avaer

One of the more compelling (and scary) stories about how AI takes over the world. If you liked this, also check our Pluribus.

There's several other areas that would be good to categorically ban AI usage from:

  - gambling
  - dating
  - hiring
  - advertising

I say that as an AI maximalist: I fully trust AI with these things. I do not trust the humans using the AI.

The collapse into a ghost town is striking.

Not sure I would blame it all on AI though, the incentives of SO only worked while there were worthwhile questions to answer and make you feel smart about. After that well dried up, the only thing left was the stuff AI can do with a prompt; ironically AI got a leg up by scraping SO.

This is similar to the evolution of Wikipedia, except the format of WP allowed it to transform into a feudal dictatorship of nerds who feel like they are deciding what's true, and they can get off on that.

SO did not have that kind of incentive to keep the nerds around.

I don't think that's the point. This is clearly a demo for PocketJS.

You're right, it's not a good comparison; PSP is a device and Node is an application that runs JS. Though I wouldn't say it's "backwards".

Anyway, the article is saying there is some native host bindings for each platform, which get swapped between PSP and Desktop. However, same JS app code is running on both, calling out to the injected bindings. It's a common pattern for portability of game engines and stuff.

I haven't verified any of this, I'm just saying it makes perfect sense to me. I hope that helps.

For a hundred years software was inscrutable enough to normies that you could be an artisan. But most professions haven't had that luxury for a long, long time. Try making and selling pretty much anything else you built by hand.

Now it's software people's turn to feel the pain of being a starving artist and watch as your attractive friends with no skills and a social media presence "make it" with their genius.

We haven't even begun to feel the weight of it yet.

That's correct but a bit nitpicky. We could talk about punchcards too, but I'm not old enough to credibly make that reference :)

The meaning of code will change. Maybe it will get a new name.

Software hasn't been about "real code" (asm) for a long time; yes, this was a common opinion when HLL's and compilers were starting.

I think they are saying they didn't use AI for it.

is it distillation

Yes. Though it's probably mostly just other Claudes.

Maybe we should replace those people in power with machines that show empathy.

Sama was kept because of the cheddar to be lost if he left. If this interferes with the IPO, he'll get removed for the same reason.

Nobody spends 15M on inference only to check at the end that their money was wasted.

It's not, you just post this same comment on every HN thread.

When this gets listed, your retirement savings will be obligated to support it whether it makes sense or not. If it tanks AI, or the broader economy, everyone will pay the price.

No matter what, your money is going to Elon and friends. That's one of the schemes.

There's plenty of other schemes too, like merging in Twitter and an AI company to confuse investors and inflate valuations.

I'm not calling it a scam either. I'm saying it entirely depends on whether this insane level of scheming causes people to lose a trillion dollars or gain a trillion dollars, then history will be rewritten to match the narrative.

I guess the difference between "scam" and "financial engineer" is whether it works.

If everyone loses their money it will be a scam. If people get rich he will be a financial engineer.

These aren't two different things. The winning side will make up reasons why they are right, and the losing side will make up excuses why they were wrong.

That's good! Because this stock has pretty much nothing to do with the reality of SpaceX or its future. It's a trillion dollar memecoin.

Excellent writeup. I wonder how many more decades it will be before it ships!

In my experience with web standards bodies, features useful to actual developers get denied and hand waved away with a grab bag of excuses (especially "security") up until the instant that one of the controlling corps smells money from one of the features.

At which point the feature will be fast tracked immediately, rammed through post haste, standards body be damned, all excuses evaporating overnight.

The main reason modern JS doesn't have threads is because Google controls Chrome, and they can multithread in there all they want; adding threads to JS will not help Google make more money.

Second, can you guarantee that an AI company can’t use its AI to hide malicious code from AI audits. Who if not an AI company could have such an expertise?

Any evidence for this conspiracy theory? It's not on anyone to disprove this claim.

it shows the value their profit over people‘s health

Companies are chartered to make their shareholders value. To a first approximation, it's illegal for a company to "fuckit, we care about people's health" unless this is what the shareholders voted for (as opposed to making their shares valuable).

You can argue this is bad, but it isn't about XAI, it applies to every company you've heard of.

It's auditable, just redirect, don't pipe. Or fix your bash to not allow this.

It has nothing to do with XAI, other than maybe not enforcing good practice (which most devs don't follow anyway).

The intelligence knob is hilarious.

Just imagine vibe code slop streamers twiddling it like a DJ and the chat goes crazy. That's where we're headed.

It's Apache 2.0. You can have your agents audit it if you want.

What does this release have to do with "trusting" XAI?

Is it a game, a console, or collection of games? Because the main page and FAQ say different things.

It's probably all of the above; can empathize with pitching something as unconventional as this. But it might make for a stronger presentation if there was a single framing throughout the site.

I think most reasonable people can agree social media/internet can be a dangerous place where your images will be taken and posted to others without your consent. This isn't a matter of age.

Except this is exactly what Heather Burns is doing.

Not this guy, who (I had to check) was apparently following the law(?) and the article even admits this:

as far as policymakers are concerned, it’s the senior legal officer with the phone who is rightfully entitled to have the phone and use it any way he pleases

(if the law is bad, change it. but that's not this article)

It's just a strange argument to say we should loosen the regulations when you have people like Heather exhibiting the problematic behavior that these laws are supposed to protect people from.

Science and rigor has no place in "think of the children". What are you, a monster?

(yes, this is sarcasm)

I hope HN doesn't get into moderating the politics of articles.

I can see a grim future (present?) where "AI generated" turns into a slur, warranted or otherwise, in a world where the difference between human trained to talk like an AI and AI masquerading as human becomes increasingly difficult to discern, and some hidden cabal passes judgement.

That is wholly different from taking a stance on HN being a place for humans to comment on articles.

Yes but I always have to be on the lookout for this meta pattern that leads to code bloat.

You don't!

Have you tried adding rules/automations that make it explicit to review and fix the code for bloat (per your taste, with examples if needed)?

With this setup + a good frontier model you will never have to be on the lookout for code bloat. You can even get the agent to send you text message with the LOC-- if it makes you feel better.

I think I understand where you're coming from, that it's hard to "let go" (I've been coding for 30 years and it was hard for me). That's why I'm recommending to have agents write verifiable quantified reports of the things you care about, so you can build up some trust in the agent's work and you don't have to do things by faith.

Right, but this just seems like underspecification. In my experience as both a team leader and an "agentic engineer" (ugh), I try to blame myself for the lack of clarity of my asks, rather than the person/agent for making the "wrong" choice.

I'm sure plenty of meat humans out there would make the same mistake (sorry, you said to use local storage boss!). You might give them a scolding. And maybe document that policy. Maybe in a markdown file for the next person. IME the latest models are significantly better than the median engineer at following this feedback.

I don't think it's fruitful to blame the LLM any more than it is to blame someone working under you.

In fact I would say this is an excellent example of how engineering does NOT fundamentally change in the era of AI.

Before my time ppl mostly did things in asm, I bet the vast majority of people reading this have never touched assembly and will never have any reason to. This is quickly becoming true of most "code". AI has changed that.

One way to "stay relevant" would be to admit that.

For example, have you ever seen an agent follow the boy scout rule? Where they leave code better than they found it? And would you WANT them to try to do this?

Yes, it's in the rules; run profiles, check code coverage, do a critical review, post the report and follow up tasks. 90% of people I've worked with did not follow these boy scout rules nearly as well as today's frontier LLMs.

Is the author implying this is bad?