heurist

You are heavily discounting the human side of the generation effort. The first output from an AI might be slop but once you start injecting your own ideas and desires it lands much further away from what any AI would output on its own. (Not that there's no zero-effort slop around - there's a lot).

Claude Opus 4.7 responds with walk for me with and without adaptive thinking, but neither the basic model used when you Google search or GPT 5.4 do.

I work with some 'legends of programming' and they're all excited about it. I am too, though I am not a legend. It really is changing the game as a valid new technology, and it's not just a 'slot machine'. Anthropic is burning their goodwill though with their lack of QA or intentional silent degradation.

You should not be downvoted for expressing your concerns.

I'm not inclined to be a guinea pig for these. I suspect maybe later in my child's life they will have been proven long-term safe (or not). I'll be old or dead at that point. I'm really wary of putting anything not known to be standard food or medicine into my body.

Good god

Meta couldn't vibecode a competitor themselves? WTF are yall doing over there?

Hiring is incredibly complicated when done well. If 'limited fuzzy Boolean windows' over 'complex interpersonal dynamics' is vibes, then we will need to accept vibes.

They should have had an open convention. I said this on reddit before the elections and was heavily downvoted for whatever reason. People don't want to face reality. Trump's election this time around was much easier to explain and both parties have now lost the trust of the people.

It's confusing and messy, like most of American history.

Have been using Gitlab happily for a decade, though I have never had to directly worry about the cost for larger teams.

Didn't that anti-corruption agency end up being corrupt too? Hard to follow all this stuff.

We get around this a bit when using it to write code since we have unit tests and can verify that it's making correct changes and adhering to an architecture. It has truly become much more capable in the last year. This technology is so flexible that it can be used in ways no eval will ever touch and still perform well. You can't just rely on what the labs say about it, you have to USE it.

I haven't run a business in a while but when I did I found I was actually more comfortable because the interactions are typically more scriptable and the dynamics are clearer than when you're dealing with peer employees. When you're dealing with customers, you're interfacing on behalf of the business and can adopt a 'business' persona while speaking about things you are expert in. Often you deal with people in bursts and don't need to interact with any given individual too often; with peers it's a lot more vague and confusing, and you're with them basically all the time for years so it's much more exhausting.

I was lucky to have a great AP Biology teacher in high school. I ended up minoring in the field and it has shaped my career. Now my child is a little biologist. It is a fascinating subject and so core to everything we are and everything we do.

That's the most charitable possible reading of this strategy. There are many others.

Give AI its own virtual world to live in where the problems it solves are encodings of the higher order problems we present and you shouldn't have to worry about this stuff.

All the companies in this space go out of business. Who in the Midwest is doing well?

Hah. I'm a pretty good coder and have been accelerated with AI, but it's definitely not ready to make me capable of redesigning the US federal government.

Bitcoin's utility is that you can both hold it in your hands and send it across the world in 10 minutes with no intermediaries. Can't do that with gold.

There are early bitcoin holders who are now billionaires continuing to hold their highly liquid bitcoin.

I'm in a mission driven organization so I pay more attention to that than other companies might. Regardless, a little authenticity and enthusiasm can go a long way. The bar is low.

Not a YC startup, but jobs I've posted recently had over a thousand applicants in the first few weeks. I post multiple places, including HN. There's a huge culling process to find the 20-30 most applicable candidates, then to narrow down from there to the 1-2 that fit best.

The best way to stand out (for me) is a real application not written with AI. Everyone uses AI now and it all sounds the same. Express your honest enthusiasm for joining the company/mission in the cover letter (maybe 20% of applicants submit a cover letter, and a smaller fraction of that was written by real people, and smaller fraction of that gives authentic enthusiastic vibes). Use your real voice in your writing. I give the AI applicants a chance if their resume makes sense, but it's a minefield.

This is cynical. There are a lot of people who do care. Consider that someone cared enough to build a bike lane in the first place. IMO life is hard for most people and as much as most would love to "care", they have to take care of themselves and their families first. The caring is focused where it is best applied.

I also don't think Elon would bother fixing a bike ramp or installing dog bag dispensers around his home(s). So if he does "care", it's not about things you care about.

That may be the case today but kids are starting to grow up with this stuff as part of their lives, and I don't think we can anticipate the reaction as both they and the models grow in tandem. I think human creativity is much deeper than LLMs, but that is from my human perspective and I can't fully rule out that the LLMs may become better at it at some point in the future. I actually think they're already smarter and more creative than most people (though not more than the potential of any given human if they practiced/trained thoroughly).

Generation failed: I'm sorry, but I cannot generate videos of real people. Please try another prompt.

You forget that there's a human behind the prompt, stitching frames and dialogue together.

I rarely watch movies or read books twice anymore. There's too much content already. The challenge with purely human art at this point is that it will be silenced by the perpetual flood of half-assed generated work. There will be room in elite art circles for more, but at some point the generated stuff will be so ubiquitous (and even meaningful) that anyone without connections is going to have a tough time building an audience for their handcrafted work, unless it happens to be particularly controversial or 'difficult' to make. The demand for visual stimulus will be satisfied by hypertuned AI models. Generative AI is not there quite yet but there's no reason to think it won't be better than 90%+ of purely human content within a decade given the pace of development over the last few years.

I've been saying for years that generated content is an impending tsunami that's going to drown out all real human voices online. The internet may become effectively unusable as a result for anything other than entertainment.

Really depends on who is responding. Emails that require a lot of effort to respond to are less likely to get a response in general, I've found.

I have near-FAANG base plus bonus working as a manager/tech lead at non-FAANG in a series B tech startup focused on industrial production (keeping it vague). It is well funded by tech elites and pays more than a comparable company would pay, and I've been here for a few years. I don't have anywhere near FAANG equity potential.