lnrd

One would think that it could be possible to make a tool that takes some text and "anonymizes" it by making it a little more standard and boring (uniforming punctuation and sentence structure, changing words with some synonyms, etc). Maybe wouldn't make it particularly compelling, but would be valuable for political dissidents and other people with a high threat model.

Does anyone have some tools to share?

I mean, video montages of pictures for birthdays/weddings/whatever were never creative to begin with. Before AI they were just some random template downloaded from a website or backed-in some editing software (I remember so many birthday montage videos made with Windows Movie Maker that looked all the same).

People love these not because they are creative or good executed, but because they see the pictures and the story of the people they love.

Writing every line by hand is no longer the norm. Those who refuse to use an LLM will fall behind because they won't be able to produce as much

It remains important to be able to read the code and understand the architecture. As a result, I reduce my velocity by iterating over my PR until it reaches the same level of quality I would have produced "by hand"

I do that too and when I do it I'm not sure anymore if I'm "producing as much more" than if I was doing it by hand. I need to spend time to read the code, break down the flow so that it clicks in my head and so that I'm 100% sure that I understand what is going on and what every line does. And then I still test it (executing it), because that's where you notice the edge cases anyways. Once I understand it and test it, the part where I iterate or fix small quirks and hallucinations is the smallest part of the job and is irrelevant if i do it by myself or ask the LLM to make the change.

I'm still not convinced that I'm faster with an LLM at all, since I add this new bottleneck (the time spent understanding every line). If I do it by hand it already clicks in my head, so it's faster for me to test it, find unaddressed edge cases and then confidently ship it. Maybe the LLMs gains are not in this at all and writing every line by hand will still be the norm for a long time.

Still, LLMs make me insanely faster in: finding something in the codebase, recostructing a flow and understanding the architecture, triaging a bug (sometimes it just solves it with a prompt), writing and updating tests, reviewing changes for potential issues. These days I have almost always 2/3 agents running doing something of the above. That saves me hours and you can pry an LLM from my dead hands, but I'm still not sold that it makes me faster at producing production grade code that I fully understand and follows my company architecture and standards.

Then sure, if I need to make a prototype or a small tool for myself or some novelty thing, an LLM can do it without me ever touching or reading the code. But I think that's not what the majority of software engineers are employed to do.

In my company, user reported bugs get triaged and once they are confirmed they end up in the board of the team owning that part of the system (often they also built it, but is not necessarily the same people). Then there's a team bug threshold and if it gets reached then the whole team can't merge anything else until X amount of bugs are fixed and the number goes down. It's very annoying system and in cases of emergency it can of course temporarily be lifted by someone above, but honestly is very effective in making sure that bugs are fixed in a reasonable amount of time. This makes fixing bugs "part of maintenance work that is a given and expected to be done between new initiatives".

Marketing salaries are not high at all

I think GPT writes code the best. How well will it write in version 5.6? It gives me chills.

Heard this exact sentence multiple times a few months ago about Opus 4.6, then 4.7 and 4.8 were considered a disappointment and today people miss "the good old times of 4.6" (referring to a few weeks of February 2026).

Very fascinating to look at all of this unfolding.

Used it for years and never encountered a single bug, and I'm quite a power user with hundreds of items stored in it, shared vaults, and access multiple times per day. It's one of the few softwares I happily pay for. Maybe it differs from platform to platform, otherwise I can't explain your comment.

I don't agree with this view of an "attention marketplace". Besides the HN small (and arguably irrelevant) bubble, most of the world attention is swayed by pop-stars, actors, musicians and influencers talking about what they had for breakfast and the gossip surrounding them. That on top of politically-controlled content/slop factories. A non-researched piece of content presenting an idea that was somewhere already talked about in a book or a paper can't do that much damage imho. If it reaches anyone and makes them think about something it can only be a net positive.

Most (continental) philosophy is closer to art in my opinion than scientific inquiry. If you accept it as art, then you at least open the door to there being many valuably different ways of saying "love is good" or "reality is complicated" or what have you. And if you consider it as something beyond art, well, then it has some very pointed questions to answer.

I would invite you to read more philosophy if that's your idea of what philosophy is, because it feels very far from what has been discussed over the centuries by many authors way smarter than me and you.

I think this is some sort of modern academia bias. What you say it is true in academia, most things have already been thought and studied and that's why any academic book or paper has a citation in every sentence. I understand why this rigor is important in academia, but is it in the rest of the world?

If I have an interesting thought about a topic and I share it with an audience that is not PhDs, to them it might be interesting and insightful and provoke new thoughts. Most likely yes, someone in the 70s somewhere in the world already wrote a paper about this idea or even a book. Does it matter though? Sharing ideas gets people thinking and the fact that someone else already extensively thought about something doesn't make my thoughts less relevant. If anything, by sharing it I could get a comment pointing me to a book or paper that would help me understand better the topic or expand my ideas further.

I don't think that what's worth sharing are only documents that quote everyone else that already talked about it and their thoughts. That might work if I want to prove that my work is at boundaries of human knowledge or that is the most plausible explanation for something, but if I just want to share ideas then I find it limiting. Not just because it limits the people with the knowledge to write anything to a handful, but also because for those people there is this anxiety of "not worth it, wasting people time" if it's not researched for months like you mention. Share your thought, if some expert will find it wasteful or naive they will not read it, but someone else might and it might open their mind.

This makes me think about philosophy, if you really dig down into it virtually all philosophy ideas were already discussed first by Plato and Aristoteles. You cannot find a modern philosophy thought that isn't in some way already discussed by those two. Should then all philosopher in history not write anything because it was not really an original thought?

and all software dies

Can you elaborate?

What was that Warren Buffett's quote about everyone trying to leave the party seconds before midnight in a room where there are no clocks? I think it was at peak of the dot com bubble

Spotify killed the concept of downloading music, either legally or not.

When rewriting the entire codebase is very quick and cheap, why bother iterating on small components?

We are nowhere near this scenario tbh. Token cost is very high and is currently heavily subsidized by VC money to gain market share. Also this realistically only applies to small projects, small codebases and mostly greenfield ones. No way you can rewrite the whole codebase quickly and cheaply in any mid-sized+ projects

But even assuming token cost plummets, any non-trivial piece of software that is valuable enough to generate income for the company is also big, complex, interconnected enough that cannot be rewritten quickly even by AI, also for business reasons too. If a piece of code works, is stable and is tested, then rewriting it will always bring a high degree of risk and uncertainty that in a lot of business critical applications is just not worth it. A stable system can stay untouched for years besides minor dependencies updates.

Only small businesses and startups pay $200/month, most medium+ sized companies will have an enterprise plan and pay by token usage to access the security, privacy, and compliance guarantees that their legal and security teams require.

Also, I think the $200/mo plan is subsidized by VC money and is likely hemorrhaging money for Anthropic, so it's not really meaningful to reason around that.

I'm honestly confused by the design of SWE-bench and why is considered reliable.

It's based on existing GitHub PRs and Issues, the full dataset is on HuggingFace and is one year old now. All frontier models 100% have those issues and PRs in their training data so obviously they are good at reproducing fixes for them when confronted with the same codebase and similar requests. Am I missing something? How is this considered the most reliable benchmark?

I think they need to have the enterprise plan for accessing advanced security and data handling guarantees. Also they set up pretty strict controls on what tools the agents can use at the org level that we cannot override, not sure that's an option with the subscription plans.

I work at a unicorn in EU. Claude Code has been rolled out to all of engineering with strict cost control policies, even with these in place we burn through tens of thousands of euro per months that I think could translate in 15/20 hires easily. Are we more productive than adding people to the headcount? That's a good question that I cannot answer.

Some senior people that were in the AI pilot, have been using this for a while, and are very into it claimed that it can open PRs autonomously with minimum input or supervision (with a ton of MD files and skills in repos with clear architecture standards). I couldn't replicate this yet.

I'm objectively happy to have access to this tool, it feels like a cheat code sometimes. I can research things in the codebase so fast, or update tests and glue code so quickly that my life is objectively better. If the change is small or a simple bugfix it can truly do it autonomously quicker than me. It does make me lazier though, sometimes it's just easier to fire up claude than to focus and do it by myself.

I'm careful to not overuse it mostly to not reach the montlhy cap, so that I can "keep it" if something urgent or complex comes my way. Also I still like to do things by hand just because I still want to learn and maintain my skills. I feel that I'm not learning anything by using claude, that's a real thing.

In the end I feel it's a powerful tool that is here to stay and I would be upset if I wouldn't have access to it anymore, it's very good. I recently subscribed to it and use it on my free time just because it's a very fun technology to play with. But it's a tool. I'm paid because I take responsability that my work will be delivered on time, working, tested, with code on par with the org quality standards. If I do it by hand or with claude is irrelevant. If i can do it faster it will likely mean I will receive more work to do. Somebody still has to operate Claude and it's not going to be non-technical people for sure.

I genuinely think that if anyone still believes today that this technology is only hype or a slop machine, they are in denial or haven't tried to use a recent frontier model with the correct setup (mostly giving the agent a way to autonomously validate it's changes).

I like the idea of OpenClaw a lot, it's a technology that I would want in my life. But in it's current form it's kinda chilling and I cannot see it become safe to use anytime soon.

It seems to me many infosec best practices that have been built over decades have been forgot in the last few months like nothing happened. People really do give this kind of software full system access, plus access to their emails, their private chats, most likely their passwords too and who knows what else via plugins. I couldn't really imagine this happening one year ago.

I'm 100% confident that any state actor and cybercrime groups are currently heavily focusing their research on these tools. You compromise the right person and you can access all kind of critical information, it would basically be the same as having some remote control software on their system with full permissions.

And everyone on the hype train seems to be absolutely unaware of this. Maybe I'm missing something, but all of this feels so odd to me.

It's amusing to always have this US-centric view touted as some ultimate truth while lacking any nuance. I live in Germany and here there is absolutely an expectation of privacy in public spaces. The individual rights (privacy) are balanced with the collective rights (freedom of press) and both are allowed to exist, because based on the context of the situation one right can prevail on the other. To give you some simple examples: if I go to a public event, a political manifestation, then no: no expectation of privacy. But if I am walking around with my family in a park, yes there's absolute expectation of privacy even if I'm in a public space. Context matters and it's impossible to have just one broad and vague rule covering anything. Also keep in mind that a public figure automatically has lower expectations of privacy than a private citizen. While I can sue a paper for publishing a picture of me slacking at work, a public figure most likely cannot or would lose in court because the right of the people to get informed of his behavior is higher than his right for privacy. Who gets to decide? A healthy judiciary system, not "those in power".

Another interesting nuance of the law in Germany is: it's almost always illegal to take pictures or video of people that show their suffering or struggle. You cannot take a video of a man having a mental breakdown for example. Is this universal? No, of course a journalist will take a picture of a suffering man in the cold to send a message about inequality. If he ever will be sued it will be the judge to decide if in this specific instance the right of the individual or the right of the collective right should prevail.

If your relatives are significantly tech illiterate, I'd skip the smartphone entirely and go for a locked-down Linux desktop + feature phone. The most dangerous apps are big legitimate ones.

You know, they are adults and have free will and do want a smartphone like everyone else to use Whatsapp, read the news, search things on Google, etc.

Hell, my 95 year old grandma convinced a nurse to install TikTok on her phone because she saw her using it and also wanted to try it. It's not like we can isolate them from the world

We need laws and social norms where filming a stranger and uploading it online is considered a serious unacceptable offense regardless of the device. I find it absurd that today is completely acceptable to just film an unaware stranger and put the video online, especially since that the majority of the videos are about making fun of them or humiliate them.

Cameras in phones are pretty much locked up today, assuming you have an updated version of the OS from a respectable manufacturer. Apps will not be able to access the camera feed (or the microphone) without explicit consent and a visual warning.

The manufacturer might access it, Apple states they don't, Google and Samsung I'm not sure. A bad actor with 0days might too.

Giving an Android phone to elderly/non-technical people is asking for trouble imho. They will eventually tap their way into installing suspicious apps, adware or even straight up malware. It's inevitable, they are not aware of what they do and how to avoid the many risks of the digital world. I remember having the same struggles of OP when setting up a cheap android phone for my grandma, the amount of bloat, adware and misleading content I had to remove was incredible (and some couldn't even be removed). The irony was that after a few months of light usage, the phone was in a state even worse, full of downloaded apps and opened suspicious websites in the browser. She would swear she never even noticed any of those.

This is one of the cases in which giving them an iPhone with its walled garden has great benefits. You can also setup parental control on top of that already locked down ecosystem.

It's too much energy to keep up with things that become obsolete and get replaced in matters of weeks/months. My current plan is to ignore all of this new information for a while, then whenever the race ends and some winning new workflow/technology will actually become the norm I'll spend the time needed to learn it. Are we moving to some new paradigm same way we did when we invented compilers? Amazing, let me know when we are there and I'll adapt to it.

It's a collector's market, the value is in the demand and scarcity. Same as with all other collectibles like baseball cards and such. Or even wines, there are some that are so old they become undrinkable but cost like a car. In collectors market the price is detached from any kind of purpose of the item.

Also consider that most Magic cards are also valuable only because of their collector status. The valuable ones are mint first editions and nobody is buying them to play them.

So who fuels this collectors market? Nostalgic 30-something that have now disposable income and want to buy things they wanted as children. Same as with videogames collectors and such. You don't need an original copy of Supermario to play it, but people still spend thousands to buy it.

But they open up the gate for a single Big Tech Winner that truly knows everything about you, and can even control everything on your behalf.

Hasn't this gate been open since Chrome conquered the browser market years ago?

I think what we should really ask ourselves is: “Why do LLM experiences vary so much among developers?”

My hypothesis is that developers work on different things and while these models might work very well for some domains (react components?) they will fail quickly in others (embedded?). So one one side we have developers working on X (LLM good at it) claiming that it will revolutionize development forever and the other side we have developers working on Y (LLM bad at it) claiming that it's just a fad.

I believe what Wikipedia tries to do (simplifying here) is reporting the "opinion" of reputable sources which should have an informed view on the matter. If reputable sources believe it's a genocide, then they will report it, if not they will not. Calling these sources biased because they do not corroborate your view of the situation is your subjective opinion and doesn't mean they actually do have a bias. The whole point of considering them reputable sources is that they should be as unbiased as possible (even though 100% neutrality is impossible), if they had "significant bias" as you claim they would not be considered as reliable sources to begin with.

The only reason I can find for anyone to be bored by the inside is if they visited on a cloudy day. The way the light enters through the stained glass and colors the environment (and how the light changes during the day) is astonishing, never experienced something similar tbh.

Why should a phone sit flat on a table? What's the advantage of that?

I seriously don't understand this (common) complaint that I see. If anything a slight tilt makes the screen a bit more readable.