IshKebab

5 ms·

1.
by IshKebab 3d ago
You don't have to fully vibe code it. Most of this stuff doesn't take massive brains, it is just super tedious - especially the reverse engineering. I've never really had the patience for that (except one USB devices that I d
2.
by IshKebab 3d ago
I'd say so. Do you want your results in a week or a day?
3.
by IshKebab 4d ago
I think these benchmarks are not that useful, e.g. this suggests Fable is better than Astra, but in practice Astra is waaaaaay faster (like 5x; it's not even close), and also waaaay less annoying to talk to. There's only two or th
4.
by IshKebab 4d ago
I think that was only done back when the processing power needed was relatively high, or for power constrained devices. I'd be really surprised if they do that for a smart TV.
5.
by IshKebab 4d ago
They don't need that - look up Amazon Sidewalk.
6.
by IshKebab 4d ago
That is one creepy image.
7.
by IshKebab 4d ago
You can still control the output LLMs produce. Obviously you can one-shot "make me a fun game" but I think there's a whole spectrum from pure vibe coding - you literally never look at the code, through controlling the direc
8.
by IshKebab 4d ago
It's definitely not a large prize for OpenAI, but actually IIRC they only spend a few hundred thousand dollars. It is a large prize if you're just an academic.
9.
by IshKebab 5d ago
It's also just quite a lot of work to generate screenshots.
10.
by IshKebab 5d ago
Sounds like the wxWidgets approach. I've never seen it work, but good luck. Hard pass on the PHP though!
11.
by IshKebab 5d ago
Well yes, but if you want native apps there's no getting around making two apps.
12.
by IshKebab 5d ago
Sometimes you can tell though even if you don't understand the code. E.g. if AI makes a game, just play it. Sometimes code doesn't have to be 100% bug free and in fact humans can't achieve that anyway. I've been using As
13.
by IshKebab 5d ago
No. The point is that the goal (slick native apps) isn't blocked by the fact that it needs more code.
14.
by IshKebab 6d ago
The whole point of this article is that it doesn't. Or at least for the same number of people you can now have way more code.
15.
by IshKebab 6d ago
> they're basically going to be spending a ton more than they have to by switching back to multiple apps A ton more what? Money? AI costs are insignificant to a company like Spotify. Hell I've been using Astra fairly extensivel
16.
by IshKebab 6d ago
1. People already don't use public transport in 99% of the world. In any case I don't see why that is relevant to the price. 2. Which is vastly better than wasting it in cities. And also no we wouldn't. Autonomous cars woul
17.
by IshKebab 6d ago
A very confident statement of something that nobody remotely knows. Why can't consciousness be an emergent property of complex information networks? I don't know if we'll ever answer this because it's impossible to know
18.
by IshKebab 6d ago
I don't think so because any stateful function can be made stateless just by making its state an input, and vice versa. They're mathematically equivalent, so it would be super weird if it had any implications for consciousness.
19.
by IshKebab 6d ago
Wow there really is a model welfare section in there...
20.
by IshKebab 6d ago
Yeah sure! In theory they should be cheaper one day because you don't need to pay someone to drive. This means you can use them in situations where for cost reasons you would have driven yourself - e.g. for long journeys, in the countr
21.
by IshKebab 6d ago
> While we all stopped coding manually around December 2025 Come on at least say "many people". There are plenty of people still coding by hand.
22.
by IshKebab 7d ago
I played it recently. Very good game (although mediocre ending if we're being honest). The thing they did really really well is that it's true exploration in the sense that you could complete the game very quickly if you've a
23.
by IshKebab 7d ago
He knows what wealth inequality is . You need to explain how it can somehow lead to the extinction of the human race.
24.
by IshKebab 8d ago
Yeah that isn't a magic get-out clause. I don't think I would have been immediately fired for this from anywhere I work at, but that's partly because I live in the UK. Every company I've worked at has said very clearly n
25.
by IshKebab 8d ago
Surely the way streamers talk to "chat"? I've never heard anyone call ChatGPT "chat".
26.
by IshKebab 8d ago
Sure, the problem is most people can only see the risks of changing code. They're completely blind to the risks of not changing it.
27.
by IshKebab 8d ago
That is a super weird definition. If you only want to allow that you're going to have to ban basically everything.
28.
by IshKebab 8d ago
Ha, tell me you don't have children without...
29.
by IshKebab 8d ago
Define "necessary". Good luck.
30.
by IshKebab 8d ago
You know there was someone who tried to refactor whatever code it was that broke here and was told it was too risky.

More ›