helloplanets

I think this sort of underplays the feeling of "lives unlived, paths not taken" that everyone gets hit with. Just flattens the whole thing that had been building up to that point, instead of allowing it to open up further.

That was my point as well. That it hasn't been output, even though it could be done by a talented solo developer given enough time, and that current LLMs definitely aren't able to do so.

> The problem is that they don’t generate acceptable code, they generate code that needs to be edited to be acceptable.

You've never had an LLM output a one line bugfix that is correct to the point where you don't have to edit it?

To make things more concrete, here's an example from the creator of Redis on how he utilizes LLMs in programming: https://antirez.com/news/164

Even if you hired an actual programmer, it'd take a massive amount of time to build a Photoshop clone.

Of course, at the end Photoshop is lines of code and it could be output as is, end to end. One problem is that users aren't generally giving very precise design documents which would narrow the way to interpret them into code in precisely one way. Or that a design document at any level of precision, other than code, couldn't be interpreted in multiple ways when it comes to a specific implementation.

LLMs also take a relatively long time to output acceptable code, often taking tens of minutes before giving you a small diff. The larger the codebase, the longer it usually takes to start producing code, even over an hour.

> The intuition: instead of adding position info to each token’s vector, RoPE rotates the vector by an angle that depends on its position

You can't rotate the token's entire vector (or all three vectors, whatever is being implied is unclear). You rotate each token's Query and Key vectors only, so dot product can be used to tell how far apart the tokens are when comparing token 1's Query vector to token 2's Key vector.

Positional embedding should just be explained after explaining the Query, Key and Value vectors. When the article explains those only after that, the reader is building up on a wrong intuition and it gets confusing.

White socks with the sandals were very trendy just a while ago as well though. I'd say the author of that site is definitely unc.

It's 100% an issue with the people with submitting these PRs. So, if someone has a history of having no issue with breaking project rules (let alone being arrogant about it), it should be a massive red flag about the person for any possible employer or future collaborator checking their profile, etc.

Why people are wilfully destroying their own reputation like that is beyond me. It's infinitely better to have no activity at all on your profile than to create a track record of bad behaviour.

Something that reads like an LLM wrote it is different from an LLM having written it to begin with. Something written by an LLM can be something that doesn't have the hallmarks of LLM all over it.

I was just saying that the original quote doesn't strike me as something that's an annoyingly good piece of LLM writing.

There's a lot of experimentation happening on how to get LLMs to write well, starting with half of what's been posted on Gwern's blog as of late.

Inference is much cheaper than training a new model, so running them just for inference is a completely different thing than having to price in the fact that at the moment all of these companies need to compromise between compute for inference and compute for training new models. If no new models were to be trained, and all the compute was inference only, that would change everything when it comes to the overall compute cost of AI.

Dotcom infra buildup is a bad comparison, in that it wasn't even close to being all utilized. The infra was completely overproportional to the day to day usage.

> Now they're slop, agentic, and on fire — but they get attention, and attention is the only metric left.

Welcome to the future, where we have LLMs writing slop rants about LLMs writing slop!

Has anything similar happened before?

Same has been applying to art for a while. Several artists who have an "AI-ish" style have been wrongfully crucified for using AI. And been forced to post videos of their process end to end, in order to prove that they aren't using AI. It's a thing for artists to post their new stuff with: "AI could never do this."

I hope the field moves out of the TUI with prompt + pull the lever paradigm soon‚ when it comes to agentic programming. And the Markdown paradigm too, tbh.

There hasn't been anything that really sticks yet for a shift to happen.

It's not like leaving GitHub is unheard of. Ghostty just announced their plan to do so last month.

Would you count this as malware if it was about the author trying to profit or steal from inattentive people using AI? You know, he could be putting those stolen goods towards a good cause, like Robin Hood.

> It's as much "active destruction" as telling someone to eff themselves.

> Funny to have GenAI proponents talk about "deliberately destroying someone's work".

Why is the project still on GitHub of all places, if he's passionate enough about his cause to turn his project into malware? So weird.

Interesting variation on that could be AI that builds out some sort of on the fly honeypot after identifying the attacker. Basically creating the "attack" within their own premises.

I'd imagine GPT-5.5 and Claude Opus 4.7 could run just fine on a 16x H200 node and serve at least 10 heavy users without the token output getting choppy.

I wouldn't be comfortable creating a bubble inside of a bubble, but to each their own.

As long as it's just consuming information from the site and you're essentially forming your own custom filters using it, I don't see an issue.

Still a simplification, but has made the "illusion of a normie" clearer to me.

> Improbable lives have fewer competitors

> The more you-ish you become, the less competition you have, because you are occupying your own niche.

> The less predictable you are, the less likely you are to be replaced by AIs

As opposed to Ilya Sutskever's famous quip:

> if you value intelligence above all other human qualities, you’re gonna have a bad time

> The python visualizer tool has been basically written by vibe-coding. I know more about analog filters -- and that's not saying much -- than I do about python. It started out as my typical "google and do the monkey-see-monkey-do" kind of programming, but then I cut out the middle-man -- me -- and just used Google Antigravity to do the audio sample visualizer.