HarHarVeryFunny

Brain waves are due to feedback paths and dynamics - oscillations etc, but LLM connectivity is far simpler. In an LLM there is a strict bottom-up one-way flow of information, with no looping. There is no way for a higher up layer to affect a lower down layer, whether directly or indirectly.

At some point you just want something that works and is somewhat familiar, so sticking with a distro makes sense even when it becomes somewhat annoying.

I remember the early days of Linux when I'd be using a dial-up modem to overnight download Linus' hot-off-the-press kernel tarballs to build myself and update my system ... nowadays I just want a working computer with minimum fuss, and cost (else a MacBook might make more sense).

I think the poster just meant that whatever distro you choose, you don't have to stick with the default desktop and look and feel if you don't like it. If you are brave enough, then give your agentic AI CLI access. Personally I just ask AI on my phone and pick and choose from the advice.

> What I don't like about Ubuntu is the halfsnap, half apt nonsense.

I've had to use Claude multiple times to fix my Ubuntu distro when an upgrade causes some part of it to stop working, and this Snap/APT mishmash sometimes confuses it too: "you need the Snap version. I was wrong you need the APT version. I was wrong you need to build from source..". Gets there in the end if you give it a bit of help.

Also, one of the better uses of AI is fixing your Ubuntu distro (presumably not the only one) when it becomes unusable after an upgrade due to replacing your Nvidia drivers or somesuch.

Why waste tokens building the computer when all you are going to show the user is the crappy web page? (the AI that created it may have had the same thought)

Soon you'll need to bring your own agent to negotiate the price of your Big Mac.

Or you could just go somewhere with better food, better prices, and no AI.

As a search result, one of many, a super-fresh forum result is reasonable, although how do you meaningfully PageRank it (does any old crap posted to Reddit or HN get the site ranking of where it was posted)?

Google returning someone's forum post as an "AI response" (it's quoted me back to myself more than once) is something different - it is going to "sane wash" a lot of garbage!

So the USPS delivered these packages?

There's no verification built into a USPS label?

Validated, envigorated ?

The reaction to Jev has been huge, as has been OpenAI's speed here is announcing a "not quite ready yet" competitor... the idea of Jev is one of those "Doh! Why didn't I think of it!" moments ... in retrospect it's obvious that business automation is all about decision making and the market for this is massive. Up until now most people just saw this as a use case for LLMs, until TypeSafe/Jev came along and said "actually you don't need an LLM for this ...".

I'm sure TypeSafe realized the idea is a winner and expected competition, although maybe not quite so fast?

The question now is how seriously OpenAI take this, and are they willing to compete with Jev on price, thereby massively reducing Luna margins (which OpenAI's "Decisions API" is based on)? I guess if you can't make $0.10/M for Luna, then $0.04/M is better than just giving that market to a competitor, assuming you're profitable at $0.04/M.

They say it's built on Luna, which costs $0.10M/in, vs Jev which only costs $0.04M/in, which is interesting ...

Based on how fast they rushed out a competitor (and the anti-Jev astroturfing), it seems that Jev is much more of a threat to OpenAI than they want to admit. Other than coding it seems the other high volume use case for LLMs is business automation, and for a lot of that all you need/want is indeed just a decision/classifier model.

Yeah, and it seems they didn't even physically build it (which is most of the point of these retro projects), else where are the photos? So this is an emulation of a vibe coded processor. Couldn't they at least have added a three.js animation of bits flying around or something?!

ARM1 was only 25,000 transistors.

The number of people who feel the need to try and argue that you don't need Jev can only be astroturfing by those with something to lose - Anthropic and OpenAI employees.

Like it or not, companies are going to use Jev unless you can offer something just as cheap and fast.

I wonder just how much of the business automation market, previously held by LLMs, is at risk here?

That's a bit surprising on a more expensive machine.

How often would you reboot them?

Google's AI Mode = ELIZA 2026.

It's not a person, not even close to one in most ways, but it wants to pass itself off as one.

Here'a a clue Google: If I want an LLM response, I'll go to gemini.google.com, but if I go to google.com I'm hoping for a search result.

ELIZA = shitty 1966 chatbot, a couple hundred lines of code, that tried to pass itself off as a psychiatrist.

I think it's more about Google not realizing that search and AI Chat are in fact two different things, even if there is an area of overlap where people are asking some types of question.

And of course just because you're asking a question doesn't mean that you don't care about the answer source, or that you want an answer from a shitty AI rather than a human.

In fact Google's "AI answer" may not even be from AI - it may be a search result from a forum like HN!

Google's "AI search" is basically just Gemini. It's not search.

I wonder how the "Chinese AI is all just distillation" folk are going to cope now that the Chinese are all aboard the post-train via agents in custom training environments wagon?

Here's Xiaomi's discussion of this, plus their open-sourcing of 7000+ RL training environments.

https://www.alphaxiv.org/abs/2609.mimo-scaling-reinforcement...

https://mimo.mi.com/docs/en-US/news/latest/v2-6

Who needs a few of someone else's "vacation postcards" of their post-training experience when your agents can go on vacation themselves!

It seems to be a mix of LLM + RAG, with the RAG search results preferring what's fresh vs what has at least been endorsed by pagerank.

A large portion of the "New LLM release" story comments here on HN also appear to be astroturfing ... would be interesting to see a correlation of comment sentiment to IP-derived geographic location!

Google's AI mode is extremely hit or miss. At it's best it's a more flexible version of their old pagerank "I'm feeling lucky" button, where the LLM does return an appropriate response ...

However AI mode seems to be largely RAG, so it's supposedly authoritative answer is often just some online forum comment it picked up, such as a couple days ago when it fed me back something I had just posted myself 30 min earlier!

It does at least dump you into Gemini chat, so when the initial answer is obviously wrong you can try to drill down to get something better, but presumably many people are taking the initial answer as some sort of "AI truth" when it is far from it.

The EDSAC's "boot ROM" consisted of a bank of large electro-meachanical "uniselector" rotary switches, hardwired to contain the 31 instructions ("initial orders") of the tape loader.

Subsequent computers could have followed this "electro-mechanical ROM" approach, but I suppose it was rather bulky and inconvenient to change.

You can see what the uniselectors looked like here at 8:50

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yc945sNB0uA

Of course programmable ROM chips would have to wait, so in the meantime the alternatives were either the toggle-it-in approach (still also used by the 1974 MITS Altair 8800), or other more compact types of handmade/hardcoded physical ROM such as magnetic core or diode matrices.

Saying "like any other stored program computer" makes it sound like there were a bunch of them, but as I understand it there was really only ONE up and running at that time in 1948 - IBM's SSEC. The stored program EDVAC, whose architecture Von Neumann had formalized, was still not yet running, and Von Neumann personally advised on adapting ENIAC to this mode of operation.

As I understand it, even after adaptation to "stored program" mode, the program was still configured rather than loaded and stored, but now configuration was done using the function table dials (essentially a dedicated dial for each program step) rather than patch cords, and was a lot more convenient. Punched cards could be used for reading/writing data, but not for programs.

It seems there was no BIOS because I/O was so primitive. Per configuration a punched card would be read into the "constant transmitter" unit, then one of the read numbers could be copied into one of the 20 accumulators. Or you could do the same in reverse to output data from the accumulators.

It's perfectly legitimate to investigate any theory in the scientific manner of falsifiable experimentation, but I'm not aware that can be said of anyone looking for a quantum explanation of consciousness (which is anyways a rather odd quest given that there doesn't seem to be anything needing explanation).

Roger Penrose certainly appears to be a quack when it comes to quantum consciousness and/or brain operation - it seems that he wants to believe it, so waves his hands vaguely in the direction of microtubules as a place it could be hiding, despite zero experimental evidence, or any falsifiable theory. It's not the fact that this flies in the face of everything we know about quantum effects at classical scale and room temperature that makes this quackery - it's the fact that this is just wishful thinking, not science - not the application of the scientific method of falsifiable theory followed by experimentation.

The article acknowledges that quantum behavior like tunneling necessarily happens everywhere, if you look at the relevant scale, and also seems very clear about what it is actually talking about - whether classical-scale quantum effects can be seen in biology.

You seem to talking at cross-purposes to the article - not arguing against the research it is discussing of classical explanations of quantum-like behavior, but wanting to point out that biology is not immune to quantum effects at the scale where that is not surprising.

Whether Jev is something architecturally different from an LLM (bidirectional vs auto-regressive? different type of parallel readout head?) remains to be seen, or guessed, but LLMs are certainly fungible and are competing on price - they leapfrog each other from release to release, but overall they are all progressing in unison.

When it comes to the high volume market of business automation, it seems that ultra-low cost, rather than expensive frontier intelligence, is exactly what you want, and low latency is also nice to have for customer-facing applications like customer service chatbots.

I didn't even realize what I was looking at to begin with - I thought it was modern sculpture looking very interesting and organic, although the "installation" locations seemed almost impossible! :)

It seems people are just guessing at the architecture behind Jev. Obviously the functionality itself is easy to replicate, but why Jev seems to be making such a splash (beyond the doh! factor of it's huge applicability) is the ultra-low cost and speed, which may be due to architecture.

The Laya model compared in TFA shows one way Jev may be getting it's speed and low cost - by using a BERT-like bidirectional model rather than an auto-regressive one (LLM).

Their self-interest is in keeping Putin at arms length and avoiding WW III. Putin is already threatening Lithuania, sending drones into Poland. If Putin wasn't prevented from taking Ukraine, do you really think it would end there?