Any recent work by William Gibson matches the description.

The way I managed to get claude to stop doing this is telling it "This document is for you for later use, no need to over explain things or extra verbosity"

The 2nd thing is, how do I measure that.

---

In my case, the details of my work (Kinda DevOps, kinda Senior Dev) makes it that having an LLM to do the heavy lifting allows me to do things not only faster, but better, and across domains I do not hold expertise on.

An example of the effect of LLMs in my daily work is that I'm in the middle of a PHP upgrade for a rather large legacy application, and the "heavy lifting" is really out of the scale, letting me concentrate on what really matters, while at the same time if I do keep "the harness" tight I'm certain the results are the correct ones. Also correcting course is just as cheap.

Not having to worry on the tooling on exchange has the incredible desirable result of my velocity being incomparable to what it was before.

Then we have the side effect of how easy to do transfer knowledge: Rather than telling the QA guy how to do the work specific for this task, I defined a set of files (.md documents, skills, an off-the-shelf customised MCP server) that assist QA into doing the work in a way that helps me do my job better and faster.

There's also a clear possibility that what I'm doing will expand to the rest of the team I am in, completely altering the way in which we approach development.

If we take 'x' as 'mileage', yours might vary. Mine has, and I'm baffled at the positive net results I AM getting.

Also, this what I do (coding?) is extremely fun again.

Being able to work close to the speed of thought is the best high.

    I don't know what machine they were raging against, but I'm pretty sure it was an LLM

As a matter of fact, for the line of work I do (programming, devops, the works) being conscious about the fact that I am just getting an algorithm outputting text that is probabilistically related to the input I gave it would actually be healthy for me and my mental state.

I HATE having to say "you" when working with an LLM.

I wasn getting a constant panel from them regarding using the backup feature, that will just keep re appearing.

It was so bad I even moved to GBoard. Not the same, but I'm getting used to.

I guess this one just compounds.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48620142

Hiring has always been broken. May be not completely at the FAANG level, but below that, and more importantly across the globe it's seriously broken, and there's a high variance when it comes to hiring consultants quality.

The widespread use of AI vy applicants is very likely surfacing how comfortable consultants were doing the bare minimum when hiring.

Source: I've been working for 10+ years for a company that has an ATS for mostly European clients.

I know for a fact how crappy work around hiring is.

P.S.: the article focuses mostly on one direction of hiring. The opposite direction is also suffering from this (briefly explained in the article about AI fueled hiring bias). In my opinion, that is an even greater problem.

"You got your cold brew, your Japanese iced coffee, your iced americano. Then there's your mazagran, that's coffee with lemon juice, real refreshing. Your espresso tonic. Your iced latte, iced cappuccino, iced macchiato. You got your iced mocha, your frappuccino, your Greek frappé. Vietnamese iced coffee with the condensed milk dripping down real slow. Affogato, that's espresso poured right over ice cream. That's... that's about it."

that smells of AI [1], and thus lazy writing. I'm all in for using AI to help you write, but if you don't put your voice to it then there's no reason to read it.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Signs_of_AI_writing#...

But, work IS exciting now - not sure for how long - because AI allows me to work almost at the speed of thought.

Nothing more, nothing less. It's FUN to be able to _just_ think.

Growing up in Argentina, back in the day these were all dubbed. The version I watched on tv had a voice and personality of its own - Latin American "neutral" Spanish - and for the life of me I could never find that same version, only the Spain-dubbed one.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47910925

Points: 4

# Comments: 1

It doesn't seem to be burning much tokens (MAX x1)

But boy is it slow. Thinking mode [1] (Yeah, I know) takes MINUTES per turn.

This is SERIOUSLY costly, token wise or otherwise.

[1] My bad, but compared to 4.6 is a disaster.

Comments URL: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47896678

Points: 2

# Comments: 0

I recently went on a deep dive about them with sonnet / opus.

I wanted to detect if a file or an analysis was the result of the last turn and act upon that.

From my experience, 2 things stand out by looking at the data above:

1. They have changed the schema for the hook reply [1] if this is real stop hook users (And may be users of other hooks) are in for a world of pain (if these schema changes propagate)

2. Opus is caring f*ck all about the response from the hook, and that's not good. Sonnet / Opus 4.6 are very self conscious about the hooks, what they mean and how they should _ act / react_ on them, and because of how complex the hook I set up is I've seen turns with 4 stop hooks looping around until Claude decides to stop the loop.

[1] My comment is in the context of claude code. I cannot make if the post is about that or an API call.

I'll definitely give this a spin.