codexon

5 ms·

31.
by codexon 4mo ago
Why does it feel silly? There are already billionaires, and now Elon Musk is a trillionaire, and they still want more even though they have enough money to spend for several lifetimes. Some people always want more. And defending against oth
32.
by codexon 4mo ago
I've held this view and talked about it many times here before. It seems like an obvious conclusion to me that the end result will be a few AI owners trading among themselves should AI develop in what seems to be likely: recursive self
33.
by codexon 7mo ago
This is similar to what I experienced when I tested mimalloc many years ago. If it was faster, it wasn't faster by much, and had pretty bad worst cases.
34.
by codexon 7mo ago
Agreed mostly. Going from standard library to something like jemalloc or tcmalloc will give you around 5-10% wins which can be significant, but the difference between those generic allocators seem small. I just made a slab allocator recentl
35.
by codexon 7mo ago
> It was mainly pushed as easy to adopt, easy to use, easy to statically link, etc. That is true of basically every single malloc replacement out there, that is not a uniquely defining feature.
36.
by codexon 7mo ago
I've benchmarked them every few years, they never seem to differ by more than a few percent, and jemalloc seems to fragment and leak the least for processes running for months. Mimalloc made the claim that they were the fastest/be
37.
by codexon 7mo ago
It still beat mimalloc when I checked 4-5 years ago.
38.
by codexon 7mo ago
I've been using jemalloc for over 10 years and don't really see a need for it to be updated. It always holds up in benchmarks against any new flavor of the month malloc that comes out. Last time I checked mimalloc which was admitt
39.
by codexon 7mo ago
I'm not arguing about growth. I was addressing this statement which seems to presume that AI has no effect if the job can't be removed. > If AI can't do 100% of a job then you can't remove the job.
40.
by codexon 7mo ago
Claude code will prompt you and explain to you what practice fits a situation. It might not do it perfectly, but the foundations are there.
41.
by codexon 7mo ago
AI is already aware of the best practices. It does not just blindly do what you ask of it in the simplest way.
42.
by codexon 7mo ago
I'm not sure that's entirely true. For most things, checking if a solution is correct is much easier than implementing it (page looks wrong, can't login etc...)
43.
ChatGPT finds an error in Terence Tao's math research
42 points by codexon 7mo ago|8 comments
44.
by codexon 7mo ago
You can replace it with a much lower paid employee though.
45.
by codexon 8mo ago
I think some of it might be genuine. For people that don't code (like management), going from 0 to being able to create a landing page that looks like it came from a big corporation is a miracle. They are not able to comprehend that fo
46.
by codexon 8mo ago
Check the link to the study. It has been updated for Opus 4.5.
47.
Top AI models fail at >96% of tasks(zdnet.com)
24 points by codexon 8mo ago|10 comments
48.
by codexon 8mo ago
This paper creates a new benchmark comprised of real remote work tasks sourced from the remote working website Upwork. The best commercial LLMs like Opus, GPT, Gemini, and Grok were tested. Models released a few days ago, Opus 4.6 and GPT 5
49.
by codexon 8mo ago
https://arxiv.org/abs/2510.26787 Testing the top llms on wework, the highest performing one only succeeded with a rate of 2.5% Can you imagine not being fired when you can only do 2.5% of all tasks? This study is dated
50.
by codexon 8mo ago
You don't need to be a genius or rocket scientist to write code, but llm don't even reach the bar for anything but the most simple things. Take a look at the video I posted earlier for an example. And specialised models for progra
51.
by codexon 8mo ago
Top AI researchers like Yann LeCunn have said that LLMs are a dead end. It seems to me that LLM performance is plateuing and not improving exponentially anymore. This recent hubbub about rewriting a worse GCC for $20,000 is another example
52.
by codexon 8mo ago
Even for coding, it seems to still make A LOT of mistakes. https://youtu.be/8brENzmq1pE?t=1544 I feel like everyone is counting chickens before they hatch here with all the doomsday predictions and extrapolating LLM capabil
53.
by codexon 8mo ago
Didn't this paper demonstrate that you only need 1.58 bits to be equivalent to 16 bits in performance? https://arxiv.org/abs/2402.17764
54.
by codexon 9mo ago
Has anyone noticed a lot of polymarket posts on their X (formerly known as twitter) feed claiming to be making a fortune? It makes me feel like its some kind of coordinated guerilla marketing scheme.
55.
by codexon 9mo ago
Recent update proving my point https://www.notebookcheck.net/Steam-updates-AI-disclosure-fo...
56.
by codexon 9mo ago
That's not really the same as stores outright banning AI code. An apt analogy would be like a shared drawing taking merge requests and having to spend 30 minutes looking at every single merge request zoomed in to see if there was a mic
57.
by codexon 9mo ago
They are obviously different things, but aren't the people who spent thousands of hours honing their coding and releasing their code spending just as much time and effort if not more than the people who made non-ai images and music?
58.
by codexon 9mo ago
Yes and it was probably only done because of people complaining about AI art, not AI code.
59.
by codexon 9mo ago
AI music from suno sounds indistinguishable to non-ai generated music to me. In terms of how well it works, the quality of AI music is far better than art or code. In art there are noticeble glitches like multiple fingers. For code, it can
60.
by codexon 9mo ago
Sure, I am one of the people who will say that. But where are the people calling for it to be banned? Where are the stores and websites that are banning AI generated software?

More ›