tikimcfee

"Not the best at communication" is an entirely generous way of putting it. This is not a one-off mentality or an "oopsie". This is someone who believes themselves over-sovereign, singularly capable, and further that they alone have a true vision.

These are people you do not give time, attention, or money.

Yep, same. Done.

Holy shit.

> “That’s bullshit and loser thinking. Of course it’s possible to be fast and secure,” Yen wrote in the channel at the end of August. “Stop thinking always of how to be slower, and focus more on how to be faster.” Yen added, “stop lovingly handcrafting all our code and use AI more.”

This is the leader behind Proton? I think I need to be more on social media and pay attention to this. This single sentence, if true, has now made me decide to never pay Proton again. That's it. Done. I had email services, VPN, and was considering storage too. Nope.

I am so sick an tired of AIBrained CEO's. All this does is validate how much these people do not need to exist. They just don't. Their thinking is useless. Their in-grouping and in-breeding of mentality is psychosis at large. And now that feel, once again, they can take their masks off, it's time to start looking them in the face and saying, "No."

Clearly not the case if N > 0 people in this comment section have connected it to reality in their own form and to other sources.

I think you are internally convinced that it has nothing to say because you do not want it to have anything to say.

Perhaps you would find some growth in expanding what you consider worthy of your time, and sharpening what you consider "stream of consciousness blathering."

It's a letter. Letters are streams of consciousness. There's nothing here that's blathering.

... then I will be blunt, and this is coming from a completely random Internet person that you have no idea about anything whatsoever, but I absolutely think you need to do a much deeper dive on what you would call "a colonial parody of what tribespeople supposedly believe".

I do not believe you have actually sat with what it is saying, or with the concepts that have been talked about for many many years outside of this particular letter, are actually trying to get you to sit with.

This is not about beliefs of flows of water or connectedness of nature or anything that you would probably consider simply silly.

This is about the outreach of a completely separate way of life that is entirely aware of the current state of the world and the humans in it, and an attempt to bridge some sort of understanding and awareness of what needs to be dealt with as a collective.

We should find a way to attribute it to that source, perhaps, if it is less related to the source page that this particular link is pointing to.

I completely agree. And this may be the first time I'm interacting with a piece of a post on hacker news in this manner. If I had any form of social interaction credit and knew how to get people to read things and take them seriously, this would be the thing I would spend all of it on. The only way those kinds of people that you and I are talking about here would do anything is if they were permanently and instantly surrounded by people that say, "fucking pay attention to this"

The skimming makes me sad. Just read it.

Source?

I had a very similar thought. In fact, the fact that this is in Spanish, and also translated to English, gave me a sort of Rosetta stone feeling. Somewhere between the two expressions is some kernel of truth that I am for some reason completely fascinated by today.

Don't focus on what upset you. Don't focus on your internal desire, maybe, to say that you require an authority. Read the words specifically on how humanity treats itself and its surrounding environment, and I guarantee you, you will see connections to just about every area of science and sociology and anything between, and you absolutely should. That is the point of this letter, and it is a subtle one, and it is an uncomfortable one for a lot of people, but it is a very valid point.

And I would absolutely disagree with you, by the way, because this is not so much a simple letter about "AI", but the fundamental way that it is being built and constructed and used by a massive part of this world. And, I would continue to disagree that they don't have anything that extends, as you said, below the surface. The way they describe the technology is actually much, much more factual and humanistically relevant than many people I've talked to that literally build these models. Just because you were able to glue things together and compute numbers, does not mean you understand the outcome of what you are doing. That is almost literally something that is said in this letter, and I really suggest you please try to read it again and understand where it is saying that, because I think there's a lot more you will be able to internally glean if you let the words about what it is saying about humans enter your brain.

Claptrap? Seriously?

This is a treatise on the nature of humanity, and whether or not you care about the way in which they're describing the nature of the planet and the cosmos, you clearly have done none of the labor of piecing apart someone's perspective on the nature of humanity that is very clearly evident in this writing.

Do yourself a favor and just read it. Please, please, for the sake of some other random human being on the planet asking you directly, just read the entire thing. Do not have it summarize anything for you, and walk into it, knowing that you are likely to not expect what it is saying, and that it very well may be contrary to a lot of the things that you already think ahead of time. Just read it. Please.

What are you talking about? How is them attending university in any way unweighting this writing? Did you actually read it word for word? Slowly? Intentionally? Without a thought in your head afore that it was bunk, foolish, or simply not worth your time? I don't think you did. Or if you think you did, maybe you need to try to do it again, because saying this I don't think means you at least have actually digested the words, and could actually see a place on this planet where someone can have a deep and profound way of seeing and talking about the world in a way that is completely contrary to you and also be "classically educated".

I would ask you to please read it again and very deeply. Do not skim the words, do not skip over a sentence that you think is too wordy. They very very clearly state this in terms of what they think in the Internet. They do not oppose these things. This entire outreach from them seems to be quite literally and in their own words an elder family brother looking at a much larger family and trying to communicate how much danger is on the horizon for that family, which happens to include them.

I'll assume I'm missing something then.

> Would you rather have richer (in real terms) society (including richer lowest decile) with larger wealth inequality or poorer society with smaller inequalities?

My point is that those are not the only options. You don't make some more people richer such that there's more inequality. That doesn't make sense. You raise everyone up simultaneously by distributing in a rational measured way. I think maybe you're saying "bigger middle class"? If so, then no, I'd rather say, "no classes, what's the point. We know how to distribute and logistically solve these problems."

I'm with it, but "let them eat musk" just sounds icky.

"Value creator" .. You truly don't get it either. People like this are just aggregators. That's it. Magnet. They attract stupidity and power and money, and once they have it, the gravity takes over. That's all it ever was.

They're not "value creators". They're human beings that were given immense opportunities, disproportionately available avenues of luck, and happened to be able to find people to do their labor for them on the backs of the needs of the world.

What the ever living hell do you think the "90% of people" are doing? They're feeding each other and selling houses to each other and stocking shelves for each other because they have to because their labor and money is being stolen from them by this stupid abstraction that they are are "value creators".

Ugh.

You don't get it.

It's not "poorer society with fewer inequalities." That's what they always say. It's never that. A society is not "richer" because the amount of financially backed power is one concentrated set of hands.

That's it. That's the tweet.

If I have to read the phrase "paper wealth" one more freaking time...

Maybe I'm the odd one out, but I really don't find AI generated language, in almost any model, to be hard to understand. I'm not trying to be snarky or annoying or pompous or whatever word might be "this guy over here think's he special."

It uses a lot of metaphors. It references stuff implicitly - a LOT - and assumes pretty much all the time that the thing it did is what you saw, which you didn't. But if you just.. read the stuff it says, and know a few old-school sayings and thesaurusize your reading style, it usually says things quite meaningfully.

I think a lot of people just don't read what it writes. So many folks I've watched used LLMs don't write in complete sentences, don't read the sentences that come back, don't watch the turns and tool calls in the middle, and then just respond to the message as if it says something it doesn't. I'm saying all this before I read the paper, but I've done a lot of personal and team experiments with this, so I'm quite curious to see what they say. I'll edit this after I go through it.

--

Fascinating! I did actually run into a lot of this with my personal 'engineering and communication styles' experiments. Most of the papers out there talk about models moving toward human language inside of a context window, and not the other way around (much smaller effect for human->model). I had a few years of conversations I ran on local and 'frontier' Claude and found that, yes, in general, information density is what each response turned out to be geared toward, whether it was everyday health discussions or deeper engineering topics and research. The component tests they ran I've been exposed to already, but I think their conclusion nailed it: ```This discrepancy may help explain why many frontier LLMs use linguistic constructions which are technically allowed by the grammar of English, yet are out-of- distribution for human language and are associated with comprehension difficulty.```

Love me some combinators. In my earlier days it helped bridge the academic gap of CS grammars and languages to something I could not readily apply to internship dev work. I seem to recall an attempt to map or generate the from regex and in reverse, but I might be crazy this early in the morning.

Nice visuals btw. If I may be so bold: slightly smaller font and header would make scrolling through the bottom readable code snippets a little easier!

Stop, stop, I can only dream so hard.

Yes. This. It extends further to thoughts like, "but you can't expect someone to do <obviously moral thing> because it's less profitable, so how do you incentivize it?"

I propose "incentivize" be a 2026 front runner for curse word. It's just a gross concept these days.

Genuine curiosity here, just to ruminate a bit: is there a reason you disallow the model from seeing it at all? I can totally accept not wanting any edits, and that's more than reasonable. But even close source binaries end up with useful patches once someone knows that a particular loop does something weird or a process implementation behind a protocol is actually a different interpretation than the protocol definition itself belies. Seems like being aware of it is at least helpful, but again, curious!

Very cool! I'll keep an eye out. I'm sure it wouldn't be too hard to point some of the abstractions at a local hosted service layer. Take your time on it and good luck on the experiments!

I've been quite intrigued by a very "close to metal" assistant LLM like this, especially because I've seen folks working at it from the other direction of getting an assistant to be specialized with skills and tools for a specific CLI or code repo. I dug around a bit and I saw some of the execution was for remote models like voice. Since it's built to work well with something like qemu, have you experimented with pointing it at a local model for some of the work? Eg, I could see a reasonably quantized qwen 3.8 flash doing quite well on launching apps, shuttling around system calls, etc.

I'd love to give it a shot if it's available!

This is beautiful! I'm so excited to see more and more projects finally move into the third dimension for visualization of runtime and static data. I'm curious if you've played with rendering memory at all - textual bits, that is. I've been working on that end, a high performance text renderer that focuses on 3D blitted glyphs in the hundreds of millions, and I can absolutely see that sitting on top of these process towers and grids to see running memory and executing code! Any chance you're open to a side chat in some Discord or email chain?