stareatgoats

Interesting to see someone implementing many of my own ideas, down to amazing detail in many places, and different in others due to different target audiences I think. My own project is not ready to showcase, but I am encouraged to see Bookend. Wish you all the best, and many more upvotes than mine only!

Resurrected you from the dead. We can't have rational nuance now, can we? yes, we can.

Partly. As in any relationship, this is not a binary, it is a composite, and has ebbs and flows. Lately the relationship has had ebbs, and with a new administration we can expect flows, but from lower baseline than at least since WW2.

> Being an electron app it has the huge privacy problem as it touches Googles servers when it starts, so Google knows what you are doing.

There is a rumor that Electron calls to redirect.gvt1.com (a google site) means that Google somehow spies on you. But all available information indicates that redirect.gvt1.com is a site responsible for providing downloads(spellchecker data for example), not uploads.

If you have information to the contrary, please provide.

> train clairvoyants

Hey a goat actually died you know

Isn't there a rule against this - i.e. accusing commenters for using LLMs (the offensive language aside)? Implicitly there is [0], because I can't see how it adds to the conversation. So what if it sounds like an LLM? Soon you won't be able to tell the difference anyway, and all that will be left is some chance that you are correct. Comments should be judged their content merits, not on whether the commenter is native English speaker or not.

[0] > Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes. Comments should get more thoughtful and substantive, not less, as a topic gets more divisive. When disagreeing, please reply to the argument instead of calling names. "That is idiotic; 1 + 1 is 2, not 3" can be shortened to "1 + 1 is 2, not 3." Don't be curmudgeonly. Thoughtful criticism is fine, but please don't be rigidly or generically negative.

etc: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

> “The code they write isn’t any good” doesn’t really cut it any more.

I propose that it cuts deeper than that. Many of us 'nerds' have/have had a love affair of sorts with computers and software, deeply rooted in our personalities: ambiguity no more, what you put in is what you get out. Not like the messy social interactions where things can hold a multitude of meanings simultaneously, and where none of those meanings need to be true in a logical sense. The strict logic of programming is being dethroned, in favor of prompts that can be ill-written and ambiguous as hell, but the damn things still produce approximately what the vibe-coder was thinking, at a fraction of the cost.

Of course there will be a place for old school good programmers, just like a fine carpenter will always be in demand, no matter how many new Ikeas spring up. But we used to be kings.

I think the most comforting thing to be said is that all things must pass, new things bring new opportunities and everyone need to adjust, always. It is still a bit hazy what those opportunities are in general though.

You are obviously wrong, but that's not the issue here. One can't help wondering what prompted you to say such an unkind thing in the extreme about 1.2 billion monthly active users. On second thought, no need to answer that here. It's the kind of food for thought that is best left undebated.

Sorry didn't get as far as checking out your product (which seems interesting).

You use a cookie CMP (Consent Management Platform - Google's?) that asks for permission for 122 vendors to harvest my personal information. There is no 'Reject all' button, and one has to tediously scroll through a potentially long list of pre-checked so-called 'legitimate' interests in order to reject all, a 'dark pattern' cookie harvesting, which goes against your 'privacy first' expressed goal.

If you just want the feedback from this community I suggest you remove any analytics from the site, there are likely many here that simply turn back when presented with this CMP.

Somehow I appreciate this type of attitude more than the one which reflects total denial of the current trajectory. Fervent denial and AI trash-talking being maybe the single most dominant sentiment on HN over the last year, by all means interspersed with a fair amount of amazement at our new toys.

But it is sad if good programmers should loose sight of the opportunities the future will bring (future as in the next few decades). If anything, software expertise is likely to be one of the most sought-after skills - only a slightly different kind of skill than churning out LOCs on a keyboard faster than the next person: People who can harness the LLMs, design prompts at the right abstraction level, verify the code produced, understand when someone has injected malware, etc. These skills will be extremely valuable in the short to medium term AFAICS.

But ultimately we will obviously become obsolete if nothing (really) catastrophic happens, but when that happens then likely all human labor will be obsolete too, and society will need to be organized differently than exchanging labor for money for means of sustenance.

Claude is likely talking to sub-agents, although I have yet to see the questions written out. But sometimes the agents do well, in which case you will see "Excellent research!" or similar printed to the conversation history. It's my guess these conversations that Claude has with various specialists agents will be hidden from users soon, but it's an interesting look behind the scenes, indicating that we don't manually need to set up specialist agents and orchestrate this as users, Anthropic is likely already doing it automatically.

Claude Code allegedly auto-includes the currently active file and often all visible tabs and sometimes neighboring files it thinks are 'related' - on every prompt.

The advice I got when scouring the internets was primarily to close everything except the file you’re editing and maybe one reference file (before asking Claude anything). For added effect add something like 'Only use the currently open file. Do not read or reference any other files' to the prompt.

I don't have any hard facts to back this up, but I'm sure going to try it myself tomorrow (when my weekly cap is lifted ...).

The problem is that we are still in the pre-history of civilization. We make some basic mistakes, still. Some of them quite costly, others quite dangerous. As history advances we'll learn to fix it, as long as we don't fixate on just one thing. It's never just one thing.

Not even antirez can sway the skeptics here. People that have garnered too many upvotes in the countless comments about how worthless AI is compared to real programmers will need much more to leave their fortresses.

But maybe we should cherish these people. Maybe it's among them we find the embryo to the resistance - people who held out when most of us were seduced - seduced into giving the machine all our knowledge, all our skills, all the secrets about us we were not even aware of ourselves - and setting it up to be orders of magnitude more intelligent than any of us, combined. And finally - just as mean, vindictive and selfish as most of the people in the training data on which it was trained.

Maybe it's good to stay skeptical a bit longer.

The Grok calls Hitler literally "Führer und Reichkansler" in an otherwise English language article, so the most lnient interpretation is that Grok is simply not that well adapted to translation. One normally don't use use the original language words ("Statsminister" or "Rey" anyone?) when describing state officials when there are English translations, unless you have an agenda. The translation to English is straight forward: "leader and Chancellor of Germany".

They were thinking of Google Gemini, not Gemini (protocol), the latter which, although being the older, might have to consider a name change to escape a slow death after Google's hostile name-takeover.

OK thanks, but well, my comment was a bit tongue in cheek anyway. That nuance didn't survive the passage all the way from intended meaning to text interpretation it seems.

Another day, another anti-ai coding post hits the HN front page. Meanwhile, reality makes a whooshing sound.

Not only Product Hunt, the entire Web 2.0 has passed away, having near completely lost any sincere commitment to service and quality in favor of quick return on investment.

The idea is still valid though - user generated content which evaluates and provides feedback to other users and producers through which quality floats to the top. The "only" piece missing is how to protect against various vested interests that pull in other directions ...

This is a rather meandering article, but it makes a cogent point: the concept of the "end times" has been a driving force for many of not most social movement history, and across most cultures. It has always been a useful tool for people with ulterior motives, be they political or economical, or both. And it does not come in an exclusively religious form either; even Marx with his telosity taps into this as well as the article points out. Recently one need not look further than the furor around the expected effects of climate change to get a sense of a "secular" end-of-times mentality.

But as this last point illuminates, just because the end of times prophecies have been crying wolf for thousands of years doesn't mean we can discard it. We may yet be obliterated, be it by galopping climate change, a meteor shattering our planet, have a lethal pandemic, or have nuclear war lay most of earth inhabitable. These are realistic threats, and people have probably always been aware that our exitence is fragile. All we can (and should) do is do our best to mitigate them.

What we definately should *not* do, is to try and make these things happen, just so that we may (or may not) live forever in a blissful afterlife. Or (and this is the main problem) suspend mitigating efforts because they are inconvenient in the short perspective. Just sayin.

Well, it's not "wrong" to balk at seeing the world from a different point of view than the convention dictates. What is "wrong" is any insistence that the conventional view is the correct (or "right") one. Moralizing is never a good thing, but it is quite in order to criticize attitudes that equates an upside map to an upside cup, or to evil mindsets, such attitudes are widespread. It's an invitation to accept that our conventions are - conventions, not truths. How "something can look so wrong and yet not be wrong at all" doesn't come naturally, it has to be learned through examples like this.

A repeat of this experiment, with a few thousand participants, conducted under strict control would probably settle that question. One can't help wonder, why hasn't this been done?

I guess ethical and practical considerations aside (you'd have to find participants that agreed to the experiment, as well as having no grieving and potentially experiment-disturbing kin by the bedside): conducting such experiments would not earn you any positive citations from other scientists who largely try to steer clear of anything that smacks of spirits.

Plus, what if Duncan MacDougall's claim is proven correct?

And Elon is obviously modeling himself on Howard, so there's that.

Well, first off: it's not my conclusion (I would likely have used some other and more precise term, like "modern authoritarianism", which has enough similarities to historical fascism to cause alarm). Secondly, "fascism is on the rise" is such an ambiguous statement that could mean anything from "the seeds on fascism is forming somewhere" to "the number of fully fledged fascist states are increasing", which just leads to thirdly: I could certainly continue to help you get out of your mental block where you can only see one absurd reason for fascism being on the rise, but I think we can agree that this really isn't necessary.

Yeah, no. Nothing of what you said is actually correct, starting with "The connotation for fascism" ending with "naturally fascist". It to an almost impressive degree semantically nonsensical as well as logically incoherent. But at least one can concluded that you don't like the term fascism for some reason, a term that has reasonably well defined and commonly agreed meaning (and nowhere near anything what you said), albeit with a tendency to be overused.

> Unfortunately the stories of success of the modern world were written by the modern world.

While I think that is a profound insight that we should contemplate a lot more than we do instead of taking our value system (the one we all share, not only the ones we disagree with) for granted, I can't help also contemplate how inadequate, or underdeveloped, our language is as a tool to identify such. Hopefully, some day we will have more value-neutral means to properly view the relative isolated conceptual bubbles from which each culture views another. We're not there yet.

So, you need the supernatural connotations in order to explain that Hitler was bad? Feel free, but to me the problem is the anti-intellectualism of it. Because "evil" is a self-sufficient explanation, which doesn't explain any of the real reasons for the rise of Nazism and cloaks the fact that ethnic cleansing and genocide are very much human behaviors, which history has sadly proven again and again. We're not getting to grips with it by calling it "evil" (or "Evil!!" even), which is mere name-calling, essentially. Name-calling of others that is.

I'd prefer to have "evil" as a word removed from language as an archaic symbolic reference to bad things that some people think that other other people do under the influence of malevolent supernatural beings. Redefining evil as something else is still clinging to the religious connotations like a baby to their nappy - for a reason: it's because it elevates my/our value systems from a mere subjective one to that a presumed spiritual realm, and therefore objective of sorts.

But the hard truth is that value systems are objectively subjective, and people can be confused, ignorant, frustrated, angry, insane, devoid of empathy, people we don't like, or our enemies - but not evil. It's time to let that term into the dustbin of history.