Those are crowdsourced benchmarks. We're calling them "cognitive" and "AGI" now, though. It's similar to when they made a benchmark and called it "GDP".
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.
I think the concept is great, I'd love something like this even more broadly, sort of a daily "customizable" newspaper. The issue I see is that it's a bit... bland? Obviously you're doing this with AI and there's no other way to do it, but one of the main reasons why something like HN has stayed relevant for this long is its variety: front page stories often have remarkable diversity, not only in topics and content, but also in tone and writing style. I feel a digest like this one flattens everything more than I'd like.
> Obviously you're doing this with AI and there's no other way to do it
What do you mean "no other way to do it"? Traditionally these sort of things been curated, by humans who read and make judgements, how is that not another way to do it? Probably would solve the whole "bit... bland?" problem to, given the right curator.
Good editing and curation take time. It has to be compensated, or a labor of love.
That would not be a mere project, but a huge commitment. Which would be devalued if the content was not published consistently, regularly, predictably with no vacations, etc.
It would be a truly honorable commitment (I greatly appreciate similar efforts by people elsewhere), but not one to be made lightly.
(Edit: despite the "not a...but a" construction above, this comment is HI only, and not even much of that! :-)
I agree that this is likely to flatten out the depth of comments I come here for. It's also hard to get a brief that is tailored to the subset of posts you might actually be interested in.
The approach I tried was to rely mainly on what comments I've upvoted, have the AI look at those comments and gather context from the article/link and the parent comment chain, then give me a "here's what you learned yesterday" brief.
I had plans to add some memory to mention related things from recent weeks. Relying mainly on being able to visually code all this with n8n, and never quite got it working.
I've been thinking about this for a while too. Probably what I will do is create embeddings of the frontpage results and then let users pick 3-5 topics that they would like to see. Then summarize the top 10 for those topics.
Something I've been tinkering on for the last few weeks is absent.dev[1], was working towards getting the guts to share this on HN but there's a few things I want to polish first. This is the MVP, but it will essentially be moving towards what you're suggesting, much more customisable news aggregation and more importantly, where you consume it. Feed agnostic, channel agnostic, in the form(s) you want (longform, shortform, summary, tl;dr etc). You can check the clustering logic on the digest[2].
Not a perfect solution but I wonder if asking the LLM to preserve style when summarizing works well. I will have to try that. Because they do indeed otherwise default to bland slop style.
I think the argument is "a bit too nice," it isn't a binary, motivations are complicated and sometimes both feelings coexist.
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.
> That's partly an illusion. Try doing everything manually. After only using inline suggestions for six months a few years ago, I've noticed that my skills have gotten way worse. I became way slower. You have to constantly exercise your brain.
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.
Want to try to do anything more complicated? I have seen a lot of delusional people around, who think their skills are still on the same level, but in interviews they bomb at even simple technical topics, when practical implementations are concerned.
If you don't code ofc you won't be as good at coding, that's a practical fact. Sure, beyond a certain skill level your decline may not be noticeable early because of the years of built-in practice and knowledge.
But considering every year there is so much more interesting technology if you don't keep improving in both hands-on learning and slow down to take stock, you won't be capable of anything more than delusional thinking about how awesome your skill level is.
I don't think the split is along seniority lines. Many juniors have adopted LLMs even faster. In many quarters it has also become a kind of political issue where "all the people I hate love LLMs so I must hate them."
it's a typo, but you've gotta admit Lorenzo il Magnifico on a 90s BBS dealing with political scandal in a steampunk Florence is a sick premise for a novel.
Some Americans think the "democracy" vs "republic" distinction is extremely important, and that "democracy" means something like "tyranny of the majority", hence why it is good that America is not a _democracy_, but a _republic_ or a _democratic republic_.
Some other Americans (there is some overlap) also think that the US is so large and diverse that essentially its States are their own countries and the US is more like its own continent, and talking about the American _nation_ or even _country_ is meaningless. It is a union of States (though it is rare that someone argues that the US is not a country).
Isn't this some extreme distortion of semantics though? Going by the majority usage of those words, "democracy" and "republic" mean different but not incompatible things and the claim that America isn't a country is just baffling.
Yeah, republic doesn't really mean much these days (in the common definition and applied to contemporary countries).
North Korea is officially a republic, but it's closer to a hereditary, absolutist monarchy in practice. The UK is officially a constitutional monarchy, but in practice not all that much would change, if they demoted the royal family.
Titles make no sense whatsoever, you're correct, but in nearly all organizations there's a split between IC track and manager track, so the argument the OP is making is debatable but it's not absurd on its face.
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.
reply