jadar

3 ms·

1.
by jadar 5d ago
I imagine this is worst at "AI native" companies that started and never had a basis of understanding in their code bases. I suspect that over time, any basis we had will erode more and more. I already feel that in my code base. I
2.
by jadar 8d ago
I can’t read this. I tend to still think that things are human written, but it feels like everything is too long these days. I find myself skimming everything. It’s the lemon problem but for literature.
3.
by jadar 8d ago
I don't think that's quite the problem the OP is pointing out. A corollary of "meat proxy" is "cognitive surrender." [1] In both cases, blindly pasting AI output and being an "Enter key presser", you
4.
by jadar 8d ago
I think this is the dissonance that has been making me feel insecure / depressed around the state of AI coding. On the one hand I am way more productive. But on the other hand it is almost requiring more of my brain than before, becaus
5.
by jadar 9d ago
Perhaps Google would be bigger? They don't even have desktop app offerings and the consumer versions are subsidized with your advertising data. They certainly weren't the first to introduce the pattern. I feel like Adobe was one o
6.
by jadar 9d ago
First, doesn't Microsoft give away M365 for free to educational institutions? (Perhaps that's only US institutions, though.) Second, isn't this how they bill their accounts — Business Basic doesn't get desktop apps and y
7.
by jadar 10d ago
I haven't pushed an update since June, but this has not been my recent experience...
8.
by jadar 14d ago
Guessing this is poking fun of Dario. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49672510
9.
by jadar 16d ago
I forsook RN years ago. I am not a huge fan of the JavaScript ecosystem in the first place, and the UX of RN apps is not the best. Instead, I adopted Kotlin Multiplatform (shortly after their memory management overhaul). I haven't been
10.
by jadar 17d ago
This is so good at replicating the experience of frustration, then relief when it finally does what you asked it to do in the first place!
11.
by jadar 23d ago
I did this as well. I found that it was really inefficient because if I was doing anything with a significant amount of text, it has to shuttle all of that through the model to the MCP invocation. It was way better to work with temporary fi
12.
by jadar 23d ago
This seems like a very reasonable and thoughtful response. You have plenty of password manager options if it bothers you.
13.
by jadar 24d ago
The author says it's about 700k LoC that he's worked on for 20 years.[1] I don't know how many tokens that arrives at, but that seems non-trivial. [1] https://simonwillison.net/2026/Sep/2/rick-b
14.
by jadar 27d ago
This. It’s easy to let happen too. If you’re on a machine that’s not behind NAT then it’s really easy to pwn yourself.
15.
by jadar 27d ago
Couldn’t you say that about any Arch spinoff? Seems to be the no true scotsman fallacy.
16.
by jadar 27d ago
It depends on what distinction you’re making… If you are asking concerning security, the answer is that it’s an insecure default that should have protected an unwitting user. If you are asking concerning consistency with real world situatio
17.
by jadar 1mo ago
Hold on, these say no deal has been reached yet.
18.
by jadar 1mo ago
I get it the sentiment behind the post…but it has some “let them eat cake” vibes though.
19.
by jadar 1mo ago
That works for a couple turns but the model reverts after just a couple turns. Not to mention after compaction.
20.
by jadar 1mo ago
Cue the N.I.C.E comparisons.
21.
by jadar 2mo ago
I appreciate that the OP puts his finger on the problem. I think he's right. I wish there was more optimism or ideas about how to solve it, though. How do I fight against it as an engineer? Or, how do I become a "good" engine
22.
by jadar 2mo ago
Yet we have the option to decide not to participate. That is an option.
23.
by jadar 2mo ago
You're right. But I used it specifically because of the open letter calling for open models — or at least for not banning them — which went around recently and represented a very large number of tech and AI companies. Anthropic seemed
24.
by jadar 2mo ago
Isn't this the opposite of what everyone is saying should happen? That is, lead with open models -- or at least "openness" and don't leave the capabilities in the hands of an elite few? Did they learn nothing from the Hu
25.
by jadar 2mo ago
That's some form of success.
26.
by jadar 2mo ago
I stopped at "f*ck*ss". Irreverent drivel is unserious and a waste of time.
27.
by jadar 2mo ago
A compiler is not an LLM, and I do not want to equivocate, but there are aspects of similarity. We do not assume people read the bytes of machine code to ensure it’s correct — there could be mistakes. We also write and run automated tests t
28.
by jadar 2mo ago
Do you have some browser extension that replaces phrases with that? That quote doesn't exist in the piece.
29.
by jadar 2mo ago
This reads almost dishonestly. > Anthropic has never advocated for a ban on open-weights models. This is not an unqualified never. The very next sentence makes a qualified statement: "Open-weights models that don’t have dangerous ca
30.
by jadar 2mo ago
Self-hosting a language used to be standard practice. These days that's become a bit more controversial, but I definitely wouldn't lump that in as a sign of obsession.

More ›