The rate at which the value accumulates depends on release of new models and admittedly it's a small community, so you may be in for a wait! But I still mean it, it is a small but enduring stream.
It's actually not just valuable, but infinitely valuable. Because it's imaginary, there is no way to do it perfectly, and thus the possibilities are endless, and it tests out both the formulation and execution of ideas.
It makes the premise of the entire site flawed, though. And it defeats the purpose of the convenient button provided to redraw a year. That is what should allow you to find a pick that might be more interesting, rather than messing up the randomness promised by the site and the HN title.
Not really. Whether you agree with LeCun's assertion that "LLMs Are a Dead End" or not, world modeling is the same domain. "World Modeling" in this post is confusing because it seems to reference the deep, specific machine learning that goes into these frontier world models and self-driving cars, where it's really just vibe coding turned at the problem of modeling the sort of 3D worlds you'd find in a video game.
Indeed, but that likely wouldn't have stopped someone from submitting it with a misleading title. HN is known to get a lot of misleading titles submitted and to have to change them. The <title> tag is better, it doesn't say "a full copy". In the screenshot it shows "headless" in the filename. I would simply add the tiny detail of headless to the <title> and use this title for HN: Codex Bundles Headless LibreOffice
Edit: it's hard to find clear info on the risks of using an electric toothbrush or even on overbrushing, because a lot of search results are blogspam. To me it's unclear, but there is a point of pressure at which the cleaning effect stops, and it is better not to go beyond that.
It's deliberately hostile, in the way that Facebook is to its userbase. I guess Claude doesn't have nearly the grip on their users that Facebook does. Facebook can make it hard to communicate with (via WhatsApp) or stay connected with some of your friends or relatives, while Claude can just make you use the second-best model for cheaper (if Fable is the best).
Indeed, the disclaiming of it being human-coded isn't the problem with their commit messages, them using it as a growth hack mechanism is. BTW to say it's attributed to Claude, I don't give that much importance, but I think it's useful to other coders to know what model was used. A simple assisted by AI would mostly handle the plaigiarism problem, because Claude's training data didn't come from Claude.
For a good chunk of my AI coding work, I make my own commits. I add Assisited-by: to them. I glance at the AI commit messages, and though I usually come up with my own messages sometimes I paraphrase. This would just make it a bit more annoying to review the AI commit messages, though I could hide it.
This reminds me of a provocative YouTube video title I read the other day, one that makes me want to fight factory farming injustices. The title is "Animals to me are "Philosophical Zombies" - Destiny" https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RtpLbmr4ijY I agree with Destiny a lot of the time but not here, though he seems to come around somewhat as the video goes on.
If a sheep or a pig isn't thought of as conscious because it doesn't have a name, like someone's pet dog or cat, indicating that we care about them, then that feels problematic to me. So this isn't a way to neatly solve the problem of AI consciousness.
AI is making it a low-moat industry too. It's a lot quicker to build some API docs, a behavior tracking JavaScript library, and some fraud detection, with LLMs.
FWIW I saw the original posts, knew who wrote them, and know that Cloudflare OS is open source. It's because Sandstorm is about running anyone's apps, while where you introduce it you say this:
> the AI cannot introduce a significant security bug
Seems to be mixing up linting with code review - though this does lint only the changes which is an option (I prefer to lint the whole codebase though)
They talk so much about freshness. That is an indirect and unnecessary and probably unintentional dig at dry beans, grains, seeds, nuts, etc. While I can entertain the idea that they're more reasonable in their diets this makes them bad nutrition communicators.
To Michael Pollan it seems they aren't worth mentioning right in the first breath when talking about real food, but perhaps an afterthought. "Shop the peripheries" causes them to be lumped in with potato chips and oreos and other stuff that aren't in the peripheries of a supermarket. I don't accept the same real food dichotomy that they do.
Eh, the "real food" of Jamie Oliver and Michael Pollan (shop the peripheries) and such isn't very health promoting. So I'll pass and keep eating a mix of fresh food and cheap food that keeps for a long time like legumes. Kthxbai.