I agree with what you're saying that it's not exactly what we're seeing which makes it not as simple.
However, I've seen this play out in many a big companies where there's a big mess going on. Answer is always similar pointing to -> "clearly it's not simple" and that's kind of the whole point. They made it not simple. 3k ENGINEERS, my sweet dude. THREE THOUSAND. By any and all account that's half as much as current chrome team or in total if you account for open source contributors as well. If robot is to believed that's also a headcount of windows and macos core teams. What is even going on, I don't even..
Taxes, compliance, regulatory bodies, logistics multiplied by X countries X products has an amazing way to bog you down. If you have money and problems money solves (eg you could hire more people to do something) you do not have a problem (except for people on the internet making arguments from personal inexperience)
I get that, I truly do since I see it all and every day. We're talking engineering hands here though. Presumably programmers and infrastructure and SRE.
> If you have money and problems money solves (eg you could hire more people to do something) you do not have a problem
If you have money there's a greater chance that someone in that X by X matrix might see you as a juicy target to go after so your expensive handling of every item in that matrix needed to be better still.
$42k and a toy CPU at that. Threadripper or EPIC if it must be AMD camp, although I'd rather it weren't (_always_ some random issues on linux). TBH, if I were buying workstation at such prices, I'd probably first take a look at what HP has (since their cooling and immunity to dust is unprecedented), and then probably BOXX and Puget. For DIY there's always supermicro at such levels.
I kind of thought the same and then I invested a bit of money into seeing(!) an ophthalmologist. If it's correctable, do it. Better investment than a damn phone. Now I can go back to asking for a smaller phone.
If all this is true, I'd also like to see some serious jail time for those guys that thought this was a good idea. Losing market share should be least of their worries.
Couldn't have said it better myself. Issue at hand is if you're working in an environment that enables such people and even encourages that behaviour. Suddenly, their voice is the same where it was never even a whisper before, and you can't do anything about it. It is extremely demotivating and I would actually propose a more radical approach to it - either embrace the shit in full and commit to it as well or really do engage into another company where there's a better filter for hiring. The latter are usually smaller companies because they can't afford no to.
I actually quit bigger companies and SV contracts because the amount of hype was way overblown. Nothing could not be AI, really. Think about how crazy it is that Jensen Huang is saying "AGI is here", seriously. I first thought malice, now I think it's just plain religious Zeal.
We're not a company, it's just me and my pal. I keep 50% of the product and profits and he pays me to do that (because I have way more expertise than him)
curious question where you work, the AI craze is not happening?
curious question where you work, the AI craze is not happening?
of course it is. There's no escape IMO unless, as you've said, go solo or with a small team. I just don't know of any company of a notable size that's not into it full force. It's both disgusting and amazing to look at really. Give it a few years and if it fizzles out I'm curious what will happen. If it turns great, I'm even more curious what will happen. Weird times.
Just "yesterday" we were all careful what and how we do stuff, you have now people who barely understand things slopping together OS and people use it blindly (Omarchy), and then shocked pikachu faces when giant gaping holes are noticed in it.. and people still do not care. Amazing trainwreck of a timeline, hah.
I'm seriously considering pivoting myself to security.
IF ANYTHING, OpenAI ought to investigate and officially react to this particular communique since this dude was communicating on their behalf. If there are supporting evidence, I would expect nothing less than a firing and an apology. The issue itself is separate from the whole thing.
Dark take, but I really hope not. If anything it would be a good opportunity to buy some goodwill by washing themselves from all the alleged shadiness so far.
This is OpenAI though. There were zero visible consequences to them unleashing a swarm of agents on the public internet. We will see how it goes down but my prior is zero consequence and a statement along the lines of "Isn't our AI great? Also we love transparency, ethics and collaboration."
I asked Astra to try and fix an issue in my codebase I've been battling for a month. Day and half later on high and it's still circling the drain. Seems like with each new model we praise it based on toys, but then reality hits the ground soon and we wait for the next model. In the meantime, good ol' brain.
Have you tried turning it on and off? More seriously try to remove agent memory or make it refactor it or go through the docs and look for inconsistencies.
But I still don't know how people work with codex when it keeps resetting the context so often, I mean it's surprisingly good at making notes to itself and can follow a long task, but if there are multiple instructions it sometimes forgets some of them.
26% weekly limit left, 21+ hours strong and still going. I can see the progress though, but I am not confident it will finish before weekly limit is done for (ChatGPT Pro 20x subscription). Since I don't really use LLMs for anything else, except pestering gemini for stupid questions instead of straight up googling it, that's ok. I just wish it would either finish or let me hand it over to it once again whence limit resets.
I’m just trying to understand, there’s an issue you’ve been unable to deal with for a month, and Astra not being able to handle it in 36 hours is disqualifying?
Long time ago I had one particular hardware issue, which Opus 4.6 found a workaround to fix. I don't remember the workaround and being careless (I thought I could ask an LLM again if I needed) I lost that solution. Some time passed and I needed it again - neither one of the newer models is able to come up with a nice solution I had back then. They can solve the issue and find a different workaround eventually, but not as nice. On a side note, I could use 4.6 again of course and try to reproduce it, somehow I only thought about it now writing this comment.
Anyway, my point is that I think these frontier companies are advertising their one-shot model abilities, but underneath the models aren't getting so much better as they try to make you believe.
On and off for a month, not straight month and not dedicated time. I am quite confident I will be able to solve it within a week or two of dedicated time. Here, on the other hand, we have this supposedly powerful thing that can do magic, unlike myself. We'll see. I'm not even confident, by looking at what it does, that it will even be able to solve it. Only thing I saw that I like is it's better in communication style compared to Fable and Opus.
Yeah absolutely. I've been working on my rendering engine on and off for the past 20 odd years. It has been used in commercially in my gigs. However, it's what's considered an offline renderer (like 30+ minutes to render a frame). Last few years, on and off again, I've been slowly working towards a limited in scope realtime version of it. One of the components I've managed to kind of bring almost to the finish line is for it to work with a limited VRAM budget and streaming geometry, where camera has a (I'm simplifying here) bubble around you (around, not a frustum in-front because I need semi global visibility since I'm doing realtime raytracing). This bubble as it moves dictates what geometry and resources are loaded, sometimes even ahead of time because I also do a form of motion prediction. Far out things, outside of the bubble, and things on the border of the bubble go through a coarse to fine representation. That way I can render distant stuff which I don't need much detail for it. This part is a bit buggy, to say the least, but also viably measurable so it's a prime candidate for an LLM to loop/goal over it. Or at least I though so. With max I can see now the progress, but with max I'm now 21+ hours into it and not a clear solution ahead yet. I think I'm running out of weekly quota on ChatGPT Pro 20x for this. I actually bought subscription exactly to drive this home since I don't use LLMs much anymore except gemini in lieu of googling.
I haven't told it how to do stuff, but what I want to do and it picked up my tests to see if it's making progress and I can see it's tuning the movement prediction and caching logic and it fixed few minor bugs. So, it seems to be doing the right approach.. it just takes an awful lot of time. Question is if it's a viable approach even though, but it didn't flag it as wrong. It actually agreed with me and unlike Claude I haven't gotten the impression it's much of a yesman.
Interesting, that was a bit hard to follow because of my own lack of ‘context’ :). But it sounds tough. I imagine since rendering has a visual component that adds to the difficulty for LLM. Though you said it’s measurable, is the measurableness visual? And it sounds like you just sent it off with no direction; but good prompting and direction can go a long way. Is the architecture and design and constraints well documented in the codebase?
It's both measurable 'headless' and visually. When I said no direction I mean that I didn't want to give it direction _how_ to do it but more what I want to do and how what I use to measure. Usually I found better results with LLMs by giving them the tools and describe the objective and let it figure it out rather than box it in completely. It did well on it, it's just.. well, it's taking its sweet-ass time :)
I'm more interested in why was it centralized (there) in the first place? So it's easier to trade where when you make a sell/buy IOU is exchanged and a sticker on the bar is put or a bar changes pallet? I'd kind of understand that except these are central banks - how often do they even trade gold? Since we're in 2026, I actually googled that last question and it turns out central banks trade or adjust their gold reserve on a monthly basis. Somehow the thought of that seemed to me as too much of a high frequency trading for a central bank :)
reply