Although I need to preface this by saying that the Trump administration is one of the stupidest and pettiest in history, the Nobel peace price lost all credibility after it was awarded to Barack Obama for no reason. It seems to be a mechanism for trumpeting the political views of those on the committee.
Trump is upset about not getting the peace price Obama got, and the latest winner of the peace price was an ICC judge.
He was already upset about the ICC existing after the ICC tried to hold Israel accountable for its war crimes, but the timing makes it obvious that is just the president of the United States of America is being petty here.
Bush nomination? You know there are hundreds of people that can nominate whoever they want? A nomination means nothing, they aren't coming from the Nobel committee.
Code means a bit of mental engagement, more than yaml, json etc. You either review that or not review that, but it's an addition. While I am not touching anything made by docker-the-bloater anytime soon, I could think that at least.
As a point of reference, I tried an experiment with Claude Code and the latest Opus the other day. It was work for my company, so this was using API tokens and not the individual user plans that have non-commercial terms.
A simple task, migrating a typical password reset flow as part of updating a long-lived web application from legacy libraries and software architecture to modern equivalents, apparently cost roughly the same as 2 months of Pro subscription, over the equivalent of about half a working day in wall time.
It produced code of decent quality at a small scale, but it wasn’t always on point architecturally. It also had a tendency to drift off topic and try to tangle up other changes it decided should be made with the main change we were supposed to be working towards. So even for a routine task, based on a plan developed using the harness first and with the agents working under close supervision, a near-SOTA model is still producing quality on par with a decent mid-level developer but substandard for anyone senior+ in this case.
Moreover, based on a direct comparison with other migration tasks of similar complexity that I’d already done by hand, it was actually a bit slower overall to work this way. I had to babysit Claude throughout and review everything it proposed carefully, both to avoid subtle errors (it would have made several) and to prevent drifting off track. I also had to spend a significant amount of time cleaning up its final output to an acceptable standard after the session. Those two overheads more than cancelled out the much faster code generation an LLM offers under favourable conditions.
So for now, I remain sceptical about these high multiples of improved productivity that I keep seeing claimed online from people who are apparently writing almost everything using AIs now. I could certainly have achieved a multiple of my normal productivity by YOLOing everything without reviewing it in detail and then accepting the output code without tidying anything up. However, I doubt this codebase would still have been good enough for normal human developers to work on it reasonably after even 10 or 20 AI-led sessions like that. The architecture would have degraded significantly and the test suite would have been large and largely pointless. And again, this wasn’t rocket science in this experiment, it was completely unremarkable maintenance of a relatively small and simple web application.
Definitely, according to my omp stats I spent the equivalent of $650 opus 5.5 tokens at api price, this model isn't even a month old, I'm exclusively using the $20 plan and I'm not a power user at all: no backround loop, no automated anything, just using it for development and I stay in the loop the whole time
Yes. Hundreds of dollars per day is easy to burn with Opus if you pay the API rates.
And now if you get the task done faster with the same quality. And the cost is 80 cents, considering DeepSeek and your own server starts to starts to be relevant...
I use Opus 5.5 heavily but only spend around $800/week at API rates. I mean, I say "only"... That's a lot in absolute terms, but trivial compared to my salary and EASY worth it.
And someday I hope to understand why they do that. CEO: "Let's see, I can pay $200/month for Bob's tokens, or I can pay $2000/month or so, and then hope he doesn't screw up and rack up a seven-figure bill. The service is the same either way. Hmm."
Is there something in the ToS that says you can't give each of your employees a personal $200/mo subscription... and if they happen to use it at work, well, that's their business?
Even if so, it might be worth spinning up a separate LLC for each division, given what they are charging for the API.
> The kind of bad emulator that requires game-specific patches instead of getting the emulation correct to begin with, and is embedding the emulator into a binary together with the game. Absolute slop.
There's kind of a bitter lesson variant with AI coding where the work to make a simple, consistent, flexible, DRY platform or library isn't really worth it when anyone can press a button and get a variant customized to their needs in minutes.
People playing the game don't care about the elegance of the emulator, and if there is a bug in the slop, they can just have their AI fix it immediately and keep playing.
Or they can just save their time/money, use a human-crafted emulator, and not deal with their game crashing constantly and all manner of stupid bugs. It is genuinely insane that you believe your average joe video game player would rather spend $100~200 on a subscription, prompt for an emulator, then prompt it over and over to fix showstopping bugs rather than playing something that works for free, and yet that is what you are supposing when you suggest they "don't care" about the "elegance" of the emulator.
You would at least have a point if people were slopping out emulators for things that didn't exist but, surprise surprise, we still don't have a Switch 2 emulator. Almost like this entire notion is a complete fraud and all it can do is regurgitate existing code poorly.
At first, the handmade emulators were just as buggy and crashed all the time. That’s just normal during development. With AI tools, however, you now have the advantage of being able to theoretically create a comprehensive testing environment where, eventually, an LLM will play the games on its own and fix any bugs it finds, so that the user ends up with a nearly perfect emulator.
The Switch 2 is a completely different story than other consoles. To create an emulator for it, you'd have to be able to reverse-engineer the Switch 2, and that won't be possible until there's a jailbreak.
Good news here, someone claims to have found a userland exploit in at least one game and dumped the game via HDMI capture of visual encoded data. They might be full of it, or we might have a path for Switch2 ROMs.
I say that as a Switch 2 owner with a pretty extensive Nintendo library. I dont actually have any interest in using Switch 2 ROMs this decade, but maybe next.
I certainly do. I'm paying 300, 400% more for my PC/server parts and HN has been ruined because of fraudsters selling a con, among many other undesirable side effects. People like yourself selling incoherent hype like "people will just prompt an emulator for themselves" are part of the problem. It would be weird if I didn't have an axe to grind with hucksters doing their best to ruin things for everyone else.
There have been A LOT of buggy game ports released and immediately abandoned. It's all well and good until you want to actually experience the game as intended. Running into a huge issue that will never be fixed several hours in radicalizes folks pretty quickly.
Unfortunately, all of these slop-ports will wow and amaze people that have zero intent of actually playing the game. They're the software equivalent of clickbait.
3rd year undergrad at Georgia Tech is going to make $500k starting salary at OpenAI if he just vibe codes a couple apps for his LinkedIn, but has foregone this for philosophical/emotional reasons
In all fairness I think this was hyperbole. Those roles are hard for anyone from any school to get, and they seemed biased against hiring newgrads anyway.
Ya as much as i appreciate the real writing from a young person, unless they have connections they are likely all in for rude awakenings once they are searching for a real job. knowing how to reverse a linked list wont save anyone from the current state of the job market for juniors.
Transformers output a set of probabilities over outputs. For ChatGPT etc, those are predictions of what the next token will be. But it can also be a structured list of options or classes. Jev mostly innovated on the interface, API, and product concept around this, and made it click for a large number of people. Unfortunately for Jev, it's very easy to copy an API, and any pretrained LLM can be adapted to work in this way.
I think Jev also innovated on data & algorithms, but it remains to be seen if it's enough to be meaningfully better than traditional LLMs + a few tweaks.
> Google, Microsoft, or Amazon are more likely to be the AI leaders than OpenAI or Anthropic.
If not now, then when will these companies be AI leaders?
Even Google, with its staggering advantages in cash, compute, real estate, training data, and having basically invented the field only manages to briefly claim a 1-2 week lead once or twice a year.
The financials for Anthropic and OpenAI are likely borderline suicidal, google and co are publicly traded. Moreover, all innovations downstream to them dont they? Why not just stay slightly behind, especially given many have stake in those other companies?
The Bitter Lesson is significantly more interesting than watching researcher companies cosplay at ...whatever you call what they're claiming to be doing.
reply