HN user

kcatskcolbdi

363 karma
Posts0
Comments128
View on HN
No posts found.

It 100% started doing this to me during coding sessions last week, I noticed. "X, y, z features shipped, looks like a great stopping point."

And all these replies spilled ink over an argument that had..... absolutely nothing to do with the article. So wild to see how many people refuse to read something they want to discuss.

Or it's indirectly harmful by training us to accept a synthetic reality where nothing can be trusted and everything must be questioned.

I do find myself questioning the premise that accepting a 'synthetic reality where nothing can be trusted' is automatically bad. I've long felt that everyone took what they saw on the internet at face value when they should not. I do hope that injecting enough chaos into the system can force people to question their intake more consistently.

You cannot make a similar argument for any tool that makes jobs easier, because the argument is dependent on the unique attribute of LLMs: providing wrong answers confidently.

This comment seems to not appreciate how changing the scope of impact is itself a gigantic problem (and the one that needs to be immediately solved for).

It's as if someone created a device that made cancer airborne and contagious and you come in to say "to be fair, cancer existed before this device, the device just made it way worse". Yes? And? Do you have a solution to solving the cancer? Then pointing it out really isn't doing anything. Focus on getting people to stop using the contagious aerosol first.

This both has nothing to do with the linked article (beyond the use of brain rot in the title, but I'm certain you must have read the thing you're commenting on, surely) and is simply incorrect.

Brain rot in this context is not a reference to slang.

People are not kogs in a machine. You cannot simply make enough rules, enough legislation, and magically they will act the way you want them to. Humans deserve autonomy, and that autonomy includes making poor decisions around their own body/existence.

Chatgpt didn't induce suicidality into this individual. It provided resources they could seek for help. People advocating for higher guardrails are simply using this as a Trojan horse to inject more spying, construct the usefulness of the tool, and make a worse experience for everyone.

Really interesting breakdown. What jumped out to me wasn’t just the bugs (CORS wide open, incorrect Basic auth, weak token randomness), but how much the human devs seemed to lean on Claude’s output even when it was clearly offbase. That “implicit grant for public clients” bit is wild; it’s deprecated in OAuth 2.1, and Claude just tossed it in like it was fine, and then it stuck.

Thanks for your interest in Jules. We'll email you when Jules is available.

Well here's to hoping it's better than Cursor. I doubt it considering my experiences with Gemini have been awful, but I'm willing to give it a shot!

I want to agree, but whatever they are doing is working incredibly well so far. The results I get from cursor outweigh what I can get from Copilot by orders of magnitude. Maybe long term there's no moat, but you'd think if there were no moat now the folks at Microsoft would be able to compete.