Kotlin 1.0 was released early 2016. I can see why YouTrack team might not have wanted to commit using an unstable language, though I can also see the dogfooding angle.
332 karma · joined February 24, 2016
Also, how would you even know the deterioration? You have been barely 2 years on this website. Once again you gave away your shill nature.
No, you are intentionally being obtuse, because people have already called you out on your lies. Saying "my team worked on <X>" is not under NDA in 90%+ cases, and no one is asking you for the implementation details for the <X>.
Name your company so others from it can confirm what you have claimed regarding AI and LLMs or deny it. Each FAANG being 10k+ (and in most cases 50-100k+) makes doxxing you unlikely, as others have done so on this forum without any problem.
Moreover, you refuse to even name the organization you allegedly work at. This is because people who actually work there will immediately call you out on your bullshit, so you have to stay intentionally vague there.
This is just yet another evidence of you being a shill.
Anyways, solenoid0937 is an LLM-hype peddler and an Anthropic shill, not an actual FAANG-employee. See proof here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48269250
I did not have to go through "so much of their history", this is just the last 9 days. There are considerably wilder claims from them earlier, when the account was solely focused on propping up LLM-hype and defending Anthropic.
We are living through a period of time with one of the potentially most disruptive technologies ever being developed. A lot (A LOT) of money is invested into it, a lot of livelihoods are and might be affected by it, and some people stand to gain A LOT from it. So there are significant interests to sway public opinion in favour of LLMs and AI, to hype it up to unreasonable extent, to muddle the waters of a reasonable discourse. Accounts such as solenoid0937 are unleashed on public forums to achieve that, and because of that we have to take everything they write with a huge grain of salt, or even ignore completely, as there is just no true information in their comments.
You yourself got baited by them by considering what they wrote seriously regarding "amazing things with unlimited tokens". Now the idea that "LLMs 1) are used in one of FAANGs massively and 2) are used to produce amazing things" is planted. Will you remember later that they did not actually provide any evidence of that? The account has been doing this trick multiple times over the last few weeks.
For me, as someone who is actually using LLMs in their work, a single balanced comment on the matter would have been more than enough to consider them not being a shill. Unfortunately, instead they have claimed recently that they went completely full-on with agentic coding (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48245721) skipping reviews and pushing to prod directly (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48243651) at a FAANG, no less. And they claimed it in such a manner that this is objectively the only proper way to do the work, and all other approaches are doomed. How is this anything else than peddling unfounded LLM-hype, I do not know.
The example above might seem like a singular episode, but they have been doing it over and over for the last year and a half, so this is now a pattern. No actual evidence for any of their claims is provided, so the only thing left is AI-hype, and pretty wild at that. So why would a reasonable person, with ostensibly enough money to retire (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48252297), ostensibly working at a FAANG, spend all their days spreading unfounded AI-hype in a degrading manner on HN and defending Anthropic? Given the vested financial interest in the technology, the most plausible answer here is that they are paid to do so.
Unsubstantiated claims of 3x-10x productivity at allegedly a FAANG: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48174666
More claims of the same, still unsubstantiated: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48173995
Even more claims of the same, still nothing of substance: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48173975
Outlandish claim of using 300$ in tokens in 1 hour at allegedly a FAANG: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48158438
Ostensibly great things with unlimited tokens at allegedly a FAANG: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48269185
Complaints about HN "not getting" AI: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48245673
An attempt to validate vibe-coding in production: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48243651
Whitewashing Claude degradation: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48211638
More Claude degradation whitewashing: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48245784
Whitewashing Anthropic: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48199951
Promises of coming AI revolution: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48188104
All of this serves to hype up the LLM technology with absolutely outlandish claims, while also propping up Anthropic online.
Did you really just claim that people are so gullible that it was social media or whatever that made them believe their LLM could no longer achieve the tasks it yesterday could, and not the actual FACT of LLM not being able to do it that they, you know, verified before complaining online? I guess if you gaslight everything like that, then indeed no matter what the facts are, you will never be convinced in anything.
You see, because of outlandish claims and reasoning (or rather lack of) like that, everyone sees that you are an Anthropic shill.
Gaslighting again, Anthropic shill. What does frequency bias have to do with the objective fact that hundreds of people reported their own experiences with LLMs being degraded over a short period of time? The very same tasks that the very same LLMs could do, they no longer can? You seem to ignore this FACT, this DATA, and instead have to gaslight and divert into "frequency bias" nonsense. I do understand, why you are doing it, Anthropic shill, but at least have guts to admit it.
> perception of a model
You once again ignore what your LLM outputted and you typed yourself and divert into "perception", Anthropic shill. You do not need to sample entire output for tokens to notice the distribution moving. If the LLM used to be able to achieve set goals and no longer could, it is already a sign of the distribution shift. And as you said yourself, different token distribution = model being quantized. Which is reported in hundreds of separate instances. Which is more than enough to conclude that the model was, in fact, quantized, and no amount of gaslighting can change that. But you are an Anthropic shill, so you have to peddle your bullshit, trying to twist facts to support your employer's narrative. And you deserve being called out on that, Anthropic shill.
Once again, putting "AI bad" into my words. No, Anthropic shill, this is not what I am saying. Is your LLM malfunctioning or are you not really getting it? Stop gaslighting, Anthropic shill, and try to stick to the actual words I am saying. I understand that this is hard for you, because then you would have no real argument to make, but please try, Anthropic shill.
> Please show it.
I used an LLM to count actual experiences of people reporting their experience with Opus 4.6 being degraded. There are literally several hundreds of such data points. This is data. People, who are employed and actually use LLMs for coding, unlike you, Anthropic shill, who uses it only to poison online communities. Are you really going to disregard all that to claim it is mass-psychosis or something? I guess you would, Anthropic shill, because that's your job, to peddle bullshit LLM-hype unbased on anything in reality.
> It was an incoherent mess of insults, so I am still not sure what you're trying to say.
Repeat after me, Anthropic shill: being called a shill is not an insult. You are a shill, stop being obtuse and at least take some pride in your work of promoting LLM-hype. So once again you are providing nothing to the conversation except for baseless accusations of insulting, which I did not do, and refuse to answer to the actual arguments I made. I can provide it again, but you would likely ignore it because it just showcases how you are clueless about the topic.
Your words, not mine:
> Third, and most importantly, the actual output measurably changes. Quants have a lower latency, higher TPS, and different token distribution.
I asked if you understood what "different token distribution" meant. I can tell you what it means: models performing worse at coding tasks. So people report models being worse at coding tasks, YOU write that indeed quantization leads to that and then just "forgot" about it? Nice level of "objective" discussion, Anthropic shill.
> So now I'm lying about my employment on an anonymous forum for... what, exactly?
It is not anonymous forum, as much as you would have liked it to be, so that your shilling could not be dismissed as easily, Anthropic shill. For what? So that people would fall for the bullshit you are peddling. Are you really this dense, Anthropic shill?
Nice gaslighting, Anthopic shill. No one said a word about feelings, only you (to derail the conversation). People reported their own experience and frustration with the model being unable to complete tasks they previously could. I said, get a better playbook before coming back. Or is it the best LLMs can do for now? Sad, then.
> No data
There is data, which you try to gaslight into being "feelings", Anthopic shill.
> Stated simply: If you were being served a quant, you'd be able to tell by looking at the token distribution, latency, and TPS.
Did you just repeat what you said before while ignoring the actual meaning of the words and my explanation of what YOU wrote? Is it what LLM told you to do, Anthropic shill? And you claim I have no substance. Maybe spend a week or so getting educated, before blindly copying and pasting LLM output, Anthropic shill?
> I get paid by a FAANG
Yeah, in your dreams maybe, Anthropic shill. I did read your comment history, and this is likely part of the story you try to build around your Anthropic shilling persona. Not a single fact that would prove that and believe me, I tried looking for it. Only endless claims of "I work at a FAANG" (no one who actually works here writes it like this).
> I use Anthropic products heavily
This is obvious, as 90% of your comments are LLM generated, Anthropic shill.
> calling people shills
Clanker, I called only you a shill, not people, tell your LLM to update its context. And I called you shill not because of any arguments, but because of your comment history unapologetically shilling for Anthropic and peddling LLM hype.
> arguments are disproven
You ignored half of my arguments, and for the rest you just repeated what you wrote before, not even understanding what the words you typed meant. Nice gaslighting, Anthropic shill.
> insulting
And you said you were not offended. Once again, Anthropic shill, being called a shill is not an insult. This is your fate, to be called an Anthropic shill, while you are on their payroll, astroturfing online communities with your LLM-bullshit peddling. Or do you expect being a propagandist to be a pleasant experience? People with no morals like you coming into this forum spreading their employer's bullshit deserve all the hate they get and more.
> you're ngmi. Hope you're already independently wealthy.
Your LLM outputs the same thing as in other comment for no good reason. Can't Anthropic afford good models for its shills, or is it the best SOTA can do now?
I would recommend you abandon this account, because it's now burned for all shilling intents and purposes.
> No, it does not.
Yes, it does, it is literally the definition of data - collection of points, observations, anything really. Try gaslighting harder, Anthropic shill. As I said, ask for better playbook on how to deal with people actually experiencing degradation before replying again.
> First, Anthropic and OpenAI have both stated they don't serve quants.
What's the point of stating this other than trying to pad your baseless "proof"? LLM-level argument.
> Second, there have not been evals showing a real regression test proving that a quant was served
This is how I know you have no idea what you are talking about and resort to LLMs for all your argumentation. Benchmarks are gamed so hard that even quantized models would achieve on them non-quantized level reliably. Moreover, benchmarks (that matter) are not run continuously all the time.
> Third, and most importantly, the actual output measurably changes. Quants have a lower latency, higher TPS, and different token distribution. Despite having access to this data, no one has any evidence proving a quant has been served.
You really are an LLM. What do you think different token distribution means? It literally means different, arguably worse performance in coding tasks. The evidence is in your face, but you have to keep it straight, since you are an Anthropic shill. You wrote yourself an argument why the models ARE quantized over time and did not even understand it. Makes sense, since you are paid to not understand stuff but peddle LLM-hype for Anthropic instead.
> I'd explain the reasons I favor Anthropic over the others
It is perfectly visible why you favor Anthropic, because you are an Anthropic shill and they pay you your salary, duh.
> real conversation
This is the type of conversation everyone should have whenever they read something written by an Antrhopic shill. You are actively poisoning this forum by astroturfing for Antrhopic, so we should take measures against it.
> You haven't substantively debated a single point
Obviously an Anthtropic shill would ignore everything of substance I wrote and instead focus on being called out. Fortunately, it is not you who I have to convince of anything, since your very well-being relies on getting salary from Anthropic peddling LLM-hype on HN and elsewhere, so you are physically incapable of understanding pretty much anything that contradicts your talking points.
Those people, unlike you, are actually using AI in development. And it is not a singular person who reports their frustration with the model being degraded after a certain period of time, so the anecdata does gradually become data. Your attempts at gaslighting are weak, you should really ask your bosses for a new guidebook on how to deal with reports of models performing at worse levels than before. Just writing "because I say so" is not cutting it.
> "we know they don't serve quants"
How do you know that unless you are working at Antrhopic? Yet another evidence of you being an Anthropic shill.
You should also check your LLM prompt for HN comments, because the original comment you replied to was not anti-AI, and, in fact, very much pro-AI. The only criticism it had was about model being degraded, so they could not go as hard at AI-assisted development anymore as they used to before. I guess it's a bit difficult for LLMs to spot the difference and make proper conclusion for now.
Also even if taking you seriously — how does writing "no, model performance is not degraded because I say so" serve as correcting misinformation? It only does if you are shilling for Anthropic (which you do), otherwise it's just hot air.