Hacker News: hatefulmoron

New comment by hatefulmoron in "IQuest-Coder: A new open-source code model beats Claude Sonnet 4.5 and GPT 5.1 [pdf]"

hatefulmoron — Sun, 04 Jan 2026 20:55:33 +0000

I wouldn't use any provider: z.ai, Claude, OpenAI, ... if I was concerned about the government obtaining my prompts. If you're doing something where this is a legitimate concern (as opposed to my open source stuff), you should get a local LLM or put a lot of effort into anonymizing yourself and your prompts.

New comment by hatefulmoron in "IQuest-Coder: A new open-source code model beats Claude Sonnet 4.5 and GPT 5.1 [pdf]"

hatefulmoron — Sun, 04 Jan 2026 20:53:40 +0000

Yeah, when I say "current day Claude" I'm referring to Opus 4.5, which is what I always use on the max plan.

New comment by hatefulmoron in "IQuest-Coder: A new open-source code model beats Claude Sonnet 4.5 and GPT 5.1 [pdf]"

hatefulmoron — Sat, 03 Jan 2026 10:29:43 +0000

I got their z.ai plan to test alongside my Claude subscription; it feels about on par with something between sonnet 4.0 and sonnet 4.5. It's definitely a few steps below current day Claude, but it's very capable.

New comment by hatefulmoron in "GPT-5.2-Codex"

hatefulmoron — Fri, 19 Dec 2025 01:10:52 +0000

I've had the $20/month plan for a few months alongside a max subscription to Claude; the cheap codex plan goes a really long way. I use it a few times a day for debugging, finding bugs, and reviewing my work. I've ran out of usage a couple of times, but only when I lean on it way more than I should.

I only ever use it on the high reasoning mode, for what it's worth. I'm sure it's even less of a problem if you turn it down.

New comment by hatefulmoron in "Dafny: Verification-Aware Programming Language"

hatefulmoron — Wed, 17 Dec 2025 04:25:08 +0000

Dafny and similar languages use SMT; their semantics need to be such that you're giving enough information for your proof to verify in sufficient time, otherwise you'll be waiting for a very long time or your proof is basically undecidable.

I'm not sure about benchmarks comparing languages, but Dafny goes through a lot of tweaking to make the process faster.

New comment by hatefulmoron in "Do the thinking models think?"

hatefulmoron — Mon, 01 Dec 2025 08:20:15 +0000

Is that interesting? Computers accomplish all sorts of tasks which require thinking from humans.. without thinking. Chess engines have been much better than me at chess for a long time, but I can't say there's much thinking involved.

New comment by hatefulmoron in "After my dad died, we found the love letters"

hatefulmoron — Sun, 23 Nov 2025 15:09:00 +0000

I admit that when reading the description of your relationship (I don't mean to be disrespectful, for what it's worth) I can't help but wonder how it can possibly be consistent with "a relationship between two people can be basically whatever they want it to be." It really reads like the relationship is whatever _she_ wants it to be.

If you had come into the relationship with the understanding that you'd both date/have sex with other people then great; it doesn't matter what other people think. However, when you say that it was hard for you to accept her being with other men, and that you're lucky that "she has never fallen in love and wanted to run away with one of em", damn. My first instinct is that you should take your own advice: find or design a relationship where you don't have to accept this.

I realize that some of my knee jerk reaction might just be instinct/cultural values, I mean no disrespect.

New comment by hatefulmoron in "Open-source Zig book"

hatefulmoron — Mon, 17 Nov 2025 00:12:53 +0000

If you believed that you wouldn't explicitly say there was no AI generated content at all, you'd let it speak for itself.

New comment by hatefulmoron in "Ask HN: How to deal with long vibe-coded PRs?"

hatefulmoron — Tue, 04 Nov 2025 10:03:05 +0000

You're proposing a truism: if you don't get a good result, it's either because your query is bad or because the LLM isn't good enough to provide a good result.

Yes, that is how this works. I'm talking about the case where you're providing a good query and getting poor results. Claiming that this can be solved by more LLM conversations and ultrathink is cope.

New comment by hatefulmoron in "Ask HN: How to deal with long vibe-coded PRs?"

hatefulmoron — Tue, 04 Nov 2025 09:19:06 +0000

I've read your questions a few times and I'm a bit perplexed. What kind of answers are you expecting me to give you here? Surely if you use Claude Code or other tools you'd know that the answers are so varying and situation specific it's not really possible for me to give you solid answers.

New comment by hatefulmoron in "Ask HN: How to deal with long vibe-coded PRs?"

hatefulmoron — Tue, 04 Nov 2025 09:02:09 +0000

Distinction without a difference. I'm talking about its output being insufficient, whatever word you want to use for output.

New comment by hatefulmoron in "Ask HN: How to deal with long vibe-coded PRs?"

hatefulmoron — Tue, 04 Nov 2025 08:29:38 +0000

I have a Claude max subscription. When I think of bad Claude code, I'm not thinking about unused variable definitions. I'm thinking about the times you turn on ultrathink, allow it to access tools and negotiate it's solution, and it still churns out an over complicated yet partially correct solution that breaks. I totally trust Claude to fix linting errors.

New comment by hatefulmoron in "Ask HN: How to deal with long vibe-coded PRs?"

hatefulmoron — Tue, 04 Nov 2025 08:14:03 +0000

I don't really understand your point. It reads like you're saying "I like good code, it doesn't matter if it comes from a person or an LLM. If a person is good at using an LLM, it's fine." Sure, but the problem people have with LLMs is their _propensity_ to create slop in comparison to humans. Dismissing other people's observations as purely an emotional reaction just makes it seem like you haven't carefully thought about other people's experiences.

New comment by hatefulmoron in "Ask HN: How to deal with long vibe-coded PRs?"

hatefulmoron — Tue, 04 Nov 2025 05:39:17 +0000

Calling things "slop" is just begging the question. The real differentiating factor is that, in the past, "human-generated slop" at least took effort to produce. Perhaps, in the process of producing it, the human notices what's happening and reconsiders (or even better, improves it such that it's no longer "slop".) Claude has no such inhibitions. So, when you look at a big bunch of code that you haven't read yet, are you more or less confident when you find out an LLM wrote it?

New comment by hatefulmoron in "Analytical review of depression and suicidality from finasteride"

hatefulmoron — Wed, 15 Oct 2025 10:17:03 +0000

My mistake :-)

New comment by hatefulmoron in "Zoo of array languages"

hatefulmoron — Wed, 15 Oct 2025 00:12:34 +0000

K et al. can look like that, but this example doesn't require any explanation to someone who has any familiarity.

New comment by hatefulmoron in "Analytical review of depression and suicidality from finasteride"

hatefulmoron — Tue, 07 Oct 2025 02:32:48 +0000

I don't think we're saying different things. People who are distressed about their appearance are more likely to be depressed, and people who seek medicine and surgeries are probably more distressed still, and therefore more likely to be depressed, ..

New comment by hatefulmoron in "Analytical review of depression and suicidality from finasteride"

hatefulmoron — Tue, 07 Oct 2025 01:13:54 +0000

There's probably a difference in degree, however. Alopecia Areata is much more uncommon, while regular male pattern baldness is very common.

There's also the fact that Alopecia Areata is actually more common in women, which I imagine exaggerates the distress compared to the more run of the mill MPB.

I realize you didn't mean to use a study on Alopecia Areata, but the difference in degree could be quite large.

New comment by hatefulmoron in "Analytical review of depression and suicidality from finasteride"

hatefulmoron — Tue, 07 Oct 2025 01:06:54 +0000

It's also possible that people taking Finasteride might be a more potent selection of people that are distressed about hair loss, and are therefore more likely to exhibit depression, etc. As in, if people with androgenetic alopecia are more likely to be depressed, people who take finasteride may be a sampling of those people who are distressed enough to seek and maintain treatments.

New comment by hatefulmoron in "Write the damn code"

hatefulmoron — Mon, 29 Sep 2025 16:55:03 +0000

I remember discussing with some coworkers a year(?) ago about autocomplete vs chat, and we were basically in agreement that autocomplete was the better feature of the two.

Since we've had Claude Code for a few months I think our opinions have shifted in the opposite direction. I believe my preference for autocomplete was driven by the weaknesses of Chat/Agent Mode + Claude Sonnet 3.5 at the time, rather than the strengths of autocomplete itself.

At this point, I write the code myself without any autocomplete. When I want the help, Claude Code is open in a terminal to lend a hand. As you mentioned, autocomplete has this weird effect where instead of considering the code, you're sort of subconsciously trying to figure out what the LLM is trying to tell you with its suggestions, which is usually a waste of time.