jsnell

5 ms·

61.
by jsnell 3mo ago
Thanks for making this, I've bookmarked the site. It really is very nice to get a trustworthy second opinion (Pangram is very well calibrated in my experience) easily when an article feels off.
62.
by jsnell 3mo ago
Dupe https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48698684
63.
by jsnell 3mo ago
This is clearly AI-generated writing, flagging.
64.
by jsnell 3mo ago
Nice! Have you considered doing a Show HN for that? That's valuable in at least three different ways: public education, showing that most of the articles are still human-written which can be easy to forget about sometimes, and as an ea
65.
by jsnell 3mo ago
It's nicely symmetrical, because conversely I prefer my LLM-generated code to have no dependencies.
66.
by jsnell 3mo ago
The tweet itself is AI-generated slop, flagging. If there's a discussion to be had, a primary source seems like a better link.
67.
by jsnell 3mo ago
This reads like AI-generated slop, flagging.
68.
by jsnell 3mo ago
The post I was replying to said "performs strictly better at the same cost per task". That claim was obviously not true, there are costs where Opus cannot do the task and Sonnet can, so Opus can't be performing strictly bette
69.
by jsnell 3mo ago
I really don't get what you're proposing. The cost ranges do not overlap at the low end. You can't (by definition!) interpolate outside of the range. If you mean extrapolate, at that point you're just making up data. The
70.
by jsnell 3mo ago
But they don't show "strictly better" performance at cost per task! The graphs show parts of the cost/performance pareto frontier occupied by Opus 4.8 and others occupied by Sonnet 5.0. If Opus 4.8 was strictly better at
71.
by jsnell 3mo ago
Gemini has had Pro and Flash since May 2024, across three major version nunmbers. The Opus and Sonnet naming is only two months older than that.
72.
by jsnell 3mo ago
I don't know if it's your intent, but that reads really condescending. It's obvious the author knows how to build packages from source. They're working professionally for a Linux distro on arch support! But that was seve
73.
by jsnell 3mo ago
But it is AI slop. It's obvious that the text is all AI-generated, there's half a dozen different tells that punch you in the face from the first paragraph and never stop. Humans just don't write like this. (And fwiw, Pangr
74.
by jsnell 3mo ago
... Because Meta have a contract with Google, are paying for the requests, and are supplying their API key with every request.
75.
by jsnell 3mo ago
No, but the GP wasn't satisfied with that, and had to put in a snide "even on inference" parenthetical. The leaks showed inference having positive margins. The Zitronites will say that the data is fraudulent, and OpenAI must
76.
by jsnell 3mo ago
> Ed’s leaks demonstrated that OAI doesn’t make money (even on inference). They did not.
77.
by jsnell 4mo ago
It's not an EU nation.
78.
by jsnell 4mo ago
Dupe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48553224
79.
by jsnell 4mo ago
https://www.theinformation.com/articles/amazons-jassy-raised... But the sourcing isn't any more detailed, just independent rather than just re-reporting the WSJ story.
80.
by jsnell 4mo ago
Is your objection specifically to the WSJ, or to the sources not being named in general? If the former, yes, the are other outlets reporting this with independent sourcing (e.g. The Information).
81.
by jsnell 4mo ago
When it is explicitly an appeal to authority, and the basis for the authority is incorrect? Feels like it matters. And presumably the GP thought that saying the maintainer had access to Mythos made it a more compelling argument. Otherwise w
82.
by jsnell 4mo ago
That blog post is very clear about the maintainer having no access to Mythos.
83.
by jsnell 4mo ago
Oh, if that was your objection, why did you identify the issue as "But it is not revenue for SpaceX, which is the error OP made"? > A quick peek at their S-1 filing shows a $5B annual loss last year. Unless SpaceX is selling co
84.
by jsnell 4mo ago
But the OP very clearly did not write anything of that sort. Their claim was: > This deal increases SpaceX's revenue by $11 billion per year. And that is pretty obviously correct. This deal is Google is buying a service from SpaceX
85.
by jsnell 4mo ago
https://www.eastoftheweb.com/short-stories/UBooks/TheyMade.s...
86.
by jsnell 4mo ago
But stock buybacks shouldn't be price-neutral by default? The entire point is to increase the unit price of the remaining shares. And in this specific case, selling shares to Berkshire at a 5% discount has a pretty clear signalling eff
87.
by jsnell 4mo ago
I'm a bit confused about what point you're trying to make. Because you seem to be saying that Anthropic not changing the price of Opus is bad, but then two of your positive examples are Gemini 3.5 Flash (which tripled the 3.1 Fla
88.
by jsnell 4mo ago
Dupe: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48230104
89.
by jsnell 5mo ago
We do have an idea, and it contradicts your guess: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48133806
90.
by jsnell 5mo ago
The HN guidelines explicitly ask you not to make these accusations. > Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents, and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you'

More ›