ozozozd

8 ms·

151.
by ozozozd 6mo ago
They mention that as a mechanism for protecting the SSH keys for the repo. Essentially using a repo that doesn’t matter with the coding agent and then creating a cross-repo PR to the real repo.
152.
by ozozozd 6mo ago
Yeah someone should’ve told that to Donald (Knuth) /s For those who don’t know, Knuth implemented the typesetting system TeX just to make sure his book’s typesetting was correct. You can pretty much only innovate when you reject the bl
153.
by ozozozd 7mo ago
There was a moment we thought JS had won. And then crypto. I personally believed low-level development was done.
154.
by ozozozd 7mo ago
You may be a bit overconfident about how clear you will be with your comments. The “dipshit” doesn’t mess everything up for fun. They don’t understand the comments written by the previous “dipshit” and thus are unable to update the comments
155.
by ozozozd 7mo ago
Keep in mind that thoughts similar to yours produce the same output from an LLM. You may be thinking “my thoughts are original” and I would agree, but we won’t be able to see the original parts when it runs through an LLM.
156.
by ozozozd 7mo ago
Having to fix the LLM’s recommended solution is a good exercise though. It’s like being a smart-ass for the right reasons, without any social consequences.
157.
by ozozozd 7mo ago
I realized that running one’s own writing through an LLM reduces the amount of information in it. Sort of like washing the nutrients of a fruit. When we write about something, inevitably, things about us leak into our writing. How we think
158.
by ozozozd 7mo ago
We are way lower. At least this comment allows uncertainty. The AI doomer literature is entirely from an armchair, with 100% certainty about the outcome, high confidence predictions about its timing. It’s literally fiction.
159.
by ozozozd 7mo ago
I guess not many people know but app templates for Uber, AirBnb etc. have been around for years now. You don’t even have to prompt. It’s sitting on the shelf, complete. “Execution is hard” was never about the code part. Up until 2 years ago
160.
by ozozozd 7mo ago
Super cool! Love seeing IRC in the wild. Kudos and best of luck!
161.
by ozozozd 7mo ago
Agreed. The mind wonders: “we got near-infinite software generation capability, and we are still putting up with Statista paywalls?”
162.
by ozozozd 7mo ago
Kudos for this update. Write a detailed postmortem, share it publicly, continue taking responsibility, and you will come out of this having earned an immense amount respect.
163.
by ozozozd 7mo ago
Try the refactor again tomorrow. It might have gotten easier or more difficult.
164.
by ozozozd 7mo ago
Why not open source it? Pretty sure no one will try seriously unless it’s open source. And you won’t get the flex without showing off the source. Growing it as a business seems pretty hard and you kind of have a catch-22: non-developer audi
165.
Ask HN: Is this the new normal, a generational gap, or an AI psychosis epidemic?
2 points by ozozozd 7mo ago|4 comments
166.
by ozozozd 7mo ago
Username checks out?
167.
by ozozozd 7mo ago
Here is an easy example: Say you and I both wrote the same spec that under-specifies the same parts. But we both expect different behavior, and trust that LLM will make the _reasonable_ choices. Hint: “The choice that I would have made.” Bt
168.
by ozozozd 7mo ago
They are not called Context-Sensitive Large Language Models though. LLMs are very good at bash, which I’d argue doesn’t read like language or math.
169.
by ozozozd 7mo ago
It is indeed of type boolean.
170.
by ozozozd 7mo ago
You are not wrong. But, they are not wrong either. I feel like if you’re designing a language, the activity of producing the spec, which involves the grammar etc., would allow you to design unencumbered by whether your design is easy to imp
171.
by ozozozd 7mo ago
Such amazing writing. And clear articulation of what I’ve been struggling to put into words - almost having to endure a mental mute state. I keep thinking it’s obvious, but it’s not, and this article explains it very elegantly. I also enjoy
172.
by ozozozd 7mo ago
You’re right. But it appears they may have failed with 2) and 3) because I frequently see Grok spit out content that doesn’t agree with the creators’ narrative.
173.
by ozozozd 7mo ago
Also, employing “infinite intelligence” by splitting it into “workers” and organizing them into firms cannot be farther than a paradigm change. It’s strictly an attempt to shoehorn the new tech into an existing paradigm, just because right
174.
by ozozozd 7mo ago
I don’t follow what problems it solves. Can you elaborate please?
175.
by ozozozd 7mo ago
Exactly. It’s also easy to find yourself in the out-of-distribution territory. Just ask for some tree-sitter queries and watch Gemini 3, Opus 4.5 and GLM 5 hallucinate new directives.
176.
by ozozozd 8mo ago
Sure they do. They put it in the prompt to watch out. That should do it. No? /s
177.
by ozozozd 8mo ago
So obvious no one read before commenting. > According to a records request obtained by IFP, O'Brien said at least 315 of the 1,300 H-1B petitions approved between 2017 and 2022 were for physicians, PhD scientists or STEM faculty. Ye
178.
by ozozozd 8mo ago
It sure reduced salaries for tech workers where most H1Bs went to work, didn’t it? Are you arguing we didn’t bring enough H1Bs? Are we holding it wrong?
179.
by ozozozd 8mo ago
Millions? Look up how many H1Bs are issued every year. Hint: it’s low 6 figures, some years falling to 5 figures.
180.
by ozozozd 8mo ago
This is interesting and I would appreciate if you could elaborate with a few examples, and perhaps mention what inspired this, and/or what’s similar and/or analogous to your method.

More ›