Am I hearing this right, that they made a decision model based on Typesafe's new paradigm, and actually made a model better than Jev based on Typesafe's own ranking?
And it's only been a few weeks.
417 karma · joined October 1, 2025
And it's only been a few weeks.
The productive comments here are so far and few between. I have no issue with people criticizing Anthropic or AI companies in general, but for the love of everything, at least make worthy criticisms. Not these incessant sophisms.
If you really want to say that this is an attempt to reach out and teach a curious soul with tough love, then I believe you, because you've asked me to. But forgive me if the sheer crass of your words makes this a little hard to buy.
Was it really love going through your mind when you typed those words, or were you trying to put down someone who you thought deserved to be put down, and "tough love" came as a later, retroactive justification?
I choose to believe your word regardless, but I would urge you to take heed of the "love" part of "tough love" more, next time.
- You posted the same thing more than once. This could be seen as spam. Try one really good, detailed post, instead of many okay ones.
- Your account is pretty new, and newer accounts have no reputation. Again, people could think you are a spam account. Try looking around this forum more, and making some good comments. This will help build your reputation here and give you a better understanding of how things work.
- Your project seems to have been developed with heavy help from AI. This is fine, but AI coded projects can sometimes be poor quality and low effort. People likely assumed your project was poor quality and low effort. When using AI, try to at least do the writing yourself. Use AI for the code, but write the project description and things like the `README.md` by yourself.
- Your descriptions of the project were somewhat unclear. You could gain from crafting a better, shorter, more direct [elevator pitch](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Elevator_pitch). This will help people understand what you've built better.
- A lot of your post and comments have poor grammar and spelling. Again, this a sign of low effort. You should try to make your writing more correct with grammar and spelling before posting. If you need help with this, a good idea is to ask AI to review your writing before posting, and then rewriting based on the grammar/spelling mistakes it brings up. (Please note though that you should still write everything in the final post yourself.)
People on this forum appreciate effort. That's probably why your posts were not received well. Some people on here saw a lot of signs in your posts that are common with low effort content. That's why you were flagged.
That all being said, personally, I wouldn't have flagged your post. It was a little rough around the edges, and I'd urge you to polish what you put out to the world more, but overall I think you did follow this site's rules.
Even if you didn't, that is no excuse for people on this site to insult you as they have. You are welcome here, and I wish you the best, friend.
> Be kind. Don't be snarky. Converse curiously; don't cross-examine. Edit out swipes.
> Don't be curmudgeonly. Thoughtful criticism is fine, but please don't be rigidly or generically negative.
> Please don't fulminate. Please don't sneer, including at the rest of the community.
> Please respond to the strongest plausible interpretation of what someone says, not a weaker one that's easier to criticize. Assume good faith.
What I found really interesting was that despite the active downforce system making the car stupidly fast in every way, this actually makes the car easier to drive overall, since turning is more responsive, braking is more consistent, and even spins when you lose control of the car immediately stabilize.
Amazing machine. Further reading below.
"List of people who have held constitutional office in all three branches of the United States federal government"
Even if your someone who thinks open models are good for safety overall, a private model exposed only by an API point at least gives somebody control. How we should use that control is debatable, but at least it's there. Once you release that control by making a model open, you can't take it back.
If we think AI safety doesn't require closed weights, we should collectively decide on that and then move forward from there. But it shouldn't be something decided by default, by a few people from a few companies. We all have to live with the consequences of a choice like that, and since it is irreversible, we shouldn't decide it without consensus first.
I'm not saying that corporations should have exactly the same rules and structure as government does, but perhaps many of the ideas used to design governments can be borrowed.
Looking at any organization with power and people involved, perhaps we can use the same ideas that traditionally apply to government in more places. That's all I'm saying.
This is not some mindless intellectual exercise to distract from how things are. In fact, as a proposal for how to reform corporate power, it's the opposite.
(Also, even though I think corporate power should be limited to a very specific arm of society, and that we shouldn't encourage more corporate power, you are greatly exaggerating. Feudalism and the abolition of human rights are not right around the corner.)
Even if this money eventually gets loaned out eventually by one of NVIDIA's customers putting it into a bank, it isn't NVIDIA inflating the money supply, it's the borrowers, no? Or is this an ineffective way to look at things?
The ideas we deal with when we discuss society and organization aren't exclusive to government, they relate to human nature in general. I wonder if in the future we will have more discussion of power and how to organize it in corporations, similar to what we discuss today about government.
Before LLMS, programming was something I might've said required creativity and human input to do properly. It's not that creativity or human input isn't valuable anymore, but AI has forced me to realize that coding is much a means to an end, and that all things considered, the end matters much more than the means.
If we can make important mathematics progress faster and better with LLMs, I think it's wise not to fret over an apparent loss of our humanity. Perhaps that's only a loss we want to have.
Maybe it's because I'm reading work with a deadline, or from a half-hearted writer, or maybe it's because a lot of people have never been taught how to write well. Whatever it is, so much of writing is bad because the author hasn't done their due diligence with their purpose for writing.
Except unlike software, this fault is so prevalent and eternal that it has become the status quo.
Companies can now just afford to maintain a hundred different native apps, rather than settle for a write once, run anywhere approach.
> I agree that there can be a tendency to conflate the two things: how advanced the technology is, and how aesthetically pleasing what it produces is. It's also important to remember that we're not obligated to like something just because it's "pretty" or has high aesthetic value in some abstract sense.
I for one, think that LLM art looks terrible--the output is something I often dislike aesthetically. This is a matter of taste, and similar to the question of "do I like it and want to engage with it", you're free to make your own judgements here. There is no "right" or "wrong" answer with aesthetics.
However, with the questions of "do I like the technology" and "has the technology advanced", whereas one is similarly a matter of taste, the question of "has the technology advanced" is one that can be answered objectively. Of course it matters what your trying to measure, but take realism for example--something that AI image labs often try to perfect. The fact that the AI labs have gotten drastically better at generating realistic content is undeniable. While it's up to you if this matters, whether realism has advanced can objectively answered yes or no, without bringing taste into things.
I am making no claims here concerning the "high aesthetic value in some abstract sense". I don't think such an objective value of aesthetics exists. Does this clear things up?
The worst of this is with image/video AI models, where the results today, although still very imperfect, some people will still pretend like it’s awful and the worst thing they’ve ever seen. They refuse to admit the technology is at all impressive or making progress because they don’t like the technology.
I don’t like AI generated images and video either, but I can regrettably admit that the technology has gotten remarkably better over time.
You can very easily look up exactly when Lina Khan was appointed and get answer very quickly. Is it not worth the effort checking these things before commenting?
Ok rant over. Sorry to be an asshole. This is not your fault as much a standard which should be changed.