adwn

> there are exactly zero actual things with an infinite nature of any kind that I can think of

That's because your imagination is bounded by being a monkey that has spent its entire life in a finite environment — no offense. The universe, however, isn't bounded the limits of our imagination or intuition.

> The universe cannot be "infinite" in the mathematical sense

Why not? An infinitely large universe goes against our intuitions, but our intuitions were formed by the experience of living on a finite planet and have no bearing on what's true on a galactic scale – just like they have no bearing on what's true at the quantum scale. There is no objective reason to assume that the universe isn't infinite.

Let's hope this is how it will play out. I wish you the best of luck!

The last 3 years saw tons of "custom agent harnesses" come up, only for them to be superseded by the next generation of frontier models, which could do the same (and more) in their generic harness. So, what will you sell when Opus 6.0 swallows Mo's edge in 5 months from now? And probably cheaper, when using a Claude subscription instead of paying API prices.

Theoretically yes, but empirically that's not the case. All models I've tried are really good at finding bugs they wrote themselves, especially in a fresh context.

Do you mean "created" as in LLMs were used to discover existing vulnerabilities, or as in LLMs wrote unsecure code? If it's the latter, then the answer probably is "very few". Frontier models have been better than the average programmer at writing secure code that follows up-to-date best-practices for some time now.

I'm confused about what point you're trying to make. Are you saying that there is no discernable difference in challenge between different software projects – say, between a stereotypical todo app and a physics simulation engine? Or are you saying that most people falsely believe they're working on the latter while really doing the former? Or something else?

> Honestly I feel like most people going "oh but I can't do this without Claude" […] or else you won't be able to produce the best todo app.

I suspect that's because they're working on projects that are several orders of magnitude more complex and demanding than a "todo app".

If Anthropic makes money on each token, the market would/will care very much.

I meant "being wasteful with tokens", as in, Anthropic makes more profit when Claude Code sends many input tokens and requests many output tokens when billing the customer for the API cost.

That only applies to subscriptions. Enterprise customers pay API rates and therefore per-token. Being wasteful would directly increase Anthropic's profit, assuming they're not selling them at a loss.

> Why start a business in this sort of economic environment?

Why take on a job when you have to pay income tax? Because you'll still have much more left over than if you didn't. And this answers your question: because you'll still have much more left over than if you didn't start a business.

> They're talking about art

They are not. Quote: "The safest code is that which never runs. The most elegant feature is that which is not necessary."

> you're bringing it back to capital.

I am not. I'm talking about satisfying customer requirements, not about capital.

I think you've replied to the wrong comment. Either that, or your reading comprehension needs some work.

> But of first object is metal I’m fucked.

1 m/s is just 3.6 km/h, or slow walking speed. You'll be fine.

> All it's doing is allocating address space. And 64 bits means you have an astronomical amount of that.

No, you can typically only assume 48 bits of virtual address space; the kernel takes half of it, so really only 47 bits. Newer CPUs provide 57 bits (e.g., Zen 4) or 52 bits (certain ARM64 models). And that's provided that the kernel plays ball; apparently some Android configurations only support 39 bits of user virtual address space.

Please explain what you mean by that.

> The safest code is that which never runs. The most elegant feature is that which is not necessary.

Yes, but the most useless software is that which doesn't exist.

At some point, you actually do have to write some code and add some features, or else the most satisfied client is the one who hired your competitor.

> Buying a new piece of IKEA furniture? Check out a power drill for a couple days […]

You can buy battery-powered drills for 25 € or less on Amazon, they'll last for years of occasional use, and they're more than adequate for assembling furniture and other light tasks. If you can afford new furniture, there's really no excuse for not owning at least a cheap power drill.

Criticize the content, not the means of creation.

> one thinker and 5 minions

Your error lies in thinking Opus 5.5 is equivalent to a "minion". The "5 software developers" in my example were meant to stand in for "reasonably competent, above-average developers", and not that the architect is the only one on the team who can "think".

Of course, it may well be the case that you are working in an elite sector of the industry where even the bottom rungs are filled by the top 20% of software developers. Possible, but unlikely, so I'm still leaning towards "you're holding it wrong".

No, not "hand holding". If you insist on anthropomorphizing the AI, "guiding it on a high level" would be more fitting. In a team of 1 architect and 5 software developers, Opus 5.5 + Claude Code replaces the 5 developers, not the architect. You don't have to "hold its hand" anymore than you have to hold the hand of a competent software developer — though you will have to figure out a workflow that suits you personally, including configuring Claude Code to follow that workflow (through skills, for example) so you can work ergonomically with it.

No, article 20 of the German constitution forbids this, and article 79 forbids changing article 20 in the way you suggest.

Edit: There is a loophole, though. Article 146 allows the German people to replace the constitution in its entirety.

If you can't get Opus 5.5 to pass more than 80% of your test suite, then you're probably holding it wrong. Not "holding it wrong" as in Apple's "we designed a defective product and try to put the blame on you", but as in *"this is an incredibly sophisticated tool which takes skill and practice to use to its fullest extent".

LLMs, even in a good harness, are deceptively simple, but in reality rather complex tools. They're good at grasping intent, but they can't read your mind, they might not have access to the full context of your business, and they require learning how to use them properly.

> so far it's been programming and math, the two fields most people would naturally assume computers would be good at :P

If that is true, then only because "most people" have no understanding of what differentiates programming and math from "computation". Computers (as the term suggests) have always been extremely good at the latter, and useless at the former. It's only 2–3 years ago that computers, by way of LLMs, have started being good at the former.

> Given LLMs are generally good at basic maths, im surprised they get this wrong.

1. Modeling and analyzing spinning, three-dimensional objects goes far beyond "basic maths".

2. The prompt was for an SVG of a realistically impossible situation (pelican riding a bicycle), which together already implies a stylized depiction. Why on Earth would you expect it to generate a 3D model of a bike, do a physics simulation on it, iterate until it satisfies certain contraints which are only hinted at in the prompt, and then project it down to a simplified 2D cartoon drawing? That's not how LLMs work, and that's not how we want them to work.

Thank you for empirically testing the claim. So many people who really should know better, simply assume what AI can or can't do, write that down on HN, and then believe that their assumptions have been validated when they read similar claims from other people doing the same thing.

I was obviously talking about the Democrats' choice of candidate. If they hadn't tried to force-feed the worst two of the plausible candidates to the electorate, Trump wouldn't have stood a chance.

> But the opposition had NOTHING to do with Trump being chosen for POTUS. The Right had a perfectly decent choice […]

So did the Democrats. They clung to the worst possible choice, and in the last minute replaced him with the second-worst possible choice. Absolving them of fault and putting 100% of the blame on Trump voters is the fantasy of the Left.

Well, maybe, for certain programs, yes? Maybe I don't want a million SLOC behemoth with 1000 features that has a huge attack surface, when a slim 10k SLOC tool that does exactly what I need (and nothing more) will suffice? A tool that I can modify and extend on a whim? A tool that does one thing, and does it well — you know, the Unix philosophy?

Intuitively I'd say that just-for-fun AI projects emit orders of magnitude less CO2 than what just-for-fun road trips or air travel emit.

So unless you can show that it approaches all the other frivolous consumption that humans love to waste resources on, maybe we can get back to experimenting with cool technology and talking about it, on this website called "Hacker News"?