Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | lnkl's commentslogin

Seems like this link is for you.


"Let me share my slightly unusual definition of “effort”: it’s the felt experience of expending energy beyond what an activity requires, like tensing your brow when you try to understand something, or the excess tension in your hand when you hold your phone...Using this definition, it’s clear that the appropriate amount of effort for any activity is zero."


Were they also open source?


No. The original UNIX utilities were under proprietary licenses for an extremely long time, before eventually they broke free under BSD. The BSD tools are descendants of the originals and are also the versions used by macOS.

BSD wasn’t under an open license when GNU got started, so GNU reimplemented the proprietary UNIX utilities with their own enhancements and their own GPL license.

As such, complaining about the license is rich, considering GNU basically stole it themselves from the first round. And to this day, HN complaining about macOS’s utilities is also rich considering they are actually more standard and authentically UNIX than GNU.



That is because Apple took entire FreeBSD 'userspace' as part of Mac OS X.


Legally, no, but plenty of people had copies of the source.


Their point was creating the 1st open source version was a good reason not to use the original license I thought.


>Article praising LLMs.

>Look inside.

>Written by someone having a stake in LLM business.

Every time.


right yea,

Whens the last time you saw management tell you which compiler or toolchain you need to use to build your code ? But now we have CEOs and management dictating how coding should be done.

In the article the author admits: "I started coding again last year. But I hadn't written production code since 2012" and then goes on to say: "While established developers debate whether AI will replace them, these kids are shipping.".

Then I ask myself, what are they selling ? and lo and behold, it is AI/ML consulting.


Every praise of LLM is invariably preceded by some form of "I don't really understand their output but it looks great". That right there is the strongest signal I've caught so far that the whole thing is just a funny money pyramid.

In Sirens of Titan Vonnegut tells a story where governments decided to boost the space industry to drive aggregate demand.

This is exactly what is happening. When you realize that the whole thing is predicated on building and selling more $100,000 GPUs (and the solution to every problem therein is to use even more GPUs), everything really comes into focus.


Well, I don't really understand the detailed content of executables compiled by GCC/LLVM either, but I am not going to go back to writing assembly language. Having said that, I am old enough to remember worrying about compiler bugs, just like today I worry about LLM hallucinated vibe code. The hope is that we'll figure out how to make it more reliable---and I believe there seems to be a clear path forward.


Alternatively, would someone not having a stake in LLM business have an incentive to disparage LLMs?


Lol that makes zero sense - not having a stake in something is literally the definition of not having an incentive.


Not having a stake in something currently rocketing up in value is certainly a cause for FOMO and / or incentive to disparage it.


Lots of people have a stake in disparaging AI. That's why there are so many low quality anti-LLM comments on HN lately


Would you rather read an article praising LLMs written by someone having a stake in chilli peppers business?

Asking for a friend.


Hey, at least this one is willing to admit that they aren't building Machine Jesus. That's a start.


"I come to bury Caesar, not to praise him..."

A rhetorical technique as old as dirt, but apparently still effective.


"Now let it work. Mischief, thou art afoot, take thou what course thou wilt!"

But seriously, it isn't on me to justify my skepticism of the extreme claim, "We are in a race to build machine super-intelligence" because that skepticism is the rational default. Instead it's the burden of people who claim that we are in fact in that race, just like "self driving next year" was a claim for others to prove, just like "Crypto is the future of money" is a statement requiring a high degree of support.

We've seen this all before, and in the end the argument in favor seems to boil down to, "Look at how much money we're moving around with this hype" and "Trust us, the best is yet to come."

Maybe this time it will.


Just to clarify, I meant the rhetorical technique was being employed by the author of the article. He's downplaying the "AGI race" in order to normalize and validate the byproduct of the hype bubble to be as "normal and reliable as electricity and TCP/IP". It's clearly meant to attempt to disarm and appeal to skeptics, but there is more than enough dog whistling and performative contradiction in there to make it clear the true intention of the article -- praising Caesar.

For the record, I would be more inclined to be sympathetic towards the author if any receipts (i.e., repos) were produced at all, but as you so correctly stated, extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

I agree you do not have burden of defending the author's claims, apologies if that was not clear.


Nothing, really


How is this a header-only? It contains non-static, non-inline functions in the .h file...


C3 has operator overloading.


I was talking about function overloading. Sorry for being unclear.


Would you consider Chicago95 a good theme? https://github.com/grassmunk/Chicago95


Super interesting stuff, hopefuly it will get implemented soon.


Seems its "not politics" when the topic is inconvenient.


true ... afaiac it should be auto-flagged always. politics and also other stuff that belongs on reddit. i do like reddit, but i do like also that hn isn't like reddit. at least not yet. but it seems headed there.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: