This was the first shape that seemed to have a kernel where if you related to as a reader, I thought it was a good indication that you'd enjoy the whole piece.

So I want to be less afraid to do that. Because at the end of the day, if I decide it's too stolen, I can always just not release it.

I think there's something here that's a little different from just "refrain from criticism" that I needed to hear which is something like "you can spend a lot of time trying to find the perfect way to do something, or you just do it many different ways and see which you like better" and frankly, I spent so much time noodling, it might have been _less_ overall time if I'd just forced myself to record some very formulaic versions I was averse to, and seen if any of those inspired me to actually get the thing done.

I liked "Instead, it’s about creating one version of a project that will likely either be improved upon in the future or serve as inspiration for something else. The key is to cultivate the commitment and conviction to declare that something is done, for now." from your piece. I think that's what I'm trying to get at.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50024927

Points: 76

# Comments: 38

That said, I don’t think that just because this is the way things are, this is this is the way things have to be. Even with our interactions with AI. And I have hope.

Ted Chiang had a great piece in the New Yorker years ago called “Why AI isn’t going to make Art”[1] where he describes something similar. There are 10,000 choices to make in every good pieces of art. AI makes the average choice for every decision and the average choice is derivative and uninteresting. There in I think lies both the problem and the solution. Rather than autocompleting our work, we’d all be so lucky to have a captivated and motivated reader who asks all of the questions this author suggests, so we can get better and better at asking them ourselves and making great art.

[1] https://dmd-program.github.io/dmd-300-master/assets/Chiang-A...

In fact I think the opposite is true. The Zcash bug was found with opus 4.6 or something like that. Many worse models currently in the wild might be very capable but not yet industrialized for bug finding.

Another example from today. Cryptography system that’s been around for decades: https://eprint.iacr.org/2026/1630

It’s going to be a bumpy few months

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48410689

Points: 7

# Comments: 1

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47855308

Points: 1

# Comments: 0

Though, like, I guess I expect that when this comes out, all the opus traffics will move over. It does appear to be much more capable, just jury is out about how much more capable

If smaller models can find these things, that doesn’t mean mythos is worse than we thought. It means all models are more capable.

Also if pointing models at files and giving them hints is all it takes to make them find all kinds of stuff, well, we can also spray and pray that pretty well with llms can’t we.

It just points to us finding a lot more stuff with only a little bit more sophistication.

Hopefully the growing pains are short and defense wins

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47650234

Points: 8

# Comments: 1

I appreciate the sentiment and I agree. While I think there are countless humans who could do way better, I was never going to hire someone to illustrate this. Furthermore, I don't think it reads very interestingly without the images. I doubt it would have even gotten published.

But now thousands of people have seen it, it's shown that it can strike a chord. Maybe it is worth polishing a little more. It would be adorable as a small book

Still, right now I think we can tell, so I focused on making sure they were my words, but I let an llm help edit and I think it honestly made it much more readable