Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | re-thc's commentslogin

Sounds like neither. More like throw a dice and press the up button.

> They generate code that’ll get a positive result at any cost, even if it’s horrible in efficient.

If only efficiency is the only problem with that. Sometimes an error state should an error. This is the equivalent of eating all exceptions and pretending all is fine. It just means nothing works.


> Why does OpenClaw have 800,000+ lines of code??

Because

I

write

like

this

-- signed

AI


> you may think you own the data you work on, but you don’t

It's called <open>AI.


> Like if the users don't even know how LLMs work or what they are good at, why are they being forced to find new ways?

Same happened with crypto. Every financial institution was doing or trying to do some blockchain thing. 90% or more failed.

Just how it is.


> Is truth a constant or a personal definition!

It always has been what you believed in.

E.g. at 1 point the Earth was flat. Now it's round. 100s of years later maybe it's a Hexagon.

The so-called knowledge and backing all come back to certain assumptions holding and that's based on the knowledge today. It's not real real reality. For all we know we could be in a game simulation and there are real real humans pulling the strings.


>It always has been what you believed in

That can´t be it. By that statement if I belive that I can fly that would not be the "Truth". Therefore the "Truth" has to be a CONSTANT.


can you have truth with a subjective language. I say it’s snowing, you say not, because we determine that “snowing” kicks in at different levels. Or perhaps we have different sensory inputs. If I’m facing the window and say the man has a red tshirt”, and you are facing away. Even if we agree on the definition of man, red and tshirt, you still don’t know if that’s true or not

Can you believe your own senses? A car air freshener tells your nose that theres freshly cut summer hay around, but there isn't. You watch a tv and see Sandra Bullock floating in space. That’s a lie, it was movie magic. Maybe you know that, maybe you don’t. You’re not even seeing her, you’re seeing some flashing lights which convert to electrical signals your brain interprets as being true. Can you trust those signals? People hallucinate all the time. The truth is they can hear voices, even though nobody else can, because of misfiring neurons.

You can probably have mathematical truth - at least as far as your universe appears to work. That truth can be tested and refined, but for day to day truth things are more nuanced.


Very well answered. Truth or not in whatever definition, it would be enough that satisfy the fundamental questions. This is like taking the car but not knowing, why and where you going. Is like waking up but not knowing but waking up anyway. What a story, been going on since "I was born" :)

> That can´t be it. By that statement if I belive that I can fly that would not be the "Truth".

1st what is to fly? You've already made assumptions i.e. beliefs elsewhere.

You can definitely fly. Try it on a cliff. You might die. You might not go very far. But you can.


That’s complete nonsense. The universe doesn’t care what we think.

The earth has always been earth-shaped. We can think it’s flat, spherical, “turnip-shaped”[1] but the universe doesn’t care what we think. The earth doesn’t change shape based on our perception.

[1] Yes some people think this for some reason I can’t fathom


The particular problem with intelligence is perception can cause agents with intelligence to alter the world around them even if our understanding of the universe is wrong. At the end of the day we are just the universe experiencing itself, not something separate.

> The earth has always been earth-shaped.

And you never needed more than 640KB of RAM [1] right? Your "statement" is based on your knowledge today. You'd be burned for witchcraft back in the days for saying the earth was not flat.

> but the universe doesn’t care what we think

Assuming you know what the universe is. Your theory is based on your limited today knowledge. Someone sometime in the future could say something completely different (just like you talking about those of the past).

[1] famously from 1981


> Why do we need a second, less detailed and less verifiable copy of the code

Because it requires people to know how to read or specify code.

Spec driven development is similar to the no-code movement i.e. the specs are closer to functional requirements than this strict spec or code.

You can argue that you can just ask the LLM to explain back and forth but it can still be too much.


> You can argue that you can just ask the LLM to explain back and forth but it can still be too much.

But then you'd get an explanation tailored to your specific perspective instead of a generic one, right?


> But then you'd get an explanation tailored to your specific perspective

Assuming you know how to ask the right questions and make sense of it. Tailored to whose perspective, especially in a team, which then might make it worse.


> For the last couple of months all the top models have been from the US

The commenter you responded said presidency not country. There are multiple parties and possibilities here.


> the correction was largely complete over a year ago

We had tariffs and other disruptions since. So more correction is required.


> A canary for this would be whether Gemini skews toward building stuff on GCP

Sure it doesn't prefer THE Borg?


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

Search: