stingraycharles

Too good to be true, or an accurate reflection of the unfortunate state of the world right now?

How is that related to phone lines, and not the dial up access point you’re dialing into?

iirc ISDN did require a special phone line, but 56k was fine over regular lines.

Playing the devil’s advocate: don’t “freedom of information” laws mostly apply to government agencies? If so, why would a private company provide this information?

I personally believe at the very least the water usage is heavily overblown compared to the agriculture industry. Elecricity is a different issue, and governments should consider reporting requirements or something like that.

Being angry with datacenter providers is not the solution. And they also need to be built somewhere, and that place is probably best where electricity is abundant and/or cheap.

They are, but nothing bad has happened (apart from OpenAI failing to do basic sandbox engineering), and the “we have achieved recursive self improvement” is widely overblown as something bad or threatening.

Yeah it seems like it went from “AGI” to “threatening” / “recursive self improvement”

They’re trying really hard to do something, no moat = regulatory capture + China scary + Pentagon biggest customer seems plausible.

Also: “we need to slow down, this is too dangerous” and then literally all AI CEOs, even Musk, publicly nodding felt so orchestrated. And then, the week after: “here’s GPT 6! here’s Opus 5.5!”

What’s the point you’re trying to make? I don’t think anyone here is trying to argue it’s a conscious entity, nor is anyone shocked that it does these things.

People are shocked at OpenAI’s negligence / incompetence.

Only because the harness’ current plan mode is too limited.

Also, it processes all questions you ask it in parallel, which is also not possible with normal LLMs.

Nah, it’s the typical Claude-isms, and way too much info, info in the wrong places, and putting lots of planning discussions into comments that are completely irrelevant.

It’s always “you explain only what but not why” or “this is way too much prose” or “these comments don’t belong here, they should be inline comments” or “this is completely redundant as it’s already obvious from the code”.

I do find that once I beat it into submission and the codebase is “clean”, the new code it generates gets better and better, which makes sense gives its pattern-prediction nature. But it seems like there is work to do for Anthropic in terms of getting Claude to not confuse code comments with dumping its interactive discussion state into there.

Yeah I always balked at the amount bloat in that repo, and I just prefer a more lightweight setup and plannotator’s UI which I can use to interactively review stuff. It solves this one problem better, where superpowers tries to do way too much, poorly.

https://plannotator.ai/

> This worked well for a while, until a few months ago, using early versions of Fable, I realized that I wasn’t using plan mode anymore because the model just got it, and because for the increasingly complex work I asked the model to do, planning had become interactive and iterative. With Opus 5.5, I feel Opus has gotten to that point too.

For me it’s actually the opposite, and Claude Code’s plan mode isn’t nearly sufficient. Personally I ask Claude to write down a markdown file with its plan, then review the plan using plannotator, and then go back and forth (most of the time it’s actually the comments that are the problem, not the code).

Then start a fresh session, seed it with the plan, tell Claude to find ambiguities / friction points / oversights, resolve those, and then implement it.

Review once again with plannotator, go back and forth, and then send PR.

Maybe not the “vibe coding” that was once imagined, but this does ensure I am fully aware of the code and architecture, the quality, and this also prevents long term degradation.

But it’s not necessary at all, the whole point is that these utility libraries bring you more elegant code that work on all platforms without having to pollute your codebase with SIMD intrinsics.

Unless this was tongue in cheek, because this is in fact a problem with AI that it degrades your codebase in these types of ways.

Total tangent, but I really like the way this article is written; you can effectively read the first sentence of each paragraph, and it still conveys the same story in a coherent, summarized way.

Even with languages that adopt ways to manually write SIMD, it’s mostly left to library maintainers rather than application developers.

I work for a C++ timeseries database startup that leverages SIMD about as much as we possibly can, and except for some extremely rare places we just use libraries.

Can’t say I really feel bad about that prospect.

Not sure what happened on this page, but I saw so much AI tells on this particular page that I had to check archive.org and apparently the page has only been around for two years.

https://web.archive.org/web/20260000000000*/https://openai.c...

Aren’t you then just moving the responsibility from OS (process isolation) to the CPU ? And doesn’t this whole thing break with practical realities, such as processes needing to interact with each other ?

How would you deal with a password manager or a clipboard in these cases, for example, without increasing friction for users ?

And Google’s ad-driven money-making machine is making society worse as well, but OP had no problem with this.

It’s a bit of a fad to do these things in the name of AI. I think it’s great OP chooses a more fulfilling life that will surely make them happier, but it feels a bit pretentious.

> Silent data corruption caused by missing or wrong synchronization is way harder to debug.

Reminds me of being a young and ambitious C++ programmer 25 years ago, discovering that when you have a map and do “return m[k]”, it is not, in fact, a read-only operation when k does not exist. After which I learned that const-correctness is not just a nice-to-have, especially in multithreaded applications.

But yeah deadlocks are hardly ever a difficult issue to diagnose. They may potentially be difficult to resolve, but at that point, it very much suggests that there’s an architecture / design issue.

I find it incredibly sad that this is what the world is becoming, and I mostly blame people for this, not the LLMs.

It’s the same type of people that would have no issue letting an LLM open a pull request on GitHub wasting valuable time of other humans, and whatnot.

I’m using LLMs all the time myself, but it’s so incredibly important to use it to improve the quality of your work, not degrade it. People seem to be totally oblivious about this.

On the flip side, it does make it easier to recognize people who are wasting my time.

“What I find strange is how resigned the AI labs seem about this behavior, like everyone's accepted this is just something models do.”

Because these models are made for all kind of purposes, and I’m starting to believe that offense / cyber warfare is a much higher priority than these labs are acknowledging.

The same model that is heavily trained to find nefarious ways to break into systems is also optimizing your code, which leads to mixed behavior.

Fusion has been 10 years away for the past 3 decades.

(I think fusion is great, by the way, but I just don’t believe any timelines at this point anymore)

Yes, but at the same time, it’s also a good, simple use case to test a new plugin system. I can totally understand that.

I think it’s a reference to “CC’ing” someone by email (they also use that in the examples).

Isn’t this effectively what systems like /dev/(u)rand do? Pool multiple random sources together to hedge against these things?

I fail to see why one should either rely on a single random source nor roll their own.

Back in the day - maybe two decades ago - I implemented language detection like this.

I seeded gzip compressors’ dictionaries with Wikipedia articles in different languages.

I would then try to use said dictionaries on any random text, and the one that was best able to compress it, was the correct language.

Absolutely totally not the best approach, but very fast and super simple to implement.

Maybe people are feeling confident to put their masks off with the stuff that’s happening in the US?

This comment is needlessly hostile and adds no value to the conversation.

I’m surprised that you haven’t noticed this yourself, this is an incredibly common issue.

I always thought that it was perhaps referencing something that’s in its hidden thinking tokens, but the grandparent’s explanation could also very well be it.

This is a very common practice called retargeting / behavioral targeting and has existed for about 2 decades at this point. Facebook is hardly the only company that does this.

Modern browsers are more strict towards third party cookies, but there are plenty of ways to work around this.