minraws

> He's never going to be hired as CEO by anybody for the rest of his career.

I haven't had this experience I have found a lot of people who burnt the damn house down get hired in a company for a similar role in a few months especially CEOs and executives. Including large companies, I had someone I know in a c suite role who burnt a few other companies to join competitors now working in Tesla and a friend who burnt the bridges with supposedly half the SF who is still employed in a similar c-suite role in SF.

I really don't think people care unless you are a nobody sofware developer who tried to do the same perhaps, mostly because I can't prove it.

It seems to have happened in July.

Correction: they only prove exposure to American media/culture... I could solve captcha and understand most of it from having seen a dozen or so American shows and movies over my teenage years... Even before I ever travelled to America.

But you don't need to be taxed in actual dollar value you can be taxed in percentage of your share ownership. It might not work with real estate but with stock this is trivial

Why can't govt block the sale of stocks? It's not like you would be selling non digitalized assets, govts often freeze and reverse stock sales/trades when they find it to be illegal already.

It's harder for private companies sure, but who will stand in the way of govts if they said we will sanction your if you buy X or Y company?

This entire argument doesn't really hold IMHO

Absolutely ridiculous statement, it's not an accurate measure but it's definitely a good measure of money.

If you have 100B to your name even if it's post IPO stock in a possibly ponzi company that's your current wealth and you can easily convert a staggering portion of it into material realized wealth depending on several factors.

If I use cash to buy 1B dollars in Microsoft shares today, am I not worth a Billion dollars...?

The value may not be exactly convertible agreed so let's just force everyone to book all gains every year, and force sell a net percent of your share.

Not 100B$ of share, but 2% of 100 Million units of stock that you own. Why does this not work?

If I take 2% of your shares why can't it work the same way? I can then pick and sell it over the next year or two however I see fit, in case of govt they can slowly sell back this share to not affect the prices too much.

I am baffled by the fact that we have a tractible quantity and people call it hard to use to measure money.

Paintings, Jewels, etc. are what's truly the hard part of the wealth equation not the stocks, which is over 99% of what a wealthy billionaire owns.

I am not even considering pro or against taxes on billions people make but it's ridiculous to say stocks aren't money? Then what is money really... Currency is also traded, it's value can also go up or down....

Because then it would be a big club, but most wouldn't be in it.

To clarify: for a large number of topic I find this completely fair and valuable to first have to build trust. But getting your research paper in front of other humans on a aggregation website seems like the one place where this for me falls apart.

Today any one from any corner of the world from any educational or non education place publish stuff, well moderation is tight and often it won't get through but I know a few friends who aren't in academia that have a paper up there who wouldn't have been as easily able to get a paper on anywhere else.

Maybe that's not a genuine concern but that often used to be the case and still is in a lot of invite first clubs/groups. I know credible people in the field who were and are working in relative isolation which leads to not being able to participate in sharing of ideas.

The question is not of technical difficulty though, most hacks are trivial or within reasonable limits for most motivated solo actors, much less state level actors, but a company without any of that hacking into govt systems is breach of trust and should be treated the same way it would have been if a human had actually committed a breach.

This isn't a question of OpenAI was the only one who could have done it, it about who did it.

The same way having a gun doesn't make one guilty, shooting someone with a gun even if unintentionally is a crime (unless ofc in self defense but I don't think Australia has the ability to breach OAI).

>> Sorry, I didn't get this? What was the incorrect call you made?

Talking about people's inability to read rather than just pointing out that the article pointed at something else.

yeah but the us folks aren't working out of SF and generally these projects have mostly flat pay structures (unsure if that exactly fits but a few comments make it seem like it checks out)

European safety nets, and government grants have helped open source projects a lot, and this is a big reason almost all of these projects end up being developed/maintained by folks from EU. Even if the sponsorships could hire 2-3x as much man power elsewhere in the world.

Another big thing is govt aligned sponsorships are not for software but for generating jobs/work within their borders.

Not in 2026.

Summarizing here for my dear friends, the guy on the other end managed to fine tune a model gpt-3.5-fine-tune against stockfish vs stockfish games to perform at 1200 elo level against stockfish.

I have been proved wrong I should have quit while I was ahead. /s

It's not been my personal experience on this website in the last 2-3 years atleast, pre-covid perhaps.

But despite that you aren't wrong and the only reason I even visit this website is because people sometimes did/do take time to reflect on things based on their experience and knowledge.

And in hindsight pointing out that hn has issues wasn't even the point but I feel frustrated when everyone is readily agreeing to things on here without reading. When that in this moment feels like the one thing that separates humans from machines that we get to think and learn.

I possibly should just drop reading this place until we have most noisy people go away. I have for one tried to always only comment on things where I could be a value add, this one does feel like I could I have done better.

In the moment I probably thought if they are GM level and I can beat them, is this some interesting find, my disappointment honestly led me to making a rather incorrect call on this one.

Either way I still do think HN as a whole has devolved into mindless herd follower mindset, I can point to more than a few posts that just say adopt the hacker mindset aka move fast don't care about the consequences.

And I for one find this laughable even though that's the reality of my job/work as well.

How many posts if I link that do the same thing will you agree this is the norm here.

Not everything I have the time and energy to reply to. This chess one is just ridiculous claims on top of ridiculous claims all the way and 0 push back in the comments except mine.

I don't even know if there is critical thought or we believe what we read/shared/etc

I can write you a benchmark to prove it even with a heavy handed system prompt Astra will make an illegal move during the course of the games first few moves are generally ok since it's just throwing out learned moves.

So AI is AGI in fields where code can't solve anything?

Is code omnipotent, I have been in software all my life and I would hard agree here.

Sure stuff LLMs can do with being good at parts of code reproduction is incredible. And honestly it's the new way to do a lot of things but I have not see an iota of proof that it can scale across the board.

For instance Maths is just code with different symbols and slightly less universally legible concepts.

AI is the best invention at figuring out or walking the search space and directionally doing logically computation over general software adjacent stuff.

But that's it, I am certain a bunch of companies will make a lot of money despite no AGI.

I think people either don't understand AGI or don't understand how real world works.

Until an LLM can bow it's head take responsibility for mistakes made and ensure they aren't repeated again with 100% confidence to the leadership it's inarguably a tool a rather questionable one at that.

Then why respond at all for the sake of responding?

We all know AI can code, but the question it all stemmed from what if it's AGI or GM level in chess on it's own.

You can't just back pedal from the statement that apparently being able to code a chess engine is the same as being good at chess.

I can write a chess engine that beats Magnus Carlson without AI that alone neither makes me GM level or AGI or any of the other claims the above comments seem to be making?

So AGI needs to be trained on something to work well on it. Lovely reasoning we have right here.

Delusion runs deep in HN circles.

I say that as someone heavily invested in AI startups and projects and as someone working in the field.

I think most people on HN should touch grass and find real human contact. Lmao

Incredible reasoning all around here.

Sub 1300 that's my rating in the singular official tournament I participated at.

But given how easily I can crush them and how often they want to make illegal moves (btw above bench seems to use a harness that pokea the model until it gives valid moves).

I would rate them around 500-800 big range but at that level it's all about if the model can recall an opening or not. If it plays good first 4-8 moves the person on the end will fumble for certain and they win.

I can play good/best moves till 14-15 moves if I remember the lines and find someone who falls for it.

If you could give them the lines as prompts like the best 20-30 openings then they will be around 700-800.

700 is around the rating for a human who doesn't know the tricks but can do bare minimum calculations and understands the rules thoroughly.

I know HN readers and posters just read numbers and can't be bothered to read, but please read the methodology before making any claims.

> About their ELO ratings from their own website:

> A field-relative rating calculated within ChessBench. It compares performance among the tested models and is not a direct equivalent of a human chess rating.

I am around 1600 elo in over the board I can mop up Astra Fable etc even if I give them literal infinite time and all the subagents and internet access..

Please folks at least use your AIs to read stuff before making claims.

AI is not GM level, it's not even 1600, I am 1600 by using memorized openings people frequently fall for with very basic intuitions.

A GM is 2600 they can beat me in under 20 moves...

Why do I even scroll through this website. For a moment I truly felt fooled, but then I read like a human should.

Maybe I should stop doing that will be a happier life, don't think just believe in the AGI.

Damn that's expensive but well now if they made the streaming stuff openly accessibly for any headset that would be nice.

I see no reason meta quest headsets couldn't do it next gen.

My personal ambition is to see VR/AR be cheap enough.

Normal People get to think they are helping 3$'s worth, and Rich people get to think they are helping 3$'s worth...

Both side get to feel like they got more out of the initial investment.

1:3 2:3

Everyone wins inside their heads and its nice to live life where everyone wins...

Also easier to justify charity when you think you are winning..

I feel like it's pretty good for what it is.

I don't see a reason why it should AMD doesn't care about lower end prosumers atm.

They might in the future but future is in the future ofc

Edit: to be clear I think it's ridiculous they don't but from a company's stand point it doesn't make much sense

Unless you throw the investors and senior executives in jail how do you intend to do anything more than performative dance with these measures.

I personally think countries should start sanctioning and international warrants for all large investors and senior executives in a company if something like this happens.

But it won't happen unless US changes their stance on companies being liability shiled.

Sure it should require very exceptional cases but I know companies whose negligence has cost lives of hundreds of people, the reason they and all their investors weren't jailed is the real scam of the democraciez we have gifted ourselves.

They likely were but Companies don't go to jail they pay fines

1. Reflog is very ref specific that is it tracks head. JJ has op and evo logs that do that + a bunch more they track everything about the repo every possible action. It's hard to explain with going into technical depth but you can read up on it.

2. Yeah submodules aren't supported but since you can use jj in a git repo you can commit git stuff via git like submodules and then enjoy the world of jj. Since submodule interactions should be rare imho. I use it for a bunch of projects with submodules.

jj is one of the few new devtools I was quite frustrated with while starting out but could see the value so stuck around and man is it so nice.

For anyone curious the big thing with jj is you can undo. Basically if you were running a rebase and bungled a commit sha or branch name, no worries undo your way out, if you forgot to push but abandoned a commit not issues undo it. Same with all jj commands.

Delta db takes this a step further and everything you edit is a change so your actual edits are also all saved.

I find non destructive-ness for as long as possible approach very nice, since there aren't as many constraints on us not being able to do it nowadays, we had limited storage and stuff in 2000s perhaps but in 2026 even with the killer SSD prices it's fairly cheap to buy more SSD, we can definitely waste 100MB per project storing redundant history we may not ever need.

Same way in photoshop non destructive editing took over, especially useful for humans, but works for AI and LLMs too, they can undo their mistakes as well.

> how much demand is still gated behind cost constraints. The market for this is HUGE.

I think this misses the actual limits here.

The problem isn't demand it's, "how much people are willing to spend on it".

Cheap AI has to be served on cheap compute, and if inference gets cheap enough to unlock massive usage numbers, by definition it also doesn't require anywhere near as much infrastructure per unit of demand.

Take DeepSeek serving ~100T tokens/day, depending on workload and utilization, you're potentially talking about only a few thousand last-gen GPUs. With current-gen GPUs maybe closer to ~1,000, and with Rubin even fewer I will be damned if I could get my hands on one.

That's the part I think people are missing when they extrapolate token demand into enormous infrastructure or AI revenue.

Yes usage will explode. But if the cost per unit collapses, the revenue doesn't necessarily go up with it.

You can't simultaneously argue that intelligence becomes so cheap that everyone uses enormous amounts of it, while also assuming customers will somehow spend trillions of dollars a year consuming it.

There is no obvious $1T customer-facing AI revenue number at the end of this rainbow in the short/medium term.

The average person isn't going to spend anything remotely comparable to what they spend on a car every year for an AI service. Even businesses have budgets now, huge demand doesn't matter if the willingness to pay isn't there.

The only path I can see to numbers like that is AI consuming existing business domains, even then it's very thin.

Say SaaS + legal + consulting + BPO + various other service industries collectively represent something like $10-20T globally.

Even if AI eventually replaces an enormous portion of that, it's probably not doing so at the same price. Why would customers switch otherwise?

Either the AI product has to be dramatically better, which is difficult for mature workflows, or dramatically cheaper which is much more plausible.

If it replaces $10-20T of existing services at roughly 1/10th or 1/100th (more likely) the cost, then you're looking at maybe a ~$1T AI revenue opportunity after replacing an absurdly large fraction of the existing service economy.

Who are now unemployed and can't pay for shit.

And that's before competition.

I think it's crazy to assume AI companies won't compete aggressively on price. As capabilities diffuse, smaller models catch up, inference hits pareto frontier the open-source alternatives have already improved and caught up, margins on routine intelligence should compress "hard" (emphasis on "hard").

We've already seen how difficult adoption can be even when the technology looks impressive on paper. Cheap here means 100x cheaper for 10x more demand that's a net 10x loss before any software or hardware optimizations.

So yes, I completely agree that cheap intelligence can bring an enormous amount of new usage.

"I just don't think usage means revenue." (you can plaster it on a wall if you want to, "usage doesn't mean revenue", if you want to find that out I have foss software bridge to sell)

The PC analogy actually reinforces this if you really think about it. Compute became "vastly more useful" while the cost per unit of compute collapsed. Society captured enormous value, but all computer companies are literal failing giants without the AI hype. Value got caught by people who provided productionization.

Now if people expect AI to self productize itself I am happy to tell your try it. We all saw how OpenAI fell behind Anthropic because they thought that would work...

Google couldn't productize the search, instead they sold the eye balls and web-real-estate. Maybe that's the AI business model, but that's not $1T worth given you need to unglue people from other stuff.

Unless we get something approaching genuine ASI producing so much additional economic value that entirely new trillions, I don't see a path to $1-2T in direct AI revenue from customers.

The market simply can't absorb that level of spending.

Demand can be effectively infinite at the right price. But I think people are delusional on HN and SF if they think that number is in Trillions like the investments seem to suggest.

I am not saying Nvidia will fall tomorrow but someone will have to pull the breaks before this car goes to hell.

I honestly feel like we centralized too much on huggingface same as github.