No one says "You are a bad employee" in a perf review because it would be a personal attack. They say things like "when you did X it had Y outcome" because that's a fact, not a personal attack.
So much of the discourse around this on HN is nonsensical, and I fully agree with you. It's patently absurd that Anthropic would demand him to rewrite Bun into Rust; it's equally absurd that they would demand any sort of stunt at all when Anthropic already pulled off the biggest stunt with Bun: running Claude Code on it. And why on earth would you cannibalize the runtime of your golden goose?
Tell me if I am oversimplifying, but I never understood the noise about the two sigma problem. Like, of course if you have a private tutor to immediately answer any question that pops into your head at the immediate moment you get confused, you are going to learn vastly more efficiently than in a large classroom where once you get confused you are likely to stay confused. To say nothing of how the pace will likely either drag way behind what you'd like, or accelerate too fast ahead of it.
The environment is just obviously two sigma better. This just... seems obvious to me? In the same way that I will get stronger much faster if I have a physical trainer to tell me exactly what I am doing wrong when I do it? And it seems obviously unsolvable other than by getting everyone a private tutor (or AI..?).
When you hear a woosh as the point flies by, I see someone attacking a project for using AI rather than any concrete technical reason. Jared's question is to disentangle an actual Rust-related bug report from someone who likes to complain about AI.
That also isn't saying "don't say this is an LLM". If the guidelines didn't want us to say someone is an LLM, it would explicitly say "don't say someone is an LLM". It wouldn't hint at it in an indirect way.
FWIW I do find it somewhat useful to have someone point out "this is an LLM" - I don't always have my AI detector on and I appreciate it when other people do. And when someone says particular text was LLM generated I need to go back and think about whether I believe it a bit harder.
The thing that annoys me most about this obviously AI-generated article is: "The quotes in orange boxes are real and checkable." No they aren't - you AI generated them, just like you generated the rest of the page.
To be blunt I can't take this product seriously when they don't even run benchmarks. Your prompts make Claude better? Cool: prove it. Methods to evaluate LLM performance exist, they're called evals/benchmarks, and every company that is serious about AI runs them when they release a new version. (Of course benchmarks have their own issues, but squabbling over which benchmark is best and what issues there are is step 2 in being a Serious AI Company and step 1 is running them at all!) The fact that the only proof they have that 6 is better than five is a hacky table in a screenshot from Fable is, honestly, concerning.
This entire thread has lost its collective mind. Tracking time zone has to be up there with IP address and referer in the list of "trivial things every company in the entire world collects about you", and these things are entirely trackable without your consent or even knowledge. You're gonna have to turn off the Internet.
> Why would they brag about something like this? It's like they know people want to use models to perform cybersecurity tasks yet knowingly deny them the ability.
What exactly do you want Anthropic to say here? "This model, the one we are about to give to the entire world for cheap, is really good at hacking"? Saying Sonnet is terrible at cybersecurity is the most reasonable thing they can say, out of a lot of bad options.
That's just one benchmark, though. Tab to the next one and Sonnet 5 performs better as effort goes up just as you'd expect. I imagine the suggestion is that performance vs effort tradeoff is task dependent.
It is better to live in the United States in poverty today than it is to live in virtually any nation at almost any point in history. The weathliest king in the 1500s didn't have access to vaccines, clean water, anesthesia... all things easy to find even in poverty today. Crime is lower, healthcare is better, nutrition is better, diseases are fewer and further between. Project that out and I would absolutely prefer to live in poverty in your "AI dystopia" than living like a normal person today.
Honestly your argument sounds detached from reality.