- fancyfredbotVery sceptical that a 3kW speaker can cause "earthquake like vibrations with a radius of 2km".
- You will probably end up in court. But you might not get convicted.
Shakeeb Ahmed was convicted of wire fraud for exploiting a smart contract bug.
Avi Eisenberg was also convicted for exploiting a smart contract bug, but he had his conviction overturned on appeal.
The Peraire-Bueno brothers were in court for exploiting a bug in the MEV mechanism but it ended in a mis-trial so we're going to have to wait to find out.
Not legal advice ;-)
- Top Tip: If you find the orange site's conversation on crypto to be repetitive you can change the top bar. Conversation stays the same but the colour can be changed!
- Does it really matter? The article definitely shows signs of being LLM assisted but it doesn't read like pure slop to me. It reads more like the author used an LLM to summarise his thoughts.
- Very interesting example. It's an insanely complex task even with a reference implementation in another language.
It's surprising that it manages the majority of the test cases but not all of them. That's not a very human-like result. I would expect humans to be bimodal with some people getting stuck earlier and the rest completing everything. Fractal intelligence strikes again I guess?
Do you think the way you specified the task at such a high level made it easier for Claude? I would have probably tried to be much more specific for example by translating on a file by file or function by function basis. But I've no idea if this is a good approach. I'm really tempted to try this now! Very inspiring.
- That's certainly an impressive month! However, it's conceivable that you are an outlier (in the best possible way!)
I liked the way they did that study and I would be interested to see an updated version with new tools.
I'm not particularly sceptical myself and my guess is that using Opus 4.5 would probably have produced a different result to the one in the original study.
- Weird, you shouldn't really need to list the things your study doesn't prove! I guess they anticipated that the study might be misrepresented and wanted to get ahead of that.
Their study still shows something interesting, and quite surprising. But if you choose to extrapolate from this specific setting and say coding assistants don't work in general then that's not scientific and you need to be careful.
I think the studyshould probably decrease your prior that AI assistants actually speed up development, even if developers using AI tell you otherwise. The fact it feels faster when it is slower is super interesting.
- That's interesting context for sure, but the fact these were experienced developers makes it all the more surprising that they didn't realise the LLM slowed them down.
- In my view the reasons why LLMs may be less effective in a corporate environment is quite different from the human factors in mythical man month.
I think that the reason LLMs don't work as well in a corporate environment with large codebases and complex business logic, but do work well in greenfield projects, is linked to the amount of context the agents can maintain.
Many types of corporate overhead can be reduced using an LLM. Especially following "well meant but inefficient" process around JIRA tickets, testing evidence, code review, documentation etc.
- The METR study cited here is very interesting.
"In the METR study, developers predicted AI would make them 24% faster before starting. After finishing 19% slower, they still believed they'd been 20% faster."
I hadn't heard of this study before. Seems like it's been mentioned on HN before but not got much traction.
- Very clever stuff. I wonder how their power consumption compares to copper with a retimer.
- Another hit from everyone's favourite internet maths person, Tom VII
- That's an interesting take, it's plausible Nvidia wants to have an SRAM based product, but I am struggling to see why they would pay $20bn to have one /right now/. Even if DRAM prices make Groq's approach more economical, Nvidia can develop a competitive product before Groq could take any real market share.
- Sorry! Actually I am glad to be reassured that the comment I replied to is still considered egregious. The sentiments being expressed in that comment seemed genuinely similar to those of US secretary of state Marco Rubio when he revoked the US visas of two European CEOs from the "Centre for Countering Digital Hate" and the "Global Disinformation Index" today. The reason he gave was "Extraterritorial overreach by foreign censors targeting American speech". Perhaps that act was egregious too. But in this context a comment which accused Europeans of meddling in US affairs and threatening to kick them out did seem plausible.
Of course the comment I replied to went much further than kicking people out of America and into crazy land with a suggestion that we kick Europeans off the internet! This should have been a give away... Again I'm sorry and will refrain in future.
- From the press release, Nvidia now has a non exclusive license to the hardware.
Groq will continue to operate as an independent company with Simon Edwards stepping into the role of Chief Executive Officer.
GroqCloud will continue to operate without interruption.
- The price is 40x their target revenue. That's twice the price to revenue multiplier applied to Anthropic in their most recent funding round, and really really hard to portray as a good deal.
I don't think it really helps Nvidia's competitive position. The serious competition to Nvidia is coming from Google's TPU, Amazon's Trainium, AMD's Instinct, and to a much lesser extent Intel's ARC.
Grow recent investors got back a 3x multiple and may now invest in one of Nvidia's other competitors instead.
- I'm not sure this article is really about Europeans trying to tell Americans how to run their affairs.
It's the results of a survey where yougov (A European organisation) asked other Europeans how they think European social media should be regulated.
No suggestion that laws would/could/should be changed anywhere, and especially not in America.
- For the purposes of the survey the term refers to a specific list of specific parties. There's no semantic void here!