Hacker News Reader

Comment by roger_ | Hacker News Reader

Seeing a lot of these “run 1TB models with 1GB RAM” projects recently. Most seem vibe coded and probably won’t be maintained.

Hoping a winner emerges with some real momentum behind it.

View on HN

No no, don't just say "vibe coded", say "Fable and $500 of credits"

"This one is made with premium vibes"

Opus 4.6 was already enough to tackle these projects vibe coding.

Incidentally I think I was more productive with Opus 4.6 than with any subsequent Anthropic model.

Yea, opus 4.6 is much better than opus 5 because it is willing to do task. Opus 5 just gaslights and refuses to solve many complex problem.

Yes, but with Fable they might actually work in the end. Opus is such trash, malicious compliance and overconfidence personified.

these things can be done with local models; so don't say 500$ credits, say "accelerated climate change disasters by $500/year"

Or Deepseek with a fiver.

How a patchwork of Python modules constitutes an API(?) or whatever(?) and how to use it (does anyone?), is beyond me. There is nothing that I would call documentation, let alone concrete usage examples. I know more amusing ways to waste my time. When I want to play with models, I use llama.cpp.

You don't really need a maintainer when codex or claude code can set it up for you; thats how I got Trellis2 working on windows and tiny VRAM despite Microsoft recommending you have 24GB VRAM and Linux. Models are pretty disposable now.

This is complete dependency on LLM tools all the way from development to usage, and is risky as well as prone to failure

Local inference without access to internet and tools is pretty safe, worst you get is a slop output, best case it solves your prompt.

So, instead of having one or two maintained projects that work super well, now we have hundreds or thousands of people half-assing it locally each time they need it? Doesn't sound efficient.

I have the same objection to forking open source projects; changes should be upstreamed when possible.

It might make sense to do this if there literally isn't an existing solution out there, but I think most would find that it's better to use an existing solution than to recreate the wheel every time there's a need. It's just less effort/time/money.

you're right, but flipped on its' head it also means that a well-meaning FOSS project may not ship out a zero-day in the future that affects half the planet at once.

now we'll just always be vulnerable from different angles in different and unique ways across the globe.

better? well, no.. but it is different, and biology has offered tons of wisdom about why it's a good thing to achieve things different ways across the world, maybe some far-future version of this weird fragmentation of work that is happening now will contribute to some kind of herd effect that reduces the severity or magnitude of some bug or work of malice.

who knows though, i'm probably just considering it too positively. The disintegration of consolidated effort is a pita, I agree.

There has to be a middle ground between a monoculture and not sharing a single knowledge bit between every human. Because if everyone is making their half assed thing just for themselves using LLM without sharing anything, that also means FOSS will stop existing, and knowledge will only evolve inside the corporations that have money for creating their provate knowledge bases.

I love how goal posts are shifting from "vibe coded apps dont really work" to "vide coded projects wont be maintained"

Reply on news.ycombinator.com