claude-ai

Three clicks, no info what effect 4.0 is, except that it's AI-ready, safe, good, and re-built from the ground up. No idea what it actually is.

"Please, please forbid Chinese models!"

More nuanced take: you could say guardrails are important. However, "free" models will continue to exist. Abliteration is a thing with open weights.

Bad actors don't care about laws, especially with high stakes.

Opus 5.5 is a game changer for me. Super-heavy and deep algorithmic work on a pet project of mine - managed to produce 5% weekly usage in 8 hours. With Opus 5 - interspersed with Fable for supervision and guidance - I'd have used 12-15% in the same time. Mostly void of claudisms; and the results actually work, on a level that's almost on par with Fable.

Impressed.

Killer as in: killing US economics, ammunition, bonds, owning and clearing the strait of Hormuz, protecting Saudi pipelines, rusty aircraft carriers, etc.pp.?

The gall of writing such a piece is really hard to digest.

The Houthis, of all involved, using actual AI to attack Saudi pipelines is satire at its best.

This period of time will be the stuff you tell your grandchildren, if you have any, and they'll just look at you in disbelief.

Hot take: OpenAI will default, Anthropic will scrape by. A new party in the US will emerge.

Fable doesn't use API credits. It has been permanently included in the subscription plans.

I lost track. How often did Trump already win / dominate / annihilate / own the street of Hormuz since this "Intervention" began?

"google it" has a stain on it. And that's not said in jest. In my social circle, it has grown a boomer-tint. Like it or not; it's just how it is.

I personally like google over asking an AI. Esp. since something like google is a substrate without which an AI would be far more prone to hallucinations.

From a rationalist perspective, provided SpaceX can launch at a low cost AND the problem of radiation shielding, cooling, maintenance can be solved, it will be almost a no-brainer to launch data centers into space.

Either the next administration declares data-centers to be unimportant (which is unlikely, China etc.), or they would want to offload them as far as possible. If space is an option, it will be taken provided it's cost efficient.

On my end, Opus 5 is Haiku level vs. Opus 4.8 (good) and Fable (superb).

Gets confused by permission prompts, cannot debug a failing test it caused (Opus 4.8 got it right after, without tens of rounds "thinking").

Looks like I'm convinced to try Kimi K3 today.

Actually, you could comfortably reach quite a lot of points in the universe in your lifetime, provided you'd have a free constant thrust engine. This one not, because it's out of our light cone.

My 2cent take: Apple is just waiting for someone doing this, observing the outcome, and releasing the "Apple ConciOS" device shortly after.

Posting under one of my "bad" accounts here - we're searching for front-end developers like crazy, but only if they are "not just frontend", but also UX.

UX trumps everything, and is scarcer than ever.

If you don't over-promise your abilities and are up-to-par with agentic coding, you'd fare well (provided an entry-level position exists) in at least one large-ish company I know of.

Earlier: https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=ChrisArchitect&next=...

That's the original title. The author wants to encourage to not just downvote if you agree, but also upvote if you genuinely think Opus 4.7 is better.

I see where you're coming from, though.

Benchmark Results Model Sample Set (20q) Full Set (222q) Claude 4.6 (baseline) 0.0% Available to researchers Triad Engine 100.0% Available to researchers

I'm not sure this looks credible. 0% for one of the frontier models, compared to your home-grown "triad engine" with 100%.

I am just looking into the comment's substance. If it is genuinely interesting, I don't mind at all if it has been written by an AI or by a human.

Type theory absolutely can enhance imperative languages! In fact, we're seeing this happen:

Rust is the prime example - it uses affine types (linear logic) to track ownership and borrowing in imperative code. The type system prevents memory safety bugs at compile time without garbage collection.

C++ concepts (C++20) bring dependent typing to template metaprogramming. You can express "this function works for any type T that satisfies these type-level constraints."

Refinement types in languages like Dafny let you encode invariants directly in the type system for imperative code: int{x | x > 0} for positive integers.

The challenge isn't technical compatibility - it's that imperative programming often emphasizes mutation and side effects, while type theory shines at reasoning about pure transformations. But when you can encode the "shape" of your mutations in types (like Rust's ownership), you get incredible safety guarantees.

The real question might be: why don't more imperative languages adopt these ideas? Legacy compatibility and learning curves are probably the main barriers.