hbrn

7 ms·

1.
by hbrn 6d ago
I really don’t know what we’re arguing about here. You can google or ask your favorite LLM “who invented RLHF?”.
2.
by hbrn 7d ago
Writing a research about driving cars on a highway, doesn’t make you a “car inventor”, does it?
3.
by hbrn 7d ago
Same way as I did before. Are they interesting to talk to? Are they passionate, curious, authentic, opinionated? Do they have a product mindset? Do they need to be told what to do? Would you hang out with them after work? Can they explain t
4.
by hbrn 7d ago
His LinkedIn post says “At OpenAI, I co-invented ChatGPT and RLHF”. And while ChatGPT claim is a marketing stretch, RLHF one is a pure lie.
5.
by hbrn 7d ago
But is there any proof that Jev is frontier intelligence? It thinks there are two Rs in strawberry. It fails to assign probabilities to die roll outcomes or coin flips. When used as an LLM it thinks it is Qwen. Apparently reordering the lis
6.
by hbrn 7d ago
But didn’t you hear? > Jev is neither small nor an LLM
7.
by hbrn 6mo ago
>all you need to do to make an agentic RAG is to have the LLM be able to write/rewrite its own search queries (possibly in multiple passes) I think this is a huge oversimplification, the term "search query" is doing a lot
8.
by hbrn 6mo ago
While it's true that people are naturally predisposed to invent the "secret quantizing" conspiracy regardless of whether the actual conspiracy exists or not, I think there's more to the story. I've seen Sonnet consi
9.
by hbrn 6mo ago
> it's ridiculous to reserve the term "RAG" for just the earliest most basic implementation Whether we like it or not, dumb semantic search became the colloquial definition of RAG. And when you hear someone saying "we
10.
by hbrn 9mo ago
The furnaces I'm comparing are Claude Code vs hiring more engineers. Not Claude Code vs Codex vs Gemini. If $20/mo makes an engineer even 10% more productive, purchasing Claude Code is a no-brainer. Most engineers feel like Claude
11.
by hbrn 10mo ago
> What a weird blast furnace! Would anyone try to use this tool in such a scenario? Not most experienced metalworkers. Absolutely wrong. If this blast furnace would cost a fraction of other blast furnaces, and would allow you to produce
12.
by hbrn 1y ago
1. Humans are capable of writing good code. Most won't, but at least it's possible. If your company needs good code to survive, would you take 5% chance or 0% chance? 2. Even when humans write crappy code, they typically can mai
13.
by hbrn 1y ago
Funny, I've spoken about something like this to a colleague couple weeks ago. This could be a future of software development we're headed towards, if the DX is done right. There are definitely cases where the spec is much easier t
14.
by hbrn 1y ago
Third example was supposed to be Svelte. Vue also isn't too far: function increment() { count.value += 1 } In 2025, React state management is complete shitshow compared to Svelte and Vue. How in the world people are claimi
15.
by hbrn 1y ago
> React feels natural because it never asks you to stop writing JavaScript I want to increment some counter on the webpage. Which approach feels natural? increment = () => { this.setState((prevState) => ({ count: prevState.
16.
by hbrn 2y ago
Have you read the whole section? > Documentation for parameters and return values ([23]) > Let IDEs show what types a function expects and returns ([16]) > For example, one library might use string-based annotations to provide impr
17.
by hbrn 2y ago
I gave you a selection of top 50 startups out of thousands funded by YC. You're giving me one anecdote.
18.
by hbrn 2y ago
> It's just not as good Again, the evidence (as limited as it is) suggests otherwise. You are more likely to succeed if you're going with dynamic language and not doing "proper engineering". This has been widely accep
19.
by hbrn 2y ago
I would expect dynamic type crowd to embrace microservices first, given how everybody says that dynamic codebases are a huge mess. Regardless, to me enterprise represents legacy, bureaucracy, incidental complexity, heavy typing, stagnation.
20.
by hbrn 2y ago
Large programs are harder to maintain because people don't have the balls to break them into smaller ones with proper boundaries. They prefer incremental bandaids like type hints or unit tests that make it easier to deal with the big b
21.
by hbrn 2y ago
How come all those unicorns were built with intolerable Python/Ruby, not Java/C#/Go? https://charliereese.ca/y-combinator-top-50-software-startup...
22.
by hbrn 2y ago
> Most code with type hints is easier to read That has not been my experience in the past few years. I've always been a fan of type hints in Python: intention behind them was to contribute to readability and when developer had that
23.
by hbrn 2y ago
What's even worse, when typing is treated as an indisputable virtue (and not a tradeoff), pretty much every team starts sacrificing readability for the sake of typing. And lo and behold, they end up with _more_ design bugs. And the sad
24.
by hbrn 2y ago
> Writing software without types lets you go at full speed. Full speed towards the cliff. Isn't it strange that back when Python (or Ruby) didn't even have type hints (not type checkers, type hints!), it would easily outperform
25.
by hbrn 2y ago
Anecdotally, can confirm. And the trick of course is to first get the deal (which lasts for 1-2 weeks typically), and then add credits.
26.
by hbrn 2y ago
First of all, this is a really dumb point. If it is so easy to find good assets, why don't you buy those, take the loan against those like the reddit post suggests, then buy even more assets with those money, take another loan, and jus
27.
by hbrn 2y ago
This strategy is usually presented as a way for billionaires to avoid paying taxes on their wealth, but that's a blatant manipulation. The reality is that it allows you to introduce a bit of risk to potentially save taxes on day-to-da
28.
by hbrn 2y ago
AFAIK inflation is one of the reasons. If an asset was worth $50k in 1950, and is now worth $100k, it would feel really weird when capital gains tax is collected on an asset that actually lost more than 80% of it's value over the years
29.
by hbrn 3y ago
Apologies, but such mindset is the essence of the worst programming traits. > The code that is more easily unit testable, is the code I care about. Author argues that his code is more readable. Sounds like you're saying that being u
30.
by hbrn 3y ago
> What you're doing by breaking things into functions is trying to prevent it's eventual growth into a bug infested behemoth Not every piece of code grows into a bug-infested behemoth. A lot of code doesn't grow for years.

More ›