sidrag22

you can just roll your own, this is probably the most popular side project of the past year, I crafted my own version within a day or so this past week, with corny visual assets as well since its just for me. Kinda rolled my workflows into it so it fits how i work with plans and how i avoid compaction in favor of handoffs or just plan docs that constrain each session to x amount of tokens each session.

Tossed all my weekly usage for each provider at the top with their 5hour windows and such. its been great so far.

I don't think there is nearly enough attention on the pipeline that has been created for children to grow into good little gamblers. All major sports games have absolute borderline gambling within their game in the form of those fantasy style Card games. Pair that with watching any live broadcast of a major sport and the gross ads for all these major sports better companies, with the ad reads during the game.

Haven't followed all that closely for some other games, but it very much seems like the model for NBA2k is to release a new game with some minor patches each year, charge 70$, then spend the majority of that year crafting patches for the card game to keep whales interested in constantly spending on new packs(which are promptly devalued on the next release, and straight up killing the prior year's game's online service, makes them entirely worthless the next year).

It is kinda funny I am always interested in Anthropic's new releases, but i have a great distaste for their actual release posts/videos. They LOVE these stupid style videos for any feature they release, their text posts are usually just a ton of nonsense that i dont wanna read, and now there is this huge "revelation" that their models can pump this annoying format out.

I say Bummer if more people adopt this style, its gonna become less and less authentic feeling as the months go on now.

Its the same across the board for everything, no one has an answer for the noise AI creates. Really cool tech, but the timing is so bad because we just can't even fathom what dealing with the surplus of generated garbage looks like.

The answer is likely moving away from the internet entirely and having actual face to face screening right away. no company wants to commit to that, so its gonna continue to be some weird expectation from both sides where the applicant doesnt wanna be screened with AI, and the hiring team wants X amount of effort put into every initial application.

I think it just must move entirely offline, until some semblance of an answer exists, because right now like i said, we can't even fathom what a solution looks like online.

if its remote initially, closed eye interviews where you just have a discussion might be easiest way. Pretty easy to tell if someone is bullshitting if they can't discuss topics that likely should excite them somewhat, or at the very least topics they've been around for years.

Feel like any test nowadays should INCLUDE ai, but you likely just want insight into how they are getting from A to B. I don't wanna assume what you mean by cheating with AI, could be as simple as answering live questions with cheating software or whatever, which is obviously a huge issue. I wanna respond and say it should be expected for any take home type stuff, and be rolled into the expectations if anything, but that could be way off of what you mean.

both sides of the entire process is just a nightmare now, one side has all this noise to sift through, and the other side is pressured to mass apply because of all the competing noise they can't be seen through. I was listening to something about AI generated responses, and they seemed to have no empathy for the people who gave human responses, but used AI to give them an overview of the company and what it does for the question "why do you want to work at x?", and sorta mocked the person because they can tell they asked for a generic description of what the company does.

There has to be some give and take, initial applications if you are spending hours researching a single company, you are setting yourself up to be absurdly let down if that same company sends you an automated rejection within a day. A reasonable person will only do that so many times, before just giving up and waiting for the other side to be the first mover instead.

the 5.0 name means its the same model, they made it more efficient and less horrible to talk to. The top frontier people are all still talking to fable 5.1 or models not released to the general public, yet you want to claim this is pushing the frontier, instead of evening the playing field. I state power efficiency gains for existing models and you also claim thats pushing the frontier . It as hell takes a lot to get you to say they AREN'T pushing the frontier, which is why i resorted to the extreme strawman of desk location, because it doesn't seem they are allowed to do anything otherwise.

Again, absurdly obnoxious, you could frame them giving an employee a shorter walk to their desk as "pushing the frontier".

I've been doing this, my only experience with codex was brutal usage wise and i just retreated back to pi pretty quickly so the credit usage i'm receiving is kinda all im familiar with. Surely seems like less than CC, but i guess not using codex makes my experience kinda not valid for comparing usage.

And ya i can go over that 240k limit, I still very seldom do, and try to treat it as the actual limit. I'm surprised to see so many people still talking about compaction to complete long running tasks, i think the bulk of the work should be somewhat frontloaded into a plan that is split off into subplans, then you can kinda open up a few options, one session with subagents for the subplans of the main plan, or just handoff prompts about progress against the main plan/relevant subplan. I just never trust the blackbox that is compaction, I feel its a recipe for disaster/context poison.

Ya all these articles lately about how everyone is sick of reading AI prose, and interacting with models in general. Tons of new model optimizations and workflow optimizations or whatever. I'm not really aware of any idea or product aimed at making the internet usable, and making it somewhat resistant to the generated noise. I think HN is a bit better than reddit for this type of example for floods of comments, first movers on reddit REALLY rise to the top and stay there.

pretty annoying topic tbh. You're just weaponizing this dumb blog post so anything released is now a contradiction. By your same logic, if all inference was served at 50% less power cost and the savings are passed on somewhat to the user, its also a contradiction of the blog post.

Its an agenda serving blog post, but constantly bringing it up like this is just obnoxious.

This is a preexisting model being optimized. Its absolutely not some unexpected release after that blog post. I won't defend that blog post, but saying THIS release is proof they don't mean they are slowing down is just incorrect, this is a prime example of what i consider horizontal improvements

Releasing a new fable is an example of straight up vertical progress, releasing a more efficient preexisting opus that is more affordable is an example of horizontal progress, more efficient models rather than higher power models.

The blog post about slowing down is still just some weird self interested post, they want to govern themselves and impose distillation restrictions/gpu restrictions and used some weird blog post about slowing down and fear mongering as usual to justify it, its strange, but slowing down and stopping are not the same thing at all.

Anthropic is absurdly vague about 3rd party harnesses for subscriptions, if you try to use anything besides Claude Code, you are likely at risk of getting banned, you can "do it", but are at their mercy if they decide to ban you. OpenAI gives their blessing to using oauth on any harness, you can make your own or use any of the popular public ones like opencode, pi, whatever exe.dev is that this guy mentioned.

So in simple terms, OpenAI doesn't restrict you to Codex, and gives their blessing to try whatever you want with their models(besides serving others with your subscription usage, that is still afaik against tos).

Cool maybe this makes the 20$ sub less of a joke. I deemed 5.0 unworthy of spending time fighting with and personally considered it by far the worst release of 2026 by either of the two major labs(promising model, but obviously not even close to ready for the general public).

So for that 20$ tier for the entire summer and into fall, i was on their 2nd class public model(4.8) released in May. Not surprisingly it became my grunt model, doing the simple work. By far the least I've used Anthropic models in the last 2 years.

yep, all i want is freedom to make a workflow where i don't feel tied to one provider, CC is exactly what i don't wanna get trapped in. I'll happily use claude MODELS, but if it means i have to keep learning two harnesses side by side to keep using one particular provider, then the second i can easily replace it, i am going to(even if its a small drop in performance).

I've really been liking the car analogies for AI lately.

Personally i dislike driving, i dont like cars or trucks or traffic, yet i own a car. I can protest cars and they wont go away. We could shutdown the 2 biggest automobile makers and it likely just messes with prices/availability for the general public, but doesnt put the genie back in the bottle, hell we can shut down all car manufacturing and it is the same lack of shutting down driving, it just creates a lack of surplus supply.

All these things are pretty true about AI as well, nothing puts the genie back in the bottle.

What we can do, is try to strive towards electric cars, stop putting lead in fuel, enforce laws so driving becomes safer etc. Same with AI, strive towards greener electricity, find some sort of solution to deal with the absurd noise problem that is pervasive across every single area any generated content touches. Build some structure so intelligence is accessible to the average person rather than only the privileged/governments.

One of the worst things about AI, i think is the timing of it. We have built our modern internet experience into auto suggestions, and have no way to filter out what is and isn't a real person's content, or even higher effort content, and all those suggestions have perverse incentives to GET suggested in the form of ads/clout/whatever. Pair that with the absurd noise problem generated content produces everywhere.

> The data had been pulled by abusing the platform’s find-friends feature

Sounds like the find-friends feature shouldn't allow access to the majority of that data unless the "friend" accepts, don't think the "scraper" got 7mil accepts just because they had access to emails... To me this is 100% a breach, even more so because its already happened once years ago to 700k, and they changed nothing to prevent it.

I think you're being overly harsh. I don't match his temperament at all because my first real skillset(WoW :D) was literally looked down on by society rather than admired, so if anything the contrast was confusing to me to have a skillset that has value.

However i can't imagine if during my WoW days, overnight my role was suddenly just replaced with someone doing my role and 4 other roles highly automated, with just a general knowledge instead of an absurd depth into one role, and all my peers thought i was being lazy for not wanting to automate as well.

To me it just fills like a bit more of a demand to be a generalist, or be really good at pairing with other specialists.

I take issue with a ton of youtube style articles, and this video is an example of a version of youtube video essays done like a literal essay instead.

It seems very much to me like video essay format on youtube is being used as a crutch. You can pump out your rough draft and hide it behind visuals or whatever else, and you benefit from the longer run time, and the viewer likely hangs around.

You can't do that in an essay, if you lose the reader for a paragraph or two, they're likely gone. To me that is why this reads more intimate, its an essay crafted as a video and an essay which i LOVE, i want the choice, and almost no youtube essay or whatever you want to call them would give that choice because it is so filled with filler content hiding the rough edges.

just dont fall in love with goofy memory style features and its likely gonna be fairly easy to just plug and play whatever model for a ton of use cases.

I dont see a lot of love for weird memory like features on HN, but on provider subreddits its constantly talked about.

it really just seems like people pump out that its on the end-user, and i just disagree. They have a walled garden around claude code and using their models within it, it should work instantly out of the box when going from an opus 4.8 to an opus 5.0 with the same workflows. it doesn't.

claude.md for all my projects are fairly tight, its seldom where im upset at anything a model does, and if it happens, its likely because i swapped provider and didn't realize i was failing to feed it proper context beforehand.

Opus 5.0 fails in different ways that I haven't had to deal with. Its insufferable with its choice of language, something I've never had to compensate for on any other model across any provider, so of course I have no preexisting rules for that, it also is sometimes just incredibly stubborn and just WONT finish, and requires several just "keep going" prompts.

This is much different than the issues people would make fun of users for in regards to treating models like slot machines and just pulling the lever over and over, this is more its stopping for no reason short of its task, and literally just needs to be told to continue? absurd.

Most of my workflows have reference material, with standards set, why opus 5.0 is the only model that fails to follow those standards and inserts wildly long weird code comments is not a failure on the end-user, thats the model failing. I can be MORE explicit of course, but i shouldnt need to be, this is supposed to be 5.0, its a downgrade. I went back to 4.8 and all these issues vanished.

Horrifying excuse, gpu constraint can be used by all of these companies to justify a shit user experience. If the user isn't properly weighed in their priorities, they have their priorities setup wrong.

Their 20$ tier currently isn't serving their best model, and they insulted their users by putting out an ill tested opus 5.0, which is the worst experience ive personally had using a model in probably 2 years(obviously adjusting for expectations at the time of release).

The US government didn't make the choices to release the worst version of Opus and label it 5.0, and then isolate portions of their subscribers to limited usage of Fable.

They may have been unfairly targeted by the US government, but they are doing more damage to themselves without government help as well.

it just doesn't interact good with human beings, and it leaves incredibly strange long winded comments within code filled with session context that will likely not be relevant later on.

Also always seems to have this annoying tendency to leave "questions for you" at the bottom of every output.

Just a high friction human interaction type model, imo should never have even been released, regardless if it scores better on whatever tests, its a horrible experience and a downgrade over past models.

Kinda surprised not to see their next update being an Opus 5.1, even if its minimal changes, they've already had to address it with the concise mode or whatever.

So my current usage as a Pro subscriber... Not able to even consider using "Sota" unless i shell out for 100$ a month, (lately i've been a bit burned out i am literally struggling to use 50% of my pro plan per week). Beyond that, I have given up entirely on the top Opus model and reverted back to 4.8. If i have work i deem somewhat complicated, i now have an openai 20$ sub, and i just toss out sol after planning with 4.8. Both subscriptions not anywhere close to capping my usage per week, one of them says i can't use their Sota unless i pay for 5x more usage, and the "best" model they do allow me to use, they are neglecting and its by far the worst model I've interacted with in 2026.

I don't wanna pretend to be some expert, but i think the contention is that they were gutted so resources are sparse for inspections, leading to higher recall numbers. I am also hesitant to really invest feelings into anything i see posted over and over like this though, and assume its intentionally being pumped, so I'd wanna see more actual numbers to prove its actually an uptick compared to normal. I remember having to get rid of some carrots just a few years ago personally, Chipotle seems to have some sort of e coli lettuce issue every couple years, none of these single events shock me.

I think without a doubt that will be the case, unless the trend of compute getting better over the last 60 years suddenly stops. It should become less tough to run a local model and our devices should become more powerful.

However I think there is still a significant runway for these models to scale, so there will always be some sort of offering from providers. I can't imagine that our current use of the context window will be how that looks in a handful of years.

I try to pressure people into just turning off the absolute majority of the social media / algo type recommendation stuff on youtube. I still "use" youtube, but my experience is night and day compared to the typical usage, I have my sidebar with a handful of creators i care about, tiny blue indicator next to their name if they have a new video i haven't seen, just like the normal UI. I think this portion is vital, it removes the "clickbait image" meta on youtube, I have to make the first move and say "I wonder what {user} posted".

So i pretty much see, search bar and that text sidebar on my main screen for youtube. Its absurd seeing the standard youtube ui, after using it like this for a couple years now. This also just really really tightens who i follow. If i find myself clicking through to their profile and seeing what they posted and deciding not to watch, i consider that a waste of my time and after a handful of times i might just unfollow entirely.

> You just don't know how to harness it with the right context maybe.

Him placing this at the end of all his statements is just screaming, it takes an engineer to get a nicely engineered product. admitting defeat in his own statements over and over, kinda funny.

the main thing its missing is random notification bloops to go with that obnoxious chat box in the bottom right.