johnfn

You are saying 1) other people have said the same thing and 2) you don't like the particular way he said it. Those can both be true, but that isn't even close to "consistently wrong with all their predictions".

The guy was saying that AI was going to be a serious problem decades before anyone else was even considering it as a remote possibility. How is that in any way "consistently wrong with all their predictions"?

When your best counter-argument is “you donate money to charity” you have to start wondering if you’re on the bad side and not the good side.

No one says "You are a bad employee" in a perf review because it would be a personal attack. They say things like "when you did X it had Y outcome" because that's a fact, not a personal attack.

So much of the discourse around this on HN is nonsensical, and I fully agree with you. It's patently absurd that Anthropic would demand him to rewrite Bun into Rust; it's equally absurd that they would demand any sort of stunt at all when Anthropic already pulled off the biggest stunt with Bun: running Claude Code on it. And why on earth would you cannibalize the runtime of your golden goose?

This is such a poor mischaracterization of OP that I actually started agreeing with OP more.

Tell me if I am oversimplifying, but I never understood the noise about the two sigma problem. Like, of course if you have a private tutor to immediately answer any question that pops into your head at the immediate moment you get confused, you are going to learn vastly more efficiently than in a large classroom where once you get confused you are likely to stay confused. To say nothing of how the pace will likely either drag way behind what you'd like, or accelerate too fast ahead of it.

The environment is just obviously two sigma better. This just... seems obvious to me? In the same way that I will get stronger much faster if I have a physical trainer to tell me exactly what I am doing wrong when I do it? And it seems obviously unsolvable other than by getting everyone a private tutor (or AI..?).

Asking from a place of curiosity.

When you hear a woosh as the point flies by, I see someone attacking a project for using AI rather than any concrete technical reason. Jared's question is to disentangle an actual Rust-related bug report from someone who likes to complain about AI.

Pretty sure the author of Bun stated this was not related to Bun here on HN.

I don't really get the Bun thing. Bun is running Claude Code which is probably the single most actively used development app there is. You say this was a bad use of LLMs, but it's been in production for a while and I haven't heard of any evidence that Claude Code has increased a significantly larger quantity of errors, segfaults, etc, than before.

That also isn't saying "don't say this is an LLM". If the guidelines didn't want us to say someone is an LLM, it would explicitly say "don't say someone is an LLM". It wouldn't hint at it in an indirect way.

FWIW I do find it somewhat useful to have someone point out "this is an LLM" - I don't always have my AI detector on and I appreciate it when other people do. And when someone says particular text was LLM generated I need to go back and think about whether I believe it a bit harder.

I don’t see anything in there about not commenting on whether the author is using an LLM?

The thing that annoys me most about this obviously AI-generated article is: "The quotes in orange boxes are real and checkable." No they aren't - you AI generated them, just like you generated the rest of the page.

You mean the obviously AI generated README? Did you even read it yourself?

To be blunt I can't take this product seriously when they don't even run benchmarks. Your prompts make Claude better? Cool: prove it. Methods to evaluate LLM performance exist, they're called evals/benchmarks, and every company that is serious about AI runs them when they release a new version. (Of course benchmarks have their own issues, but squabbling over which benchmark is best and what issues there are is step 2 in being a Serious AI Company and step 1 is running them at all!) The fact that the only proof they have that 6 is better than five is a hacky table in a screenshot from Fable is, honestly, concerning.

And Jest was itself a huge step up from what came before (Jasmine, Mocha...)

It's a linter, a code formatter, a tester, and a bundler. What exists in your "boring" stack that's more boring than that?

It's disclosed in the ToS like it's disclosed in the ToS of basically every service that exists today.

e.g. "Claude Code connects from users’ machines to Anthropic to log operational metrics such as latency, reliability, and usage patterns. "

This entire thread has lost its collective mind. Tracking time zone has to be up there with IP address and referer in the list of "trivial things every company in the entire world collects about you", and these things are entirely trackable without your consent or even knowledge. You're gonna have to turn off the Internet.

Do you honestly think that no service out there collects basic analytics?

> Why would they brag about something like this? It's like they know people want to use models to perform cybersecurity tasks yet knowingly deny them the ability.

What exactly do you want Anthropic to say here? "This model, the one we are about to give to the entire world for cheap, is really good at hacking"? Saying Sonnet is terrible at cybersecurity is the most reasonable thing they can say, out of a lot of bad options.

That's just one benchmark, though. Tab to the next one and Sonnet 5 performs better as effort goes up just as you'd expect. I imagine the suggestion is that performance vs effort tradeoff is task dependent.

You completely nailed it.

It is better to live in the United States in poverty today than it is to live in virtually any nation at almost any point in history. The weathliest king in the 1500s didn't have access to vaccines, clean water, anesthesia... all things easy to find even in poverty today. Crime is lower, healthcare is better, nutrition is better, diseases are fewer and further between. Project that out and I would absolutely prefer to live in poverty in your "AI dystopia" than living like a normal person today.

Honestly your argument sounds detached from reality.

What exactly do you imagine AI doing in this future? Making more money out of thin air somehow? How is it “enriching the lives of a select few” but also somehow in your future I simultaneously provide no economic value, where is that enrichment coming from exactly?

Your view of a post-AI world admits both a fantastical, amazing AI that can do work so well it puts all knowledge workers out of a job for a century, but also a crippled and limited AI that is incapable of solving even our most basic needs.

It can't be both ways. It will either be bad enough that most of us will still have jobs, or good enough that most of our needs will be solved.

To unpack your point a little bit: what does it mean for "me" to be obsolete? Let's take that at face value and engage with it. I consider myself to be a decent SWE, maybe top 5% or so. There are somewhere around 40M SWEs in the world. If I am obsolete, that means AI is doing the work of ~38M people. I don't exactly understand what you mean by obsolete. In this future where AI is doing the work of 38M people, is anyone watching over the AI? How many people? Does it scale with the 40M figure, and if so, does it scale roughly O(n) or O(1)?

I think you basically have to accept there will be one of two options -- either it scales at something like O(n), in which case you have some number of highly skilled professional which can use AI to do the work of 100x of a SWE today (that would be a pretty cool job). Or it scales with something like O(1). I think in the second world the only logical conclusion is that AI is so incredibly capable that the world is profoundly and utterly transformed. If AI can do the work of any SWE without oversight, it can basically do anything -- which would mean that any need you have could be satisfied. If you are hungry, food could be grown. If you are thirsty, water could be procured. Or you would need to propose some crazy future where AGI is achieved but for some reason trivial things like this can't be solved.

I think the thing that makes me the most nervous is some enemy actor going rogue with AI and killing us all, but somehow we've lived for decades with enemy actors having access to nuclear and bioweapons and somehow we are all still here.

The worst people on the planet already have access to guns, bioweapons and refined uranium. Somehow I am still alive and mostly fine.

When did I say anything like “it will free me up from so much labor!”? This is not even remotely close to what I believe. You are responding to a caricature of me you have in your head.

It is astounding to me that people are not excited for the future. I live in a moment in time where I can ask AI to do something and it can think about it rationally, work on it for an hour, and basically do what I want. This is incredible and amazing.