This blog post seems to fundamentally misunderstand the nature of solo-developer SaaS, but then again arguably mostly software developers also fundamentally misunderstand it.

So I think that's maybe the other differentiator between web experiment and art, because demoscene has a very distinct but difficult to describe cultural element that makes me identify it as art.

People are experimenting with what you can do on the web, but the experiments aren't very "aesthetically inspiring". For that reason I'm kind of lukewarm on neal.fun.

EDIT: so I think a better way to describe it is that when artists experiment with technology, you get something like cachemonet. When developers experiment with technology, you get a web experiment that challenges conventional notions of what you can do with the web, but with varying degrees of creativity. I think terra.layoutit.com is best appreciated by other web devs who can appreciate the sheer amount of work required to figure out how to render a terrain map in CSS, but otherwise it's basically just a tool to generate terrain height maps, and not a particularly good one. Generating terrain maps in CSS is not a feature, but a handicap.

This is most evident in the way things collide.

It’s a little bit crazy, I know, but it’s odd to me that evolutionary forces would produce a mushroom that makes you have some specific hallucinations, rather than simply make things swirl together or simply produce intense feelings of euphoria or dread. I mean, marijuana just gets you high and that’s that.

Not all examples they gave were like this. The example they gave of the word "Typography" would have fooled me as human-made. The infographics stood out though. I would have immediately noticed that the String of Turtles infographic was AI generated because of the stylistic choices. Same for the guide on how to make chai. I would be "suspicious" of the example they gave of the weather forecast but wouldn't immediately flag at as AI generated.

Similar note, earlier I was able to tell if something was AI generated right off the bat by noticing that it had a "Deviant Art" quality to it. My immediate guess is that certain sources of training data are over-represented.

I'm going to take his statements at face value and assume that he really does have faith in his own predictions and isn't trying to fleece us.

My gripe with this statement is that this prediction is based on proxies for capability that aren't particularly reliable. To elaborate, the latest frontier models score something like 65% on SWE-bench, but I don't think they're as capable as a human that also scored 65%. That isn't to say that they're incapable, but just that they aren't as capable as an equivalent human. I think there's a very real chance that a model absolutely crushes the SWE-bench benchmark but still isn't quite ready to function as an independent software engineering agent.

So a lot of this bullishness basically hinges on the idea that if you extrapolate some line on a graph into the future, then by next year or the year after all white-collar work can be automated. Terrifying as that is, this all hinges on the idea that these graphs, these benchmarks, are good proxies.

And if they aren't, oh wow.

Haven't gotten the chance to ask, but I imagine managing a team of AI agents would feel a little too much like their day job, and consequently, suck the fun out of it.

That said, looking back, I think the reason why generative AI is so fun for so many coders is because programming has become unnecessarily complex. I have to admit, programming nowadays for me feels like a bit of a slog at times because of the sheer effort it can sometimes take to implement the simplest things. Doesn't have to be that way, but I think LLM copy-paste machines are probably the wrong direction.

If managing a bunch of AI agents is a very un-fun way to spend time, then I don’t think it’s the future. If the new way of doing this is more work and more tedium, then why the hell have we collectively decided this is the new way to work when historically the approach has been to automate and abstract tedium so we can focus on what matters?

The people selling you the future of work don’t necessarily know better than you.

Unless the main area of improvement was tools and scaffolding rather than the model itself.

Really curious about this since people keep bringing it up on Twitter. They mention it pretty much off-handedly in their press release and doesn't show up at all in their system card. It's only through an article on The Verge that we get more context. Apparently they told it to build a Slack clone and left it unattended for 30 hours, and it built a Slack clone using 11,000 lines of code (https://www.theverge.com/ai-artificial-intelligence/787524/a...)

I have very low expectations around what would happen if you took an LLM and let it run unattended for 30 hours on a task, so I have a lot of questions as to the quality of the output

Based

I'm working on a revamp of my personal site. I do a lot of creative coding, most of them are throwaway experiments, so I thought I'd showcase more of them there. Besides that though, I have some "rare pepes" that I've been meaning to put somewhere. What I like about these is that they're highly polished, animated gifs that imitate the sort of "holographic" effect you'd find in rare collector's cards, but at the same time you can't track down who originally made them, they aren't part of some professional's online portfolio. In that sense they feel like a special piece of internet folk art, made by some complete rando.

Nowadays we have Pinterest and the like, but I really like the idea of creating my own little online space for images I like.

Honestly, I kind of look back on blogging unfavorably. Before that people made websites to showcase their interests and hobbies, and because of that even the most basic looking websites could have a lot of "color" to them. Then blogging became a thing and people's websites became bland and minimalist. Arguably blogging culture is as responsible for the death of creativity on the internet as much as the constraints of mobile-friendly web design and Apple's aforementioned killing of Flash.

The thing is, it's honestly hard to imagine doing anything cool with them. I think this has less to do with hardware limitations and more to do with vendor restrictions.

I think Meta is fundamentally incapable of making anything cool. Hence why they had to partner with Ray-Ban to make these glasses rather than making their own. I think Meta's failure to realize their version of the metaverse had to do with their inability to recognize coolness and taste as much as anything else. I think any and all apps Meta ships with these glasses are cursed to be a mediocre experience.

I think Apple could do a better job but at the end of the day I think the most interesting (not necessarily best) would be ones with the most developer freedom.

It never had a public product, but people in the private beta mentioned that they did have a product, just that it wasn't particularly good. It took forever to make websites, they were often overly formulaic, the code was terrible, etc etc.

10 years later and some of those complaints still ring true