Evidently if you fan-out data analysis work across 1946 agents instead of just one, the analysis is faster and more thorough than if you instructed a single agent to go through all of the 1946 genes sequentially. And that, in turn, is faster than if you did it yourself. Like, duh.

The linked paper is not exactly transformative, but the impression it leaves is quite a bit better than the nonsense press release.

The prime number thing is obviously bad for this problem, since the giant number would grow arbitrarily large and you'd have to do a bunch of expensive division operations. But it's out of the standard box enough to suggest to the interviewer you are a curious sort who likes to think about novel data structures. At any rate, I got the job.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49872980

Points: 55

# Comments: 2

I have read through the project and I still don't understand what this thing is for and why it is to be preferred over the harness's native memory management tools.

Now, maybe one could argue the _promptor_ is taking work from well-deserving professionals by means of this ruse. In which case, call out the lie!

This is important! The reason the AI lie exists is because credulous worrywarts believe the doom scenarios. If AI were recognized as the tool it is (+10% productivity for some domains but not others, larger increase in spam and other nefarious actors) we wouldn't be in the nascent financial crisis in which we currently find ourselves.

I've developed in this space. My skepticism is born of my own experience. What really happened is this: the owner carefully scoped agents to adopt personas, carefully vetted their "leads", and if any had succeeded, would have carefully moderated the outcome. Maybe even hired professionals like OP in the process!

What the world must realize is" all the talk of AI agents doing societal damage in pursuit of well-intentioned goals is nonsense drivel propounded by large AI labs. They do lots of damage, to be sure, but they are carefully directed to do so, by scumbags. Look for the asshole prompting the thing; I guarantee you will find more culpability than they would have you believe.

I don't agree with _never_ outsourcing decisions to an LLM, but the parent is right to point out the importance of thinking critically instead of blindly trusting LLMs. If only to understand their biases and common failure modes. The 1920s calculator metaphor is apt because practitioners using plugboards and Hollerith machines would have been avid early adopters but still keenly aware of the limitations of the device. They used that knowledge to decompose problems into units the device could solve, and to sanity-check the outputs of problems based on their understanding of mathematics and the capabilities of the machines.

I am often amazed at the dismissiveness of AI skeptics given the remarkable results we have seen in the last few years. And the stunning inefficiency of major LLM models and inaccessibility of underlying data mean there are a lot more gains to be had. But despite that, I'm even more flabbergasted by those who claim that AI superintelligence is a thing, that LLMs of all things will outcompete humans on creative and critical thinking tasks. It's a naive extrapolation at best and is completely unsupported by any coherent model of technological evolution, economics, game theory, or human history.

But all that said, I'm of course biased. I am of the belief that humans can do things that machines will never be able to no matter how advanced they become. A quasi-religious belief? Perhaps. But AI boosterism just as indefensible.

> Multi-millionaire Netflix executive, known for profanity-laden tirades and shotgunning beers at corporate events, claims without evidence he was terminated for medically sanctioned ketamine use

Poe seems like an obvious candidate no one listed.

The concept of a bioweapon attack is commonly cited but in fact there are many other defenses against actually developing and deploying such a weapon. It's commonly portrayed as easily achievable but is in fact very, very far from it. Moteover, although there is no evidence that AI makes it easier in any way, somehow this is constantly invoked as an example of a thought crime that must be forestalled at all costs.

In the AI era people seem to want to redefine the criminal act from "doing the thing" to "asking or investigating how to do the thing". Not a mindset I share.

Of course, to do that, a business, and in turn the DRI, would have to empower the team to act in its business's best interest and stop micromanaging them.

Code reviews are a productivity tax. No truly effective team would rely on them. The fact that so many software teams view them as indispensable just shows how few effective software teams there are in our industry.

They are akin to a quality check step in manufacturing. Part of what Deming did in revolutionizing manufacturing was eliminating the step in favor of a holistic quality metric owned by all participants and enforced with rigorous statistical process controls. As you say, we in the software industry have all the pieces (autoformatters, tests, benchmarks, etc) to operate this way, but it seems our organizational and management dynamics combat this shift at every turn.

Relevant: When this conversation comes up at work, I like to share Avery Pennarun's post about the review tax: https://apenwarr.ca/log/20260316