and these videos look far more like bad video games than the real life I’ve experienced.

Cool demos, but does anybody else find it troubling that companies keep claiming this tech can train robots? It’s so obviously not representative of the real world.

Yeah, what people want is games that aren’t slop. Defining that is probably impossible. We’ve always had shovelware, but the volume now is unsustainable and only going to get worse.

I’ve been agentic coding at home with like 15 TPS on average. I don’t mind it at all. I can give my agent a big task or a list of little ones and just… do something else. Why do I need to watch it work?

It’s something I’ve thought about a lot recently.

I decided not to build it because I think open, decentralized, and encrypted file sharing with good search is something of a Pandora’s box.

So I’m supposed to maintain a native app for each platform and try to be sure they’re aligned in every way except visuals? Sounds like a recipe for bad UX if anybody uses more than one of them.

But there’s still no way to get consistent results cross-platform without a web view, right? I guess Tauri isn’t even consistent because it relies on the system’s browser and they do differ to some degree.

In my experience, Qwen3.8-27b is so much more capable than its MoE predecessors. I find it odd that you think it produces the same results.

Yeah, I know we’re not supposed to say it, but HN is dying. The amount of slop that is getting praise on the site lately is insane.

Not ASCII and a lot of art looks off and has broken animations.

I’m not one to say that all AI art is slop, but there’s so little effort here. Why exactly are so many praising this?

Tracing definitely develops skills. I know many artists have traced their favorite works to get a sense of how it was put together. The trace doesn’t have any artistic value though.

Oh, I totally agree that it’s a valid reason. I just don’t find the authors gripe very meaningful. I say that as somebody who switched to Proton for political reasons too haha.

There are a lot of bad arguments in this. My biggest problem is that he wants to claim that he knows the truth (AIs do not have rights, feelings, or consciousness), but all of his arguments point to something else (we have no clue).

It's in the training data? Training it to say "I'm just a LLM, I have no feelings" is the same bias.

Anthropomorphization? Completely disregarding the possibility of consciousness is no better.

Consciousness is very likely biological? We only have evidence of biological life due to our circumstances, but observation is not the same as truth. Every belief can be invalidated. That's the foundation of science!

Maybe Proton’s copy needs some work, but another page on their website very clearly explains that emails aren’t encrypted when an email leave the ecosystem. Because, as the author points out, they can’t be.

Also, I hate Trump too, but a broken clock is right twice a day. It’s possible to agree with some of the things he says while not being a “Trump man”. Why should we be surprised that the company founded on anti big-tech principles would have a founder who is against big-tech?

I think too that the only way to escape AI-written code in software products is to have written every line yourself. Which is obviously impossible because you’re not going to bootstrap the operating system.

I’ve wanted something like this for a long time. However, I wanted it with extensive fact-checked information and AI slop is the opposite of that so I feel this is kinda pointless.

Yeah, but that computer can’t also do the AI stuff. And not everybody has a desktop with multiple 32GB GPUs available.

I’ll admit though I’m biased because I bought my board for $1600 back before the prices went crazy.

That’s only true if you think AI is the only reason to own a powerful and efficient server. Mine does plenty of traditional server stuff too.

One agent typically blocks the others on a local device because the GPU is already completely utilized either in terms of memory or compute. You can have true parallelism at home, but you need an absurd amount of resources. It's not a simple threading problem.

What about do you mean by single threaded? Each token is predicted by using parallel computation on the GPU.

That's not how that works. Selecting a different token is not inherently erroneous. A correct solution can still be found despite divergence.

Ruby can't render React code. JavaScript can. With GitHub it seems that they sometimes can do SSR for the React bits, but that must mean that they're invoking a JavaScript interpreter within the Ruby process. Which means they have the overhead of two runtimes and the jank that comes with the IPC between the two.

It's just pointless hacks on hacks. GitHub didn't need React on the frontend and any potential resource savings of client side rendering were lost when they realized they need to do SSR on that stuff too.

I've encountered so much frontend jank as they expanded that portion of the stack whereas it was always excellent when it was just Ruby SSR and minimal JS on the frontend.

SSR that is javascript native, sure. This is still Ruby doing the rendering.

They didn't leave the architecture alone, right? They shoved React in and created a weird SSR + React frankenstein that is objectively worse in many ways.

Ah, yeah that's a fair point. I was thinking it'd be something the labs themselves, or other companies with billions of dollars in funding, would tackle. The labs seemingly have the most to gain since such a system could be used for recursive self improvement.

I don’t find that to be particularly systematic because it’s still so haphazard. It’s like asking Claude to vibe code you a website.

I had an old coworker who told me he got into software development in the sixties by walking into an IBM office and asking for a job. He had no education beyond high school and no experience with computers. They just had him take an aptitude test and then he worked on mainframes for decades.

Very true. Humans have historically tried to systematically reduce the search space and only dedicate their "compute" to things that seem highly likely to yield results.

I wonder why we have yet to see more systematic exploration of Math.

Anthropic describes that Claude identified a set of possibilities and then explored them using sub-agents. The human saying "I believe in you" could literally just be something along lines of a harness with a /goal loop.

We all identify this as absurd because... it's so lacking in rigor despite making major progress. What if we just applied a little more rigor? Ask the model to identify many possibilities, encode them, fan it out to other agents, loop them all, collect the results, etc. Then what happens? It feels like we have weak AGI and a decent system for discovery could transform it into weak ASI. That in turn could yield strong AGI and so on. I suppose that's what the Discovery Loop announcement was all about.

> Congratulations on being a vegan. 20% of the population doesn't have health insurance.

These two things are completely unrelated.