comboy

I kind of enjoy exploring black boxes, trying how different inputs are mapping to differences in outputs. It's kind of like hacking. The problem is, they keep altering the box.

ROTFL

Here's the thing. Building trust and then leaving stuff in has been around forever. The fact that it becomes cheaper does not matter that much (since protection against it is also getting better), but it required you to have a bunch of extremely talented people who has spent much of their life diving into given topic.

Such driven people are usually even hard to buy, they usually would rather get by with enough income and work on interesting projects with interesting people that get some uninteresting work for tons of money. This still does not stop them from working for Malice. But ethics do. Even if not right away, if people see that what they are doing is not quite OK, the talent stops eroding. People quit, productivity drops. That was a good dynamic. Which now will be gone.

Oh, a nice subthread place to vent. Their CLI is so f tragic that it is ridiculous. It keeps scrambling the terminal, scroll and basic shortcuts keep breaking, I've used so many tuis and terminal apps and many of them are a single man operation and a side project and I have never seen anything so bad.

If I didn't know from experience that directed properly claude can be powerful, knowing that they used it to create that CLI would be instant runaway based on very reasonable heuristics - if they are not able to use their product to create a decent piece of software that is not even sophisticated then it seems futile for me to try.

I just do not understand. I feel like most HN could vibe code better claude CLI in claude than the CLI (and certainly just write one) than what we have to deal with to use subscription.

I'm fairly certain they were doing something similar already possibly with some quantizations and not for the good humanity but just trying to handle the increased usage. Not for API requests though, just subscription CLI usage.

If I share a project with an American friend and he says it's awesome, I still don't know whether he liked it or not.

If I share it with a Polish or German friend and he says it's "not bad" then I know he is really impressed.

For one, they invested in infrastructure. They can build fast and efficiently. They can provide power, they can provide cooling. Even if you just make roads better you make everything more efficient. Plus level of standard education. It all compounds.

On HN China is seen as a cheap labor copycat. This used to be a fair approximation at some point in the past. In my opinion China is getting ahead of everyone else much more than US used to be.

SF is a beautiful thing in the US, vast power and wealth comes from there. Smart people collaborating communicating and building fast and with excitement. China did SF kind of thing for many different sectors in many different places.

This is relevant to my interests, did you maybe test which models handle custom languages best? It also seems like a good proxy for them being able to stick to important instructions and not being carried away with things that are lookalikes.

Yeah, I think lack of any decent hardware RAID could be a prerequisite.

Google renting infra from xAI, I did not see that coming. My understanding of what computers are doing, what companies are doing and what governments are doing seems to be getting worse day by day.

plus $473 per second from Anthropic

> As part of that deal, Anthropic agreed to pay SpaceX $1.25 billion per month through 2029 to rent all the available compute from its Colossus 1 data center near Memphis, Tennessee, that xAI — now part of SpaceX — originally built for its own artificial intelligence efforts.

I don't get why SpaceX is going public. But anyway, well played, the whole crypto mining that dried out GPUs back in the day seems tiny now.

Obviously depends on your workflow but I think I use mouse only on websites on macos (with aerospace)

> As a complete nerd, you'd think maybe I'd like that I can prove my skills like this, but it comes off as deeply disrespectful to me as the user that I can't disable this.

You seem to have understood the problem. But then you didn't follow. If there was a way to disable this, first thing that the grandma would do is watch a video how to disable that and lose security from then on.

Of course it is not perfect, but their approach here is really decent. And also, if you find yourself needing to go through that often I think that's not a good sign security-wise.

Since we are throwing in random N=1, it is very well tested and safe yes. But in my personal experience it does limit my creativity somehow. It seems to have like slightly calming/lower anxiety effect, and to me it comes with me coming up with fewer interesting things. Kind of lowering the model temperature if you will. Curious if anybody had a similar experience.

1. It's 1 in 10 failures that can take half of your time or bugs that can take a long time to surface. Plus the way they change things largely depends on the current codebase (and how it was created)

2. In my case codex seem to be writing a more solid code, but I still use claude most of the time because it's my witty rubber ducky and I can actually sometimes force some legit insights out of it. Codex is much worse at this. And whether that matters or not depends on the project.

Got me.

Just tell it to always use opus for subagents and it does.

"We've cut our costs A LOT"

This is wrong on so many levels, from data through process to evaluation. How do you even prompt claude not to give you Pearson for correlating them.

I wonder how are they going to implement it. Many creators with even decent content use AI-generated visuals. In fact, everything could be AI-generated visual and whether that would be like Kurzgezagt, Asianometry or Sabine Hossenfelder content value wouldn't drop significantly. How do you draw the line?

Spotify recommendations are biased because user incentive and theirs don't align. They pay different royalties to different artists, they optimize earnings. Also, they take money to promote music and shove it down your throat.

It implements something, and then subagent reviews it (the main one waits or does something else in the meantime, so yes it's serial, subagent is for having fresh context and evaluating changes as they stand not being biased by existing thinking and discussion), and then the main one implements fixes that are worth doing (because you will inevitably end up with some nitpicks).

I have fun somebody imaging somebody internally explaining that this is a heavy traffic page and we should use it to increase reach.

It's big enough that every time it goes down, it surely stops somebody from pushing fix for what they currently have broken, so I wonder if status page services see some kind of ripple from github outages.

Fun fact, I've recently sent some 你好 to qwen3.7 (API), and it responded with a greeting saying that it was created by Google.

Have you tried telling claude to review with subagent? It too almost always finds corner cases (usually nothing serious, but most stuff is things that good coder would have thought of)

Curious if anyone around here stayed on 4.6 (having a choice to use 4.7)

I was looking for a good rationalization to leave the ecosystem, one-click e-books is great and having old device that I can take anywhere not caring about it getting beaten up even more was another major advantage.

Removing some old book I had was the first major red flag.

Not only it supercharged science it supercharges scientist. Research on any narrow topic is a different world now. Agents can read 50 papers for you and tell you what's where. This was impossible with pure text search. Looking up non-trivial stuff and having complex things explained to you is also amazing. I mean they don't even have to be complex, but can be for adjacent field where these are basics from the other field but happen to be useful in yours. The list goes on. It's a hammer you need to watch your fingers, it's not good at cutting wood, but it's definitely worth having.

Yes, not providing visualization of the solution seems criminal.