johnfn

4 ms·

31.
by johnfn 2mo ago
The response says "I also believe we can do better". How is that in any way "you're holding it wrong"?
32.
by johnfn 2mo ago
To be blunt the degree to which I take these projects seriously is basically the same as how extensive their eval suite is. A single guided refactor is better than nothing, but one success could just be a fluke. I want to see hundreds, if n
33.
by johnfn 2mo ago
Pangram said a bunch of reasonable things and responded very coherently to the point and you skipped over it and misinterpreted this one section.
34.
by johnfn 2mo ago
This issue is, like, exactly what the response from Pangram is talking about.
35.
by johnfn 2mo ago
How do you propose they check for something like this? They can't exactly ctrl-f the model weights for "Arc-AGI".
36.
by johnfn 2mo ago
This doesn't seem quite right. For one, I don't need all the intelligence of an expensive model like Opus 5 to do the relatively simple task of choosing a correct model for a task. Additionally, since this isn't something Ant
37.
by johnfn 2mo ago
Sure Claude would comply, but Anthropic has no financial (or other) incentive to optimize this, so there’s no reason to expect it to be particularly good. It would be like asking the clerk at a Whole Foods which grocery store in the city se
38.
by johnfn 2mo ago
I see a pretty big gap between finding software vulnerabilities and “the world is about to end”. It is literally true that AI models are finding software vulnerabilities. It is also to my mind a reasonable thing that you’d want to be cautio
39.
by johnfn 2mo ago
I think I agree with you, so maybe you meant to ask someone else? Or you’re just supporting my argument, in which case I appreciate it :-)
40.
by johnfn 2mo ago
This doesn’t seem obviously true, eg an Anthropic model will never route to Kimi even if it were best suited for a particular task.
41.
by johnfn 2mo ago
I think the burden of proof is on you to argue that Codeberg will stop at exactly two policies, given they haven’t said they will do that, but they have already banned things they don’t like. A slippery slope argument isn't a fallacy w
42.
by johnfn 3mo ago
> Non-math fields tend to reuse regular words as jargon Isn’t this the field with a “closed” “set”, an “open” “set”, oh and also a “clopen” “set” for some reason?
43.
by johnfn 3mo ago
Why would rewriting Claude code, an app which probably has 30-40 (I might be significantly underestimating) extremely active contributors be easier than rewriting Bun, which has fewer contributors and almost certainly also less lines of cod
44.
by johnfn 3mo ago
Pangram clearly says "Remember, our results aren’t based on this evidence." when you turn on supporting evidence.
45.
by johnfn 3mo ago
Sure and OpenAI articles aren’t negative because of Sam Altman, Anthropic articles aren’t negative because of Dario etc…
46.
by johnfn 3mo ago
The article does not engage with its subject matter with good-faith engagement and curiosity. "Always has been. Always will be." is, inherently, the author's lack of engagement with the subject matter. "They cannot see t
47.
by johnfn 3mo ago
Do you really think threads like [1], [2], [3] are pro-AI? I literally just selected three at random from today's feed. I think the only positive threads about AI here are typically new model releases. [1]: https://news.ycom
48.
by johnfn 3mo ago
Speaking personally I was not particularly moved by the article because I have seen the same thing, in different shapes, thousands of times on HN and elsewhere. Really, AI can't feel and therefore it is inferior? Never heard that one b
49.
by johnfn 3mo ago
I think of LLM tells like grammatical issues. If you read an essay full of grammatical mistakes you’d immediately start thinking less of the author, even if the essay isn’t about grammar. You wonder if someone who doesn’t pay close enough a
50.
by johnfn 3mo ago
I mean I think I agree with most of what you’re saying, I do agree it’s a bit of a forest grasslands scenario, but the key difference is that he said there’d be a forest at a time when you’d be hard pressed to find someone saying there woul
51.
by johnfn 3mo ago
Yudkowsky said AI would be a problem when very few people taken seriously in the mainstream were saying it was going to be a problem. Saying "specific predictions are wrong" is missing the forest for the trees here.
52.
by johnfn 3mo ago
I was responding to someone who said Yudkowsky was "consistently wrong with all their predictions". Yes, fair enough, Yudkowsky wasn't the literal first person ever to say that AI might be bad. The point was that the common a
53.
by johnfn 3mo ago
The discussion isn't about whether it's an "original or interesting thought", it's about whether Yudkowsky is "consistently wrong with all their predictions". You keep shifting the topic.
54.
by johnfn 3mo ago
We agree the guy roughly said AI will be dangerous. We agree AI is dangerous. Not sure what more there is to say here.
55.
by johnfn 3mo ago
You are saying 1) other people have said the same thing and 2) you don't like the particular way he said it. Those can both be true, but that isn't even close to "consistently wrong with all their predictions".
56.
by johnfn 3mo ago
The guy was saying that AI was going to be a serious problem decades before anyone else was even considering it as a remote possibility. How is that in any way "consistently wrong with all their predictions"?
57.
by johnfn 3mo ago
When your best counter-argument is “you donate money to charity” you have to start wondering if you’re on the bad side and not the good side.
58.
by johnfn 3mo ago
No one says "You are a bad employee" in a perf review because it would be a personal attack. They say things like "when you did X it had Y outcome" because that's a fact, not a personal attack.
59.
by johnfn 3mo ago
So much of the discourse around this on HN is nonsensical, and I fully agree with you. It's patently absurd that Anthropic would demand him to rewrite Bun into Rust; it's equally absurd that they would demand any sort of stunt at
60.
by johnfn 3mo ago
This is such a poor mischaracterization of OP that I actually started agreeing with OP more.

More ›