dack

i doubt that's the goal for them. i bet they just really don't have capacity for people using it a ton, yet they wanted people to be able to try it out while it's new. so they compromised and made it temporarily available. and then hope they can get costs down or capacity up so they can make it more available again

sounds like the link with AI is tenuous at best given the other comments, but I'll take it as an opportunity to say a few things I believe anyway:

1. AI is really helpful for a lot of things

2. to the extent that AI can do something perfectly for us, we probably shouldn't try to force people to "learn" it the hard way

3. people who don't want to learn won't, and will suffer naturally later

4. if the material didn't need to be learned anyway, then using AI to do it for them is a win. that's how the real world works anyway.

5. if AI makes some knowledge obsolete, we should stop trying to teach it.

i think the only thing for the teachers to do is to properly warn students of the consequences of using AI to skip learning ahead of time (because by the time the natural consequences hit, it's too late), and to do their best to devise tests that incentivize the right knowledge, while also showing how to use AI properly.

the problem is that the education system isn't set up to change this quickly so I don't really know how they are going to properly adjust every semester

i guess i don't blame a writer who's job is threatened by this technology to write a piece like this. but the perspective is ultimately one where they are complaining about how it affects them, without regard to the end user.

it's the same as toll booth operators complaining about fastpass

i don't think it's marketing so much as excitement

i think mostly it's that people feel threatened. i can't even say it's irrational

this was definitely me in high school. i still fondly remember the day when we could use our Ti-83+ for our exam but we had to show the teacher that we cleared memory for notes and formulas.

So i wrote a program that just made it look like I cleared memory and it worked like a charm.

I don't remember if I even stored anything that could be constituted cheating but it was more about the satisfaction of knowing I outsmarted them, heh.

I think it's the least hostile thing they can say, and I respect their decision for their own project.

That said, it still feels like they are unnecessarily hobbling their project. LLMs are tools and they can help you think, research, and code. You can overuse them, yes, but you should embrace them where they help.

not accepting bun's PR for other reasons is totally fine (sounds like it's a core change where more thinking needs to be done), but simply banning all LLM authored PRs is unnecessarily restrictive. Just focus on the quality of the work.

it's a cool article but would immensely help from gifs or videos to go along with the explanation

yes but didn't greg brockman say he just runs on xhigh at all times?

i want 5.4 nano to decide whether my prompt needs 5.4 xhigh and route to it automatically

yeah there's way more demand, and at the same time, it's way easier for the company to build and maintain (with the help of AI). Great to see!

if you include "it turns out that", you're implying that maybe you thought the same as them in the past, but looked into it, and learned something interesting. if you omit that, you're just correcting them and subtly implying that they aren't as smart as you (e.g. it was obvious to you)

i don't know what else they can say about their own business.. but it's clearly cope.

sure, there's a lot of compliance/legal concerns, but AI is probably already better at reading all the relevant information and encoding that into a system than humans.

I don't think a non-technical person is going to one-shot it, but a technical person could today. The biggest issue would be marketing and maintenance (companies aren't going to buy from a single random person who might abandon the project at a moment's notice)

last i checked, you can't annotate inline with planning mode. you have to type a lot to explain precisely what needs to change, and then it re-presents you with a plan (which may or may not have changed something else).

i like the idea of having an actual document because you could actually compare the before and after versions if you wanted to confirm things changed as intended when you gave feedback

they have pretty fierce competition though, so i doubt this is intentional. my guess is they just have a million things to do and that isn't at the top of the list

if i were you @susam, i'd use claude code to parse all these submissions into your json file! i bet opus 4.5 would do it flawlessly

what are your goals? it's usually tough to sell things to developers because they are very particular about how they want their software to work, and also would rather build their own tools much of the time (which is increasingly true with AI now).

if you really want to sell it, you should probably make sure that you have customers willing to pay, which means talking to potential customers and getting them on a waitlist. i think it's usually more likely that other people don't care about your software like you do (because you built it to be exactly what you want and know how it works) and even then, aren't willing to pay to use it (or pay very much)

if you're not very concerned about making money and mostly just want something nice for yourself that other people _might_ care about, then sure, go for it! i build software like that all the time

I didn't like that there was a long delay after you move your mouse, and since all the calculation happens on the frontend, i figured you could easily make it ~instantly update and follow you around. So i (well, claude) made a version that does that and i think it's more fun. here's the code you can paste into the console at pointerpointer.com: https://pastebin.com/f7YqQNxg

yeah it's crazy to think that claude 4 has only been out a month. And the previous iteration 3.7 was launched only in February!

but also I think the interesting thing is that people didn't jump on MCP immediately after it launched - it seemed to go almost unnoticed until February. Very unusual for AI tech - I guess it took time for servers to get built, clients to support the protocol, and for the protocol itself to go through a few revisions before people really understood the value.

yeah current AIs are surprisingly good at figuring out which tools to call and how to call them!

MCP still feels so early. It's getting better - we went from "set up `npx` on your system and edit this JSON file in an obscure directory" to "set the name and URL of your MCP server" in claude.ai. But you're right, even knowing how to find a URL for the MCP server is a tall order for most.

I wonder what the optimal form factor is. Like what if your AI could /suggest/ connecting with some service? Like your AI is browsing a site and can discover the "official" MCP server (like via llms.txt). It then shows a prompt to the user - "can I access your data via X provider?". you click "yes", then it does the OAuth redirect and can immediately access the necessary tools. Also being able to give specific permissions via the OAuth flow would be really nice.

personally i think DSLs could be helpful if they are really good at: 1. explaining the syntax clearly 2. providing a fast checker that provides good error messages 3. prevents errors

LLMs seem pretty good at figuring out these things when given a good feedback loop, and if the DSL truly makes complex programs easier to express, then LLMs could benefit from it too. Fewer lines of code can mean less context to write the program and understand it. But it has to be a good DSL and I wouldn't be surprised if many are just not worth it.

Calorie tracking is also about educating yourself about how many calories certain things are, so you can make better decisions.

Like, oil is insanely caloric and can accidentally add hundreds of calories, but it's nearly impossible to eat too many greens.

Once you learn this, then the tracking is just to keep you honest - your brain knows what to do but it lies to you when it wants to bend the rules and those little cheats add up enough to throw off the whole diet.

I think the OP's point is that there are more "dark mirror ideologies" than the author claims, because the author was focused on examples that are too extreme (and therefore rare). The OP is showing that there are more reasonable oppositions that appear to fit the dark mirror definition and are not simply a false accusation.

this is cool, but holy crap that's a lot of work for a seemingly-simple type of feature!

Man, I completely recoiled when reading this.

I spent a bunch of time in my 20s and early 30s trying out different organizational systems but I realized I just don't care. I care about doing interesting things, not organizing them.

Also computers are pretty good at full-text searching for things, or tagging so you don't have to come up with a perfect hierarchy. And I think LLMs will make it even easier to find stuff using fuzzy language.

Life's too short to spend it organizing.

the distinction is rarely necessary in most discussions though, so if that's the intention, it's not all that helpful

i'm always super impressed by brett victor and highly admire his work.

that said, I have to admit that it doesn't really feel "right" based on what I've seen. there's so many limitations to the physical world that a virtual space doesn't have. i get that physical objects can participate in the UI and that arranging things in 3D space is sometimes nicer than using a mouse/keyboard.

However, the fact that there is still code written on pieces of paper, and that the projector can only show a 2D image (which is only primitively interactable) just looks super awkward. and the question of "what can you do" when you're staring at a blank table seems tough

again, it's super cool research but i wonder if he has plans to resolve some of these fundamental issues with mixing real and virtual

Seriously, just ask ChatGPT and tell it you are an experienced developer and don't need to be told the basics. It can then give you a helpful overview and get you oriented. then you can read code, docs or other detailed sources to deepen your knowledge (and make sure the LLM didn't make something up)

reminds me of unison in some ways. did that provide some inspiration?