creamyhorror

Master of Time. One of the Masters of the Universe.

It's a real step forward, getting closer to SOTA. It seems to be very epistemically cautious in its reasoning. I hope Deepseek and the other open-weights labs stay in the game and catch up too.

Touche. Honestly, if there's going to be speculative fever in society that you can't suppress, it should be captured for better purposes, such as through your LTSE. Bring access to it to Asia sometime.

that incredible sense of idealism

The idealism that has been sucked out of the tech industry. It was so (naively) hopeful at one point, and now the arms race and profit-maximization has eroded it all. Your observations really resonate with me.

I'm surprised I hadn't heard of the Long-Term Stock Exchange, it seems like a much healthier direction for the market.

So long, and thanks for all the fish.

This is amazing, a true gem. I need to get it set up.

I'm not sure it's so black and white. Directing capital is powerful, and directing spending is powerful (but probably harder; this is marketing or government). I think it's more that directing spending requires influencing a lot more people than directing capital.

Tunes as captivating and evocative as the day I first heard them.

I'm building Subweb.net (not ready yet, it's just a few test feeds without the LLM pipeline turned on yet) to LLM-tag RSS feed items with topic, relevance/interest, location, and translations, and present them as feeds. I'm thinking I could maybe let users specify their preferred custom prompts and ranking params or similar, though the standard prompt is already fine.

I think the open web needs to come back, but in a fair way for everyone, giving readers control over their feeds while also sending traffic and comments back to the original sources. Not quite sure how to do that yet.

Whether this is real or not, multiple commenters here look like astroturfers - created in the past year (or hours) with very low karma

"Seam" has been stretched by AI from its original legacy-code context to any point in code where something can be plugged in. I actually asked an AI about this a few weeks ago because I was surprised by the consistent, frequent use of "seam".

Frequent words I see from GPT: "shape", "seam", "lane", "gate" (especially as verb), "clean", "honest", "land", "wire", "handoff", "surface" (noun), "(un)bounded", "semantics" (but this one is fair enough), and sometimes "unlock"

It feels like AI really likes to pick the shortest ways to express ideas even if they aren't the most common, which I suppose would make sense if that's actually what's happening.

Goblinmaxxing. Clean.

No, the Deepseek V4 paper itself says that DS-V4-Pro-Max is close to Opus 4.5 in their staff evaluations, not better than 4.6:

In our internal evaluation, DeepSeek-V4-Pro-Max outperforms Claude Sonnet 4.5 and approaches the level of Opus 4.5.

Two key quotes:

• Reasoning: Through the expansion of reasoning tokens, DeepSeek-V4-Pro-Max demonstrates superior performance relative to GPT-5.2 and Gemini-3.0-Pro on standard reasoning benchmarks. Nevertheless, its performance falls marginally short of GPT-5.4 and Gemini3.1-Pro, suggesting a developmental trajectory that trails state-of-the-art frontier models by approximately 3 to 6 months. Furthermore, DeepSeek-V4-Flash-Max achieves comparable performance to GPT-5.2 and Gemini-3.0-Pro, establishing itself as a highly cost-effective architecture for complex reasoning tasks.

• Agent: On public benchmarks, DeepSeek-V4-Pro-Max is on par with leading open-source models, such as Kimi-K2.6 and GLM-5.1, but slightly worse than frontier closed models. In our internal evaluation, DeepSeek-V4-Pro-Max outperforms Claude Sonnet 4.5 and approaches the level of Opus 4.5.

While they're some months behind closed SOTA (though benchmarks put them close), I wonder if Deepseek 4's longer context capabilities and kv-cache advantage will make up for this

Are TYPE-MOON relationship diagrams the new pelican benchmark?

The accounts are worth something later (e.g. for spreading opinions or promoting something) and can be sold.

oh boooy, it's a benchmarking script, but still...

Reposting this for comparison in light of the Ugandan chimpanzee war. Another multi-year war between members who were originally part of the same tribe.

r/codex is reporting that $20 (Plus) seems to have had its usage limit reduced (some people are saying it feels like 1/3 the previous limit now). The theory[1] is that reducing $20's limit lets them claim $200 has 20x $20's limit (and $100 has 10x).

If that's true, then the value comparison is not so positive for Codex any more

[1] https://old.reddit.com/r/codex/comments/1sgxy71/so_did_they_...

Nope, unlike in the US, there's no easy way to create virtual credit cards freely in Singapore (afaik). Might be a result of Singapore law, monopoly power of the banks, or just a lack of awareness that such a thing is possible.

It seems to me like it ought to be possible for the consumer to cancel a payment arrangement via their card provider.

Yet my banking app (here in Singapore) doesn't let me block any prior authorizations. It feels like the payment networks don't want to make it too easy to cancel periodic payments? Which isn't surprising, of course, but it feels like something I'd change banks for.

I already do this manually each time I finish some work/investigation (I literally just say

"write a summary handoff md in ./planning for a fresh convo"

and it's generally good enough), but maybe a skill like you've done would save some typing, hmm

My ./planning directory is getting pretty big, though!

I've started saying "gate" and "bound(ed)" and "handoff" a lot (and even "seam" and "key off" sometimes) since Codex keeps using the terms. They're useful, no doubt, but AI definitely seems to prefer using them.

The end of ZIRP (cheap money) is precisely what ended the new-ventures/new-projects drive among big companies and turned them all to cost-cutting and maintenance mode.

100%. I'm building a discussion system with this approach, so that no one forum/community can claim a topic exclusively.

The way I see it, it's literally simply the PE paying the existing owner for the privilege of squeezing the value out of the business and its customers in the short term (or in the ideal/theoretical case, running it more sustainably and making higher profits). Management's job becomes to extract high profit in the short term, not to keep the company running profitably.

So, logically, selling to PEs/operators who are known to do this is basically the owners selling out and taking the cash. The consequences are clear to anyone who's been watching.

The point of being the boss is getting to decide who to replace with AI, tbh. The shareholders may not replace you because of relationships/trust/accountability, and also because they don't want to have to be instructing the AI day-to-day (or arguing among themselves about it).

Maybe this will change in the future if AI-run companies emerge, get backing, and outcompete existing players.

It sounds doable. An AI can be made to keep modifying a game's codebase. I imagine it'd be easiest to separate out a scripting layer for game mechanics & behavior that AI can iterate quickly on, although of course it could more riskily modify the engine itself.

Then you could open voting up to a community for a weekly mechanics-change vote (similar to that recent repo where public voting decided what the AI would do next), and AI will implement it with whatever changes it sees fit.

Honestly, without some dedicated human guidance and taste, it would probably be more of a novelty that eventually lost its shine.

I'm enjoying the new era of agentic-coding all your ideas, but it's been obvious to me for a while that jobs are going to tend towards ones where you're liked by the decisionmaker or capital owner and kept around to be the middleman decider-delegator to others/AI/robots.

Have warned my friends about this already.

I'm not sure if the model (under its temperature/other settings) produces deterministic responses. But I do think models' style and phrasing are fairly changeable via AGENTS.md-style guidelines.

5.4's choice of terms and phrasing is very precise and unambiguous to me, whereas 5.3-Codex often uses jargon and less precise phrases that I have to ask further about or demand fuller explanations for via AGENTS.md.