4,512 karma · joined March 23, 2015
Truly, a design only an LLM could love.
That team got acquired by Amplify, and eventually the "Desmos Classroom" tool used to make the activities got acquired by Amplify too, leaving Desmos with just the more consumer-focused graphing calculator stuff. Amplify also acquired this other "Polypad" product and kind of merged the two together into what's now called "Amplify Classroom".
I think Amplify is still selling/distributing a lot of the activities that were originally made by the Desmos people.
Hacker News hides the reply link on deeply nested replies for a little while to try and prevent flamewars. https://github.com/minimaxir/hacker-news-undocumented#hidden... says you can work around this by clicking on the comment's timestamp.
The second prong of the argument is basically that, when you invest in Anthropic, you can't just invest in one model and then collect the profits from that model. You're investing in a whole company in the hopes that they can be profitable overall; at some point they'll need to stop spending so much money on training and give it back to the investors instead. Zitron argues that this isn't going to happen because training is actually something that companies need to do to retain customers at all. An analogy here might be the fact that Microsoft has to spend a certain amount of "R&D" budget fixing security vulnerabilities in Windows Server just to retain their current customer base; if attackers found out about a serious security hole but Microsoft didn't fix it, everyone would need to stop using Windows Server. LLM companies do the same kind of thing to fix "jailbreaks" and other unexpected model behaviors.
The third prong of the argument is that, in general, there's a long history of companies using creative accounting to try and make themselves look profitable and then collapsing because they're not actually profitable. For example, WeWork's "community-adjusted EBIDTA" figured claimed the company was profitable using very similar arguments to Dario, and then the company went bankrupt. If you're already cooking the numbers, you have almost arbitrary flexibility to report whatever "margins" you want by excluding some of your costs from the calculation.
The TL;DR is that Dario likes to talk about imaginary/hypothetical companies a lot in interviews, and those companies' financials don't have a direct basis in reality.
It never really took off. I think because computers already require users to read and type Latin letters in lots of other situations, and it's not that hard to learn what a few keywords mean, so you might as well stick with the English keywords everyone else is using.
Every time I check this comment section, this sentence jumps out at me again. You "had to" ask an LLM. You "had to".
People haven't noticed because the software industry was already mostly unoriginal slop, even prior to LLMs, and people are good at ignoring unoriginal slop.
It's possible to use a multiplier like "10x" or "5x" as a verb like that, but the object has to be the thing being increased, like "productivity" or "sales". And it's usually best to put a word like "the" or "your" in there to avoid confusing it with the case where you're using 10x as an adjective (like in "10x developer" or "10x growth"). So there are a lot of articles and books and stuff with titles like "how to 10x your wealth" and that's fine, but "AI can 10x developers" both sounds kind of wrong and implies that the AI is hiring more developers onto your team.
I'm not sure if it's real or not, but the Internet Archive has a listing claiming to be the dump from May 2022: https://archive.org/details/wikipedia_en_all_maxi_2022-05
That's why they're cataloging specific traits that are common in AI-generated text, and only deleting if it either contains very obvious indicators that could never legitimately appear in a real article ("Absolutely! Here is an article written in the style of Wikipedia:") or violates other policies (like missing or incorrect citations).
> in july, we [Adafruit] told sparkfun they needed to get their house in order. for years, sparkfun's leadership ignored specific behavior from leadership (and employees, now former... they had created and promoted hate sites, photoshopped images, and harassment targeting limor, me, and others at adafruit. this was done on company time, shared, promoted. this was reported to them. it was documented and ignored. that was the big issue i wanted them to get some hr training on, or _something_
> months later in 2025, the same individual resurfaced and re-promoted it with what appears to be nate's blessing at the time. we again told sparkfun to deal with this. instead of addressing the behavior, sparkfun’s response was to “ban” adafruit from purchasing teensy by invoking a vague, secret set of rules that neither we nor paul (the creator of teensy) were allowed to see.
> this is not a one-off. nate (the founder of sparkfun) has done this before. anyone who has worked with him long enough knows this is how conflict is handled: deflect, escalate, and try to punish rather than deal with the underlying conduct.
It seems to work in this context, at least on Gemini's "Fast" model: https://gemini.google.com/share/7a78bf00b410