guest writes for Forbes would produce.

I seriously think we can completely dismiss Forbes as a credible source at this point, even if it’s not something coming from, ahem, “contributors”

Oh don’t worry, bespoke GLP-1s plus his “nootropic stack” have surely helped him out immensely by now

And now that we’ve got Quantum within AI, just imagine everything you can haul within Quantum

Meanwhile, “AI agents” continue to be an opaque bundle of shell scripts shoved into a trenchcoat, with an inconsistent English-language translation layer stapled on top

Setting firm boundaries is for amateurs, haven’t you heard?

Is this… technocracy in collapse…

Do they also block NYT, WSJ, Atlantic? I think not. Odd, but I didn’t trust dang and friends to start with. HN is not intended to be a neutral forum.

the Hofstadter tendency towards neopronouns

Seeing it extracted from context and called out like this helps me understand why I’ve bounced off Hofstadter multiple times over the years, despite his hype. It’s an artistic choice, sure, but 400 pages of this stuff without a break can be like beating your face against a brick wall after a while.

centaur-configured programmer

Cory, baby, my dogg, sure “enshittification” was a big hit, but you can’t expect that your rough-draft followups are automatically gold

you gotta give him a morsel of credit, he’s got his buzzword and he’s stickin’ to it

“Aging left” has lost “vitality” - he’s phoning this one in, straight out of the house style guide.

Hmm, he’s still sticking to tweet-threads on Twitter. We’ll know he’s fully cracking when he resorts to Ackman-style unreadable text blocks on there.

is now completely one shotted.

I’m not sure “one-shotted” is a good description for some of these folks. More like they bet against themselves in a rigged game of Russian roulette being played with a fully-loaded Uzi.

man, I got totally zonted in the zonte last time I was down there

yeah, you know, I’m really doing OK with just the one kidney. seriously. thanks for asking

As a layperson skimming the paper, this strikes me as equivalent to a dashed-off letter to the editor coming from someone in Knuth’s position. It’s an incomplete, second-hand reporting of somebody else’s results that doesn’t really investigate any of the interesting features of the system at hand. The implicit claim (here and elsewhere) is that we have a runtime for natural-language programming in English, and the main method reported for demonstrating this is the partial prompt:

** After EVERY exploreXX.py run, IMMEDIATELY update this file [plan.md] before doing anything else. ** No exceptions. Do not start the next exploration until the previous one is documented here.

and later on, a slightly longer prompt from a correspondent using GPT-5.2 Pro, that also loads a PDF of Knuth’s article into the context window. No discussion of debugging how these systems arrive at their output, or programmatically constraining them for more targeted output in their broader vector space. Just more of the braindead prompting-and-hoping approach, which eventually, unsurprisingly diverges from outputting any viable code whatsoever. This all strikes me as being an exercise similar to

You are a cute little puppy dog. Do not shit on the floor. Do not deposit bodily waste or fecal matter onto hardwood, linoleum, tile, and especially not carpet. Do not defecate indoors. Do not consume your own fecal matter.

The cargo-cult system prompt approach is like banging two rocks together compared to what a computational system should be capable of, and I would be much more impressed and much more interested if someone like Knuth was investigating such capabilities, instead of blogging somebody else pretending to have the Star Trek computer.

“They wanted me to build an AI, so I built a shoddy AI casing filled with used pinball machine parts!”

tit-for-tat escalation

I think maybe you nailed it here. Being able to pretend they’re doing game theory/mapping out an escalation ladder allows Yud and our friends to feel like they’re in the same intellectual lineage as guys like Oppenheimer and Teller, manifesting the same sort of “objective” emotionless rationality. The big difference, you see, is that the AI will think so much faster than us that…!

lmfao

When they witness the skyrocketing economic growth enabled by American AGI, they will be clamoring for Westernization

It seems clear that every single company that makes money off of software is or will soon be in a race to the bottom on software quality

A lot of younger people who are being conditioned to accept this stuff just weren’t around to experience how unstable and unreliable the vast majority of PC software was in the 1990s, and a lot of more senior-level people must have willfully forgotten. I’ve been thinking about this more and more lately. The difference was that in the 90s, the major PC companies could port their enterprise-grade OSes with proper memory protection down to the consumer level, as hardware advanced and running a more complex OS kernel was no longer a big demand. Even then, it was an uphill battle, especially once you threw widespread networking and dubious internet-sourced malware into the equation.

End-user software has already seen a decline in quality and increase in user frustration during the cloud era, as many apps have become siloed blobs of JavaScript running on top of an extra copy of your web browser engine. I’m concerned that we’re headed firmly back to the bad old days now, without the release valve of better underlying software stacks on the horizon. The main solution will likely be to rip a lot of this crap out and start over (which is already a pretty widespread approach anyway, my credit union is going on their 3rd online banking “upgrade” in 5 years). But that completely zeroes out the “productivity” gains, not that anyone touting such things will ever measure it that way. I suppose the cost of re-stabilizing the software industrial base will be counted as GDP gains instead.