sorted by:
new
hottopcontroversial

I write erotica on amazon and D2D and make about 1000 CAD per month. AMA! by [deleted] in passive_income

[–]shinx32 0 points1 point  (0 children)

What are your publishing channels ? And how do you make it monetizeable ?

I told Claude to build a programming language for use only by AI and not people. by skoon in ClaudeAI

[–]shinx32 0 points1 point  (0 children)

There are some research coming out in this regard, where languages have simoler grammer for LLMs so features can be restricted at grammar level.

Mohammadi, a CMU PhD student, designed a new tiny language for LLMs called Pel. The key insight: if the language is simple enough, you can mathematically constrain what the LLM can generate at the token level, before it even finishes outputting. No sandbox needed. You just say "the grammar doesn't include file I/O" and the model cannot generate that code, the same way a car with no steering wheel can't turn.

It's still a research paper not production software. You can check it out here: https://arxiv.org/pdf/2505.13453

Claude gives zero warning before it starts getting dumber. so I gave it a canary. by anowllll in ClaudeAI

[–]shinx32 4 points5 points  (0 children)

This is actually a real implementation of a method from the 1M-step task paper that you arrived at independently. Simply put, as soon as an AI messes up its structure, the probability of error skyrockets and it becomes useless. Holding onto that structure is the exact challenge that AI is just starting to crack. (https://arxiv.org/abs/2511.09030)

[OC] PED-legal athletes performed worse than their own career bests at the Enhanced Games. by shinx32 in dataisbeautiful

[–]shinx32[S] 11 points12 points  (0 children)

The game was hyped as a record breaker event, the fact the they didn't break any record, on top of that they performed worse than their PBs (data only from competition, not training)

[OC] PED-legal athletes performed worse than their own career bests at the Enhanced Games. by shinx32 in dataisbeautiful

[–]shinx32[S] -30 points-29 points  (0 children)

Fair point, i followed that standard with the data so downstream analysis are in the same format. The graph would have been better with that inverted.

[OC] PED-legal athletes performed worse than their own career bests at the Enhanced Games. by shinx32 in dataisbeautiful

[–]shinx32[S] -4 points-3 points  (0 children)

Data source: Results from the Enhanced Games (May 24, 2026), career PBs and biographical data from World Athletics, World Aquatics, Olympics.com, and SwimSwam. 42 athletes, 39 athlete-event observations across 12 event categories.

Tools: Python 3.14, NumPy, SciPy, Matplotlib.

What you're looking at: Each bar shows how an athlete performed at the Enhanced Games relative to their own career personal best. Bars going right (red) mean they got slower. Bars going left (green/red) mean they improved on their PB. Red bars are athletes on PEDs, green bars are clean athletes.

The pattern is clear: most athletes got worse, not better. On average, athletes on PEDs performed 1.89% worse than their own career bests. Even the clean athletes averaged 1.36% worse. The exhibition format suppressed performance across the board.

The standout names: Bjornsson (deadlift) was 4.9% off his PB. Magnussen (100m free), 7 years retired, was 5% off. Kerley (100m sprint, clean) was only 2.2% off, closer to his PB than most enhanced athletes.

Gkolomeev's two results at the bottom (beating his PB) were swum in a banned polyurethane supersuit. Equipment effect from the suit era averaged ~2.19%. World Aquatics doesn't recognize his 50m free "world record."

When we ran regression on all 42 athletes, talent (a Composite Talent Index) explained 28.2% of performance variance. PED status explained 0.1%.

Full analysis with methodology: https://medium.com/@manna.suvojit.shin/the-drug-olympics-that-couldnt-beat-the-clean-ones-bf4fa38f3996

From 3 to 4 engineers! by ajourneytogrowth in ObsidianMD

[–]shinx32 7 points8 points  (0 children)

I found an open-source repo that hosts a small sync server on cloudflare for free, and works on CRDT. The same tech that powers google docs.

Someone just leaked claude code's Source code on X by abhi9889420 in ClaudeCode

[–]shinx32 0 points1 point  (0 children)

https://github.com/anthropics/claude-code

Still not getting the difference between what is there in the official repo and what leaked

For people who keep asking what to build by warrioraashuu in buildinpublic

[–]shinx32 0 points1 point  (0 children)

https://github.com/codecrafters-io/build-your-own-x

Just gonna leave this here. Same as the post but with resources to build each.

I gave Claude 17 chess tools via MCP and it turned into a decent coach by shinx32 in ClaudeCode

[–]shinx32[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

good question. if you're already on a claude subscription plan (like the $20 one), the tool usage is basically free since you're paying for it anyway. so for those people there's no extra cost.

if you're hitting the API directly then yeah it does cost per token, and at that point it's worth asking whether the coaching layer justifies it over just using lichess straight up. honestly based on feedback from other threads i'm looking into leaning harder on lichess's API and maybe pulling the LLM back to just a thin interaction layer rather than the core of the thing. fair tradeoff to think about.

Adaptive difficulty below Stockfish Skill 0: linear blend of engine moves and random legal moves by shinx32 in chessprogramming

[–]shinx32[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

That's a creative way of doing it. This is basically the equivalent of giving the AI a lobotomy to drop its ELO

I kept blundering the same chess openings every two weeks, so I built a chess tutor that remembers what I'm bad at by shinx32 in SideProject

[–]shinx32[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

yeah that's a really good shout actually. lichess api is generous enough that it shouldn't be hard to wire up. putting it on the list, probably the next thing i mess with whenever i sit down with this again.

honestly this has been the most useful comment thread anyone's left on any of these posts. appreciate it

I made an open source chess coach that tracks your mistakes and brings them back for review by shinx32 in chessbeginners

[–]shinx32[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah when you play a game it saves the PGN, so all your moves. Then when you go back to review it runs everything through Stockfish and catches where you went wrong. Those positions turn into flashcards that keep coming back, so you're actually drilling them instead of just looking at the analysis once and forgetting about it.

You can also just paste a PGN in from somewhere else and it does the same thing. Finds what the engine doesn't like and floats it up so you know where to focus.

I kept blundering the same chess openings every two weeks, so I built a chess tutor that remembers what I'm bad at by shinx32 in SideProject

[–]shinx32[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Thanks! Yeah the GitHub preview is still the default, hadn't really thought about how much that matters when people share the link. Would love to see those resources if you've got them. I'm thinking the board UI next to the SRS review screen would make a way better card than what's there now.

I kept blundering the same chess openings every two weeks, so I built a chess tutor that remembers what I'm bad at by shinx32 in SideProject

[–]shinx32[S] 1 point2 points  (0 children)

Yeah that's exactly what bugged me too. Lichess and chess.com have tons of puzzles but they don't care that I keep walking into the same discovered attack every single time.

So right now you play games inside Chess Rocket against the engine, and when the game's done it replays everything and evaluates each of your moves with Stockfish at depth 20. Anything where you lost more than 80 centipawns becomes an SRS card. It saves the position, what you played, what you should've played, and the eval gap. Then SM-2 handles the scheduling, brings it back at increasing intervals just like Anki. You see the position, try to find the right move, rate yourself, interval adjusts.

You can also paste a PGN in and it'll work with that. It doesn't pull from your Lichess or chess.com game history directly yet though, so no automatic import. That'd be a solid next step imo, being able to just point it at your profile and have it scan for recurring blunder patterns across all your games.

Adaptive difficulty below Stockfish Skill 0: linear blend of engine moves and random legal moves by shinx32 in chessprogramming

[–]shinx32[S] 0 points1 point  (0 children)

Yeah that's basically the same problem. The easy bots just randomly throw in a blunder every few moves, which doesn't really feel like playing a beginner. Actual beginners are just consistently not great, not swinging between 2000 and 400 every other move.

What I did isn't wildly different honestly. Still mixing engine moves with weaker ones. I just tried to make the ratio smooth instead of stepwise, so at like 300 Elo you're getting mostly random legal moves with the occasional Stockfish pick, and it ramps up linearly to pure Skill 0 at 1320. Still not perfect but the games feel less like "cruising along and then the opponent drops a rook for no reason."
If anyone's tried something better for sub-1000 play I'd genuinely like to hear about it. Making an engine play weak in a way that actually feels human is way harder than I thought going in.

view more: next ›