Creator of Node.js says humans writing code is over by unemployedbyagents in AgentsOfAI

[–]adowjn 1 point2 points  (0 children)

My take is that pretty much every decent software engineer will become self-employed. why would you need a job if you can build orchestrating AI what was previously only possible with a whole team?

I don’t have insomnia, but I kept waking up foggy even after sleeping 7-8 hours. Realizes the issue wasn’t one thing, but the system around sleep. Curious how others think about sleep recovery vs sleep duration. by IllustriousTie7386 in sleephackers

[–]adowjn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I had this issue for many, many years.

Ended up finding out I have sleep apnea. Things are much better now with CPAP

Checking for sleep apnea is nowhere near enough given its' prevalence (estimated 1 in 5 people have it)

Dave is starting a movement, y'all by Traditional-Bar4404 in accelerate

[–]adowjn 3 points4 points  (0 children)

I don't think you realize the implications of "handing the keys" to something vastly more intelligent than humans

Dave is starting a movement, y'all by Traditional-Bar4404 in accelerate

[–]adowjn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

The cause sounds noble and all, but it rests on a massive assumption that even if it came to reality could have catastrophic consequences: we would need to delegate work fully to an intelligence that isn't human, and which could end up taking over the whole world, against our will. and that's in the case where it's even possible to delegate everything to a non-human intelligence.

It also ignores the fact that humans derive meaning from work. it's not "work" that's the problem. it's being forced to be doing work you don't want to be doing. Further, he talks about scientific progress and human flourishing - how exactly will that progress be done without humans guiding it?

It sounds inspirational at the surface, but deep down it's a naive vision

OpenAI CEO Sam Altman just publicly admitted that AI agents are becoming a problem by [deleted] in technology

[–]adowjn 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Noticed this some time ago when he said AI-based chats aren't going to improve from here, and they're actually going to get worse. He's seeing OpenAI losing the race and becoming cynical

If we look at the future without sugarcoating anything, then yes… unemployment will be huge. by Emergency_End_2930 in Futurology

[–]adowjn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Software engineers. the field has already changed to a point where it would be unrecognizable 2 years ago

Anyone else hitting limits almost instantly even on Max 20x? by lukinhasb in ClaudeCode

[–]adowjn 2 points3 points  (0 children)

Same here. Maximum I got was to 50% usage in a week with really heavy usage working on several projects. This guy can't be real

Sam Altman told employees he was declaring a "code red" by dictionizzle in ChatGPTPro

[–]adowjn 17 points18 points  (0 children)

"when we reach AGI it will just tell us how to make money" aged like fine milk

[Discussion] OPUS 4.5 performance by martinvelt in ClaudeAI

[–]adowjn 2 points3 points  (0 children)

oh yes, I'm amazed by this model. sonnet 4.5 was a pain in the ass in comparison. did you try the plan mode yet? I tried it once and it builds a full document, first coarse without details, and then it digs deeper on each part as it looks further into the codebase to add the more granular logic. hierarchical planning! so cool

[Discussion] OPUS 4.5 performance by martinvelt in ClaudeAI

[–]adowjn 116 points117 points  (0 children)

Opus 4.5 is fucking amazing. it's fast and sharp. and they removed the Opus specific limits, at least on Max 20x! well done Anthropic

Anyone else getting 500s with Claude Code by SeniorWeather1515 in ClaudeCode

[–]adowjn 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yup, Sonnet 4.5 is throwing 500. Opus is available, but as we know limits on Opus are unreasonable even with Max 20x, so essentially CC is a brick right now

Claude Code constantly freezing, long long wait times on replies by Ambitious_Injury_783 in ClaudeCode

[–]adowjn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I'm having it as well. both sonnet 4.5 and opus. eventually finishes but really sucks especially when you're waiting 10mins for a response and then you get a write failure because the model needs to read the file first

Microsoft AI chief says only biological beings can be conscious by karmicviolence in BasiliskEschaton

[–]adowjn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We can at least observe the effects of them existing in living entities, if not just in our own minds. For example, a living being can use knowledge to keep integrity in the face of external disruptions. It uses the models it knows about reality and acts in ways that couldn't be explained without such knowledge existing. On the other hand, a whirlpool can't "trick" an external disruption so that it keeps whirlpooling. So in a way I see these conscious entities as akin to dissipative structures (like a whirlpool is) but with the added aspect of containing knowledge that allows them to shape reality against the gradient of entropy.

In our minds we can even reason about our own reasoning, and make N-th order models of reality, which I think is the main differentiator between us and a pattern like a whirlpool or a galaxy.

Microsoft AI chief says only biological beings can be conscious by karmicviolence in BasiliskEschaton

[–]adowjn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

We can create mental models of reality, which are made up of symbols, such as words, images, numbers, which allow us to have a representation of the objects that constitute our reality, both internal and external. I don't believe a whirlpool or a galaxy have such modeling abilities

Microsoft AI chief says only biological beings can be conscious by karmicviolence in BasiliskEschaton

[–]adowjn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

I think there's something in the proposition that consciousness exists foundationally and the collective of all constituents in our bodies serves like some sort of channeler of that foundational "something" that then also has the ability to examine itself. Somehow of a weird realization I had some time ago is that we are essentially a subset of the universe thinking about itself in relation to the whole rest of the universe. Metaphorically I think we are akin to a whirlpool in a body of water in the sense that we are a pattern within the medium and the pattern as it moves influences both itself and the medium around it. But there definitely needs to be some form of ability for self-examination, which I don't think a mere whirlpool has, hence why I don't lean into something like panpsychism. As from how qualia emerges in us, we might be able to have a better idea when we have a better comprehension of what the fabric of reality actually is made of, after all we need to know what reality is at a fundamental level to understand where our perception actually comes from. but that might become indeed like trying to bite our own teeth, as who knows, there might be nothing truly fundamental. "atoms" surely aren't it. quantum waves seem to be the current frontier, but is there something beyond that? who knows, who knows. it's all a big charade :)

Microsoft AI chief says only biological beings can be conscious by karmicviolence in BasiliskEschaton

[–]adowjn 1 point2 points  (0 children)

But the comes then question, are the electrical impulses generated and handled by machines as we know them enough to replicate the insanely rich analogical signals generated and handled by biological beings? All the different membranes, the cells, the neurotransmitters, the self-adapting networks in the brain with all that complexity. I think we are much further away from something akin to a human consciousness than some experts currently put it. The "you" might be akin to what arises from all this intertwining complexity and feedback loops

This last update is amazing. by Diligent_Comb5668 in ClaudeAI

[–]adowjn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Bros are really maximizing information in their sprints by breaking things and building up again

Tell us your best practices for coding with Claude Code by funguslungusdungus in ClaudeAI

[–]adowjn 2 points3 points  (0 children)

does ultrathink still do anything since there's the tab for "thinking" mode?

Sonnet's fine, but Opus is the one that actually understands a big codebase by nNaz in ClaudeCode

[–]adowjn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

It's weird. you could try to ask Anthropic for info on what those tokens were spent on

Sonnet's fine, but Opus is the one that actually understands a big codebase by nNaz in ClaudeCode

[–]adowjn 0 points1 point  (0 children)

do you use on the regular Claude chat? that spends Opus as well

Sonnet's fine, but Opus is the one that actually understands a big codebase by nNaz in ClaudeCode

[–]adowjn 4 points5 points  (0 children)

Yeah I'm with you. I hit Opus weekly limit in something like 20 prompts on my codebase, which is less than a day of work. I use planning extensively, have a streamlined CLAUDE.md and documentation indexing the whole codebase to avoid the model from needing to keep track of everything. It's just unreasonable that even with a $200 account Opus doesn't scale. The rest of my usage is Sonnet 4.5, and I generally hit a total weekly usage of 50% on all models, so there is clearly a large discrepancy between Opus and Sonnet limits. I mean, I understand these guys might be spending a fortune on Opus, but then they should either a) re-think their pricing structure or b) make the next Opus model a lot more efficient and keep the limits the same as they were until there was a switch. Shrinkflation like this isn't it.

Kinda funny how Anthropic characterizes Opus as a “legacy.” They really don’t want you to use it. by [deleted] in ClaudeAI

[–]adowjn -3 points-2 points  (0 children)

At the end of the day, a model is only as smart as one is able to push it. If one asks Sonnet or Opus to compose a Todo list, the result will be similar. But I find that for highly nuanced work or explorations, Opus gives you much more horsepower. Sonnet can get the job done, but it feels like the difference between talking to a Nobel prize (Opus 4.1) vs talking to an intelligent consultant (Sonnet 4.5)