the rest of "work" doesn't have that luxury
18,951 karma · joined December 2, 2010
the rest of "work" doesn't have that luxury
I'm not saying Kimi Work and its peers are entirely useless. I'm just saying they're a hack that puts a pretty low upper limit on agent capabilities and speed.
Says everyone who's not using this stuff. It's an empirical argument. Is anyone actually using this for work? How long has it been since Cowork was released?
It's such an inadequate tool for work it reeks of SF hubris to think you can just slap a chat input box onto a PC and replace 90% of white collar jobs.
People are building UI/UX for a paradigm that is so utterly new that they miss the mark entirely.
Everyone defaults to a big chat input because that's all they know. It's the expectation, so it's safer, faster, and cheaper to not deviate.
It's also wrong and bad for work.
Also this was released about a month ago
https://tech.yahoo.com/ai/meta-ai/articles/moonshot-ais-kimi...
everyone else seems to be thinking the quote is about AI-assisted coding but I read it as the model being used within the product itself
Data would be needed to argue the 80% skews unsuccessful
I just wished the delivery took longer and there was a payment process that longer than an instant. Could have a saved card on file that you could use.
ITSM those unsupervised workflows are essentially an attempt at purported productivity in the near term at the expense of meaningful incremental long term burden for teams.
The only ostensible benefit is in the eyes of the AI-psychotic tinkerer, who knows no better, or in those of the clout-chasing developer farming likes on their LinkedIn posts.
Past performance is no guarantee of future success.
> Pi works. I haven't used it heavily enough to have opinions about the design, but it feels like a regular piece of software instead of a fever dream with unit tests. All three are heavily vibe-coded, so I'm curious what the pi folks are doing differently to maintain some baseline level of code quality.
sadly, Anthropic has mistaken the quality of their model for the quality of their tools, so they force their subscribers to stay with their inferior client lest they wish to pay API prices, which I don't understand why anyone would
Submitters have a grace period of several minutes to edit them back to anything they want, which will not get autocorrected, but many fail don't. They may not realize it or be too lazy to care, we'll never know. (Personally, I think anyone who considers themselves a "hacker" would at least try to bypass such a primitive system, but I digress...)
Some HNers complain every time that happens, gleefully oblivious to the countless other times the autoedit feature works as advertised.
ORM is ultimately SQL
First, reality is continuous whereas the digital world is discrete.
Second, data in the real world is many orders of magnitude more detailed than what we're able to model with today's computers.