Good news! You're still allowed to install whatever mods you want.
Expecting Nexus to host mods they don't want to host is idiotic.
Hiding the whole complaint behind an implication is cowardice.
Hope that helps.
3,380 karma · joined October 19, 2023
Not impressed with the LLM hype or whatever latest crypto token you're hockin'
Expecting Nexus to host mods they don't want to host is idiotic.
Hiding the whole complaint behind an implication is cowardice.
Hope that helps.
Be specific, use your big-person words like an adult. What specifically is the broader issue?
> You don't get what @amiga386 was implying
I think most of us get exactly what they're implying - they don't agree with the politics of the people running nexus (seems like they're scared of pronouns to me) - and don't really have anything concrete beyond that, so they're waving their hands and complaining about nexus abiding by the law.
My point being "a few weeks and 8M tokens" is wildly unrealistic.
Bun had numerous standardized and extensive javascript test suites to validate the slop code against. I doubt paint.net has test coverage anywhere near that complete, and without it using LLMs to rewrite something is a much larger risk.
Besides which, Bun claims the rewrite took 6 days but they took months after that to finish hammering out the bugs and actually ship, so I don't really buy the original price tag or timeline on their rewrite.
I've got a production service largely backed by Oban Pro and last month alone it handled running heavy ML tasks against ~200,000 long-form video files. Each analysis has multiple steps, all handled with Oban's dependent jobs feature, so there was something like a million unique jobs, and I don't think we hit a single production issue with Oban. Being able to connect into the cluster and directly manipulate things with Oban is a superpower.
Because he was wrong. That's how it works.
> For context, Jensen Huang says:
>> "For many tasks, we could say that we’ve already achieved AGI... I think of all of those milestones…they’re kind of senseless at this point.[1]
This statement is nonsense. It's Artificial General Intelligence that was promised. Not Artificial Some Things Intelligence.
> Even if you disagree with that, Altman's statement seems more about the idea that "more data + more compute + transformer based neural networks" will get us to something called AGI.
His statement was wrong. I don't care what other ideas you want to read into it, he was incorrect about AGI arriving in 2025. That's all there is to it. Twist it into a knot and smear butter on it if you want, wrong is wrong.
> No - because I think his and Jenson's definition means we have achieved AGI
Yeah they can twist definitions all they want. I don't really care. We have seen that LLMs and transformers have not delivered AGI, and they certainly didn't deliver it in 2025.
> Altman claimed that AGI could be achieved in 2025 during an interview for Y Combinator, declaring that it is now simply an engineering problem. He said things were moving faster than expected and that the path to AGI was "basically clear."
He was wrong that AGI was "now simply an engineering problem".
He was wrong that the path to AGI was "basically clear".
And if you want to play definition games and start waving your hands around and accept the claim "oh well actually we don't really know how to define AGI now", then he was wrong to claim that the path to AGI was "basically clear"!
Even if you play that game, it's still simple: either he was wrong about the path being clear, or he was wrong about the destination being clearly definable. That's still being wrong.
This is not a comment directly at you, because I understand where you're coming from, but I think this attitude shows how far leadership and our expectations of the professional class in America have deteriorated.
My expectations are inverse to yours. I don't care if a commentator makes a claim that's wrong, if they keep being wrong people will stop listening. (In theory. Jim Cramer still has a job so who knows, really.) I certainly don't expect a commentator to have accurate internal information about a company.
CEOs on the other hand should be expected to be honest and accurate in their claims. The information a CEO shares should be accurate so that investors can make informed decisions. Instead, we seem to accept CEOs who act as salesmen first and leaders last.
If a CEO claims a product will be out later this year, and the stock goes up, then they announce actually things are delayed, and the stock still goes up, what is actually being rewarded here?
You are literally talking with a professional developer who is telling you that they don't use LLMs to write their code and that they have connections who also continue to do this work manually.
I don't particularly care whether you believe me either, but I encourage you to take a look around - your initial claim that coding has been automated across the industry is incorrect and you seem to be in denial about that for some reason. You should question where your priors are coming from, and remember that just because your circle is comprised of people who are heavily using LLMs does not mean the entire industry is that way.
> In a remarkable interview with Y Combinator in November 2024, Sam Altman, CEO of OpenAI, shared a vision that could redefine the technological landscape as we know it. Altman confidently revealed that OpenAI has a clear roadmap for achieving AGI by 2025.
https://www.tomsguide.com/ai/chatgpt/sam-altman-claims-agi-i...
Now Altman is claiming it'll be this year for sure: https://www.msn.com/en-in/news/other/sam-altman-makes-bold-a...
Any that value correctness over speed. Banking, safety critical embedded work, aerospace work, etc.
> Why wouldn’t careful human code review and extensive test coverage suffice?
Because anyone who has been in the industry for a while knows that code review is not a substitute for intentionality and understanding when writing the code. To properly validate a change you must fully understand the intention behind it and the design at play, and then check the changes made against the system design. That is best done by a human subject matter expert (this is the role which software developers have traditionally filled, for anyone new to the industry).
> I work in one of the most conservative and highly regulated industries in the country. My company and every single one of my peer companies I have knowledge of has transitioned to almost exclusively 100% LLM-generated code (with plenty of human review).
That's called "being in a bubble".
> I don’t live on a coast and I have a large and broad social network. I don’t know anyone who still mostly codes by hand except the small amount needed to preserve some aspect of their skills. I’m sorry to say that if I did I’d consider them foolish.
And I think it's foolish to let your coding and critical thinking skills atrophy like this, but you do you.
> It’s much more likely that you are not a professional, or you are the one in a bubble.
Not even worth a reply.
I have heard multiple breathless press releases warning that the end of white collar work is "just 6 months away" and that people not using the latest Mythos/Fable/Whatever model will be hopelessly left behind.
So the previous statement that "As public companies, the megascalers publish pretty detailed financial reports" is incorrect and irrelevant to the question that was asked.
Seems like they've already done more research than you. Their results not matching your expectations does not indicate a lack of research. If you feel they missed something, why don't you go spend your own money on whatever frontier model you want and go publish a post with your own conclusions.
Have you seen the people responsible for planning right now? They're more concerned with posting AI generated memes on twitter and scoring bigotry points than managing a foreign conflict.
I’ve also toyed with this approach and have a similar labyrinth on my website, but it just serves back huge amounts of meaningless text one word at a time.
You will notice we are not talking "at any cost". We are talking about a very specific cost to AI hyperscalers.
> full of legislative compromises to balance incremental benefits to air quality against burden on industry.
These technicalities are being exploited for the benefit of approximately 10 people, and to the detriment of everyone else.
Your talking points are old and exhausted.
You don't have to take my word for it though! I don't even know why you're trying to make this argument when you can just go look through a grocery store and see how much more expensive food is now than just a few years ago.
You might be fine with skirting the technicalities, but the rest of us have to live here and breathe the air.
Feel free to come back when you have something to add.
> I can't imagine having a conversation with someone like this for more than five minutes.
Judging from this and all your other dead comments, you don't seem inclined to have a conversation at all.
They like the way his administration has been terrorizing brown people. Dig in with any of these ~simpletons~ undecided voters and it’s literally that simple.
Pack it in everybody! This guy thinks they worked as intended, that’s all the evidence needed! Case closed!
Ignore the way everything is more expensive. Ignore the way everything on digikey has a dedicated tariff column. Ignore the general chaos and the rest of what your lying eyes see, a hackernews throwaway account is pretty sure that the new tax on imports is unrelated to imports being more expensive.