If you have so little scruples, I can imagine you wouldn’t think twice about doing that with an assignment.

We’re inundated with fake applicants. References are more than mandatory now. But not enough, the whole system is broken.

Also you come off like a reactionary ahole.

It is a hell of a thing for a random person on an internet forum to be so unilateral, without providing some kind of strong evidence (aside from statements about "the industry", which is kind of beside the point). I would also suggest if you want to be so unequivocal, that the burden of proof is especially high for you.

This "point" isn't actually all that rational - it's knee jerk skepticism. It's a fine default for yourself, but it's not something you get to force on others because they admit there's room for the potential of benefit.

Again: You're perfectly fine to hold that opinion yourself, but when you start trying to force that on others - you now have an especially high bar to reach, and yes - being a lead researcher in the field is exactly what I'm looking for when someone says "X has been proven to not have a benefit for Y".

"Trust me, I'm a scientitian" - Not sure the point of that juvenile wordplay, but Ok: we do have these things called scientists, some are good, some are terrible. You still need to back up your statements - that's the key part, this isn't a blind appeal to authority. And it's a hell of a lot better than "Trust me, I'm a nerd with very strong beliefs about a topic I know very little about".

Basically, HN doing HN things - having a good deep think about topics outside their realm of expertise, then debating the minutiae. I'd just rather trust someone who has spent their career researching this stuff, thanks (unless that's what you do - in which case please tell us more).

Perhaps you can say "danger to your hair is rare", but there's very clearly (to me at least) an effect there, and the way it gets hand-waved away is strange to me.

Or in my case, actively ignore any and all recruiting from that sesspool.

I don't think we'll see home users being able to match even the low end clouds for a long time.

Longer term I think we'll see these uses of AI cluster into a few groups:

- maximal code / reasoning quality, at high prices (Fable)

- typical code / agents (sub-Opus, Terra)

- cheap but decent enough quality (think Deepseek / GLM / Luna)

- so cheap I don't care about utilization (Deepseek, and friends)

And also more niche ones:

- ultra fast with high quality answers (typically sub-SOTA). Cerebras / dedicated silicon type approaches, expensive.

- ultra fast with mostly-adequate answers, and an openness to retries, moving up to better models

I think the open models will dominate (not with individuals, but low cost providers) all except the top 1-2 of those categories, and there will be a continuous erosion on the big player's moats. The top categories are also where all the money is, but I'm not sure it can justify those investments long-term. I also think they will have to squeeze more money out of them to justify the investments, which will also drive people down the list.

Edit: clarifications.

That's most people. They just keep it inside, assuming everyone else is doing better than they are.

The mass of men lead lives of quiet desperation.