I guess I like the design language but I wouldn't be prepared to give back the usability of modern UIs.

https://scryfall.com/card/plst/INV-156/obliterate

I'm writing this message even though I don't have much to add because it's often the case on HN that criticism is vocal and appreciation is silent and I'd like to balance out the sentiment.

Anthropic has fumbled on many fronts lately but engaging honestly like this is the right thing to do. I trust you'll get back on track.

Will be interesting to try.

If you're looking specifically for games in that style, Twilight Struggle has been studied extensively and there's significant competitive play and a well-developed theory. 7 Wonders Duel and Dominion also have significant depth.

- what if at a certain level of capability you're essentially bug-free? I'm somewhat skeptical that this could be the case in a strong sense, because even if you formally prove certain properties, security often crucially depends on the threat model (e.g. side channel attacks, constant-time etc,) but maybe it becomes less of a problem in practice?

- what if past a certain capability threshold weaker models can substitute for stronger ones if you're willing to burn tokens? To make an example with coding, GPT-3 couldn't code at all, so I'd rather have X tokens with say, GPT 5.4, than 100X tokens with GPT-3. But would I rather have X tokens with GPT 5.4 or 100X tokens with GPT 5.2? That's a bit murkier and I could see that you could have some kind of indifference curve.

Yes, and that's because God, spirituality and religion make fuzzy truth claims and can be used to argue for and justify anything. God can be used as the excuse to start a genocide and the inspiration to stop it, spirituality can be the way for wounded people to work with their trauma and the vehicle for people without scruples to sell horoscopes or some shit, religion (the same religion) was used to justify and uphold slavery and to fight for its end.

They are containers for our politics, our lifestyle, for who we are and for who we hope to be.

The Agile manifesto is a series of statements in the form "we like X more than Y." It doesn't say anything. To make it mean anything you have to project onto it a framework of interpretation that exists independently of the "sacred text" itself.

So yeah, they are similar, and that's because Agile, sociologically, works like a religion.

That's... refreshingly normal? Surely something most people acting in good faith can get behind.

> As much as chess players can prepare, they can’t memorize everything. When they’re sitting at the board, their computers slumbering at home, they will inevitably be defined by the limits of their knowledge and ability. As a result, the elite grandmasters have realized the most valuable move is often the one that forces their opponents to start thinking with their brains rather than their engines, even if it might not be the “best” possible move.

I agree it's not exactly breaking new ground, but it's an okay article for a generalist audience.

To be clear, I think we've seen very fast progress, certainly faster than I would have expected, I'm not trying to peddle some "wall" rhetoric here, but I struggle to see how this isn't just the SWE-bench du jour.

If I reflect for a moment about why I personally got into tech, I can find at least a few different reasons:

- because I like solving problems. It's sad that the specific types of problems I used to do are gone, but it's exciting that there are new ones.

- because I like using my skills to help other people. It's sad that one specific way I could do that is now less effective, but it's exciting that I can use my knowledge in new ways.

- because I like doing something where I can personally make a difference. Again, it cuts both ways.

I'm sure most people would cite similar examples.

YMMV, but I'm not seeing this at all. You might get foggy around things like the particular syntax for some advanced features, but I'll never forget what a for loop is, how binary search works, or how to analyze time complexity. That's just not how human cognition works, assuming you had solid understanding before.

I still do puzzles like Advent of Code or problems from competitive programming from time to time because I don't want to "lose it," but even if you're doing something interesting, a lot of practical programming boils down to the digital equivalent of "file this file into this filing," mind-numbingly boring, forgettable code that still has to be written to a reasonable standard of quality because otherwise everything collapses.

https://www.wired.com/1994/08/hacker-crackdown-italian-style...