HN user
Oldest trick in the book is to put human like errors to make it look human. The thing everyone forgets is that almost everyone does simple spellcheck or has it automatically show the spelling errors so it’s improbable that such spelling errors are organic (of course, omitting, or having a word autocorrect makes more sense)
I know there's no absolute smoking gun here
Wow, so you can't even find circumferential evidence of circumferential evidence? I guess you can believe whatever you want, evidence be damned
People are now saying poor communication because the Bun creator was not able to see the future and didn’t immediately flag his draft rewrite as the next big thing when he started working on it.
Saying Bun's communication was an issue here is clutching pearls. There is no evidence that Bun ever acted in bad faith, Jared definitely seemed to initally think it was just a trial, until he realized that it was actually something feasible. He isn't clairvoyant; there is no way he would have known it was going to be successful when he initially made the post.
Did he say this opinion before the rewrite, or when he was taking tens of thousands of Bun's money per month?
I don't know, I feel as though Bun went about it much more maturely than zig at any point in the process, from the initial attempted zig compiler commit by the Bun team to the Zig dev team member response to the Bun Rust blog post. Also, I think that fallout over this whole event will definitely favor Bun versus Zig.
This is why people use AI so heavily. Because no matter how bad or ill formed a question is, it wo answer it the most "caring" way possible, and never berate you for it being a stupid question, common sense, etc (as long as it is about some forbidden topic of course)
If i remember correctly, some other places of the internet (4chan) completely this sort of behavior because people use it to hide images of ...unsavory topics
It's funny that you don't realize you are doing the same thing; you are giving the absolute change like the article is doing; you are just doing the change in the rate instead of the underlying quantity. A 4% change in my rate if the original rate is 4% would be a 100% rate rate change, which of course is substantial.
The fact they gave a raw number instead of a percent of a quantity that is a change hinted that this was the case. $23B is more impressive than 4%.
Jarred has managed public relations very poorly (e.g. ghosting the Zig foundation)
I actually love the use of ghosting in this post. It is almost a Freudian slip about how Zig looks like from the view of outsiders. Zig moves exactly like how toxic exes do. They point fingers, make passive-aggressive statements, unnecessarily air out dirty laundry, and downplay all of the good their partner has done during the relationship.
I wonder how much he burned on this article.
I feel as thought Meta, compared to other tech giants, have a vested interest in saying that AI failed, as they are the only major tech company that has almost unequivocally lost the AI race.
I agree, my wording was a bit off. What I meant was a tool call in a harness. Claude Code should itself be the harness.
Yes, I didn't look at the replies until late, but you are correct. The invariant of the situation is that there are a large number of people who want 1-2 positions, and there are not enough resources in the company to interview and evaluate them all in person. My point is that when you remove measures like a performance on a project from play, and are forced to whittle down a group of applicants to an interviewable-sized group, people will start to pick increasingly "unfair" ways to do so. No one wants to risk hiring a person for a position who simply cannot perform at the level necessary for the job. If they don't have a project to separate the people who can perform versus the people who can't, then they have to use other markers to say why one person has a better chance of performing well than another, of which previous employer/alumni and references from trusted sources are by far the easiest ones.
Half of those don't actually require proxying Claude. Also, Claude has made it apparent time and time again that it does not want people using Claude Code as a "tool" in a workflow. If you want to select a model dynamically based on the prompt difficulty, Anthropic wants people to use the API for this. It was the whole issue Claude had with OpenClaw.
Yes, people don’t realize that’s why a lot of desirable jobs/grad schools become filled with people from top universities and previous employment. Pedigree is probably the lowest hanging fruit when it comes to shaving off a good chuck of applicants to a level that at least you know would be adequate.
It’s anti AI, so people would actually believe the data centers are going to singlehandly melt the icecaps
I guess it may be semantics, but I agree that I would have the same expectation. However, I also I think getting fired would be a justified punishment in the situation.
It’d like playing a computer game during free library time at the school when I was a kid; I would expect to be reprimanded, however just outright barring use from the computer during free time would probably be justified.
It takes multiple seconds to launch,
Yes, this is the ubiquitous memory issue that I mentioned. Unfortunately, it is now the baseline in all modern apps.
random lines disappear in the scroll back, it’s internal state gets messed up causing the TUI to show duplicate and/or offset lines,
I haven't seen this issue, other than when I am using a shell that is bugged and does it with all TUI/console programs (usually a virtualized shell which I resized). Do you have a reproducible example of this?
How are Anthropic's production applications poor quality? Other than memory use (which unfortunately is the industry standard nowadays) Claude Code is pretty solid.
The issue is that the legal system is retroactive, and information that is made public cannot be retracted. If a random company gets your sensitive data and disseminates it to the world, then sure, they will face legal repercussions, but the damage would have already been done to you.
I don't think they can, at least if they are making an argument for why the Defense Production Act should not apply to them. Their original argument is that they will not help with anything that is unconstitutional, such as the unlawful spying on American citizens, without a warrant.
source?
You (and me) commented on it, which is the journalist's main purpose of writing headlines like these.
Huh
OK, that is relevant context, because the quotes that people are saying he plagiarized wouldn't make sense to count as plagiarism in a physics thesis. I was scratching my head, thinking of how he could have plagiarized Camus in a physics thesis that isn't just some turn of phrase.
Why after thier IPO?
I think one time I asked opus about copyfail when it just came out and it did treat me like some sort of criminal, but are there really people that run into this on a regular basis other than cybersecurity experts (which cannot be a big enough group to generate all of this criticism)?
I do not agree that the concept of writing can be considered a specific tool at all. Maybe a pencil, but writing opposed to remembering everything is a more substantial level of a paradigm shift than AI use is.