Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | margorczynski's commentslogin

> Good feature design is hard for AI

For now. Go back a year and take a look how the AI/LLM coding tools looked and worked back then.


Recent news show he's not only predatory business-wise.

Like I said in the other submission;

By the time people realized he wanted all the booty for himself, it was too late :\


I would say that MS here is undervalued. They do not offer some small software package for a given business problem but the whole shebang - the OS, mail, calendar, office suite, IAM, cloud, etc. + support for each and the whole integration.

You can't realistically replace that with some LLM solution (in the near-term at least) and they can use the AIs to reduce their costs which is mostly people.


Microsoft has consistently proven over the last five years that they have zero ability to execute. It's an astounding failure after failure to do anything right.

All my Microsoft friends constantly berate the state of their hiring pipelines. Sprinkle on a paltry comp and this is hardly surprising.

It was so ridiculously shortsighted of them to decide as a strategy to underpay all their employees compared to the industry standard, especially considering their ambitions are still fairly unbounded (meaning it's not like they said everything we do will be easier than Google or Meta so we don't need to compete for the same pool of talent).

But maybe such a decision was inevitable in their culture. And now it's very difficult to correct.


> I would say that MS here is undervalued.

Windows 11 though...


Yeah, that one is a real gem. BeST wInD0Wz EvAr

Well it is like Thiel said in a recent interview - European companies and investors are very risk-averse and will never be a vanguard like the ones in the US.

You'll never get here that kind of cash for any risky project, it usually is low risk + low margin.


Feels like people write that like it somehow is failure on investors side.

If you are investor on US market having 300M people speaking roughly the same language and then high possibility to easily spill over the world upsides on the bet are really high, burning cash to have a chance hitting jackpot are much much higher than in EU.

In EU you are starting in a single country so like 60M people and your payoff is capped from start at most likely scenario you go big in a single country and then you basically have clean start in next country.

That is the reality of game theory, not some failure of imagination or being scared to take risks - payoff is just not there, in US you have a shot at insane payoff in relatively short term.


> If you are investor on US market having 300M people speaking roughly the same language and then high possibility to easily spill over the world upsides on the bet are really high

The topic is cloud providers. Do you think it would be critical for a EU-based cloud provider to translate their admin GUI to Elfdalian, Basque and Romansh in order to succeed? Or perhaps there are some deeper underlying causes for European failure in modern computer tech that you can think of?


No one is going to start a new cloud provider there are already European cloud providers existing.

Hetzner, OVH, Aruba, Scaleway. Their earnings hang around 400 million euros.

That’s rounding error compared to earnings of AWS, GCP, Azure.

European ones have English interfaces, global CDN capabilities etc. They still are rounding error compared to US ones.


Thiel recently called Greta Thunberg the anti - christ. Thiel is maybe crazy as Musk. at least he is not an authorative source.

Besides the soure what does he mean with all of Europe: Berlin? London? Paris? Estonia? Sweden? The start up eco system is fragmented / decentralised. I doubt Thiel is a good overview and he argues probably not in good faith anyway.


Zero to 1 was good.

But I generally have a hard time thinking any person's opinion is some sort of fact.

However, it kind of tracks with my understanding.


Maybe we don't need that kind of money for things like office software, email, reasonable sized databases, VPS etc.

Vibe coding is an idiotic term and it's a shame that it stuck. If I'm a project lead and just giving directions to the devs I'm also "vibe coding"?

I guess a large of that is that 1-2 years ago the whole process was much more non-deterministic and actually getting a sensible result much harder.


I think if a manager just gave some high order instructions and then went mostly handsoff until teammembers started quitting, dying etc, only then he steps in, that would be vibe managing. Normal managing would be much more supervision and guidance through feedback. This aligns 100% with TFA.

Sculpt coding??

Sculding??

Rice by any other name??


I wonder how K2.5 + OpenCode compares to Opus with CC. If it is close I would let go of my subscription, as probably a lot of people.

It is not opus. It is good, works really fast and suprisingly through about its decisions. However I've seen it hallucinate things.

Just today I asked for a code review and it flagged a method that can be `static`. The problem is it was already static. That kind of stuff never happens with Opus 4.5 as far as I can tell.

Also, in an opencode Plan mode (read only). It generated a plan and instead of presenting it and stopping, decided to implement it. Could not use the edit and write tools because the harness was in read only mode. But it had bash and started using bash to edit stuff. Wouldn't just fucking stop even though the error messages it received from opencode stated why. Its plan and the resulting code was ok so I let it go crazy though...


Some models have a mind of their own. I keep them on a leash with `permission` blocks in OC -- especially for rm/mv/git.

I've been using K2.5 with OpenCode to do code assessments/fixes and Opus 4.5 with CC to check the work, and so far so good. Very impressed with it so far, but I don't feel comfortable canceling my Claude subscription just yet. Haven't tried it on large feature implementations.

I've been drafting plans/specs in parallel with Opus and Kimi. Then asking them to review the others plan.

I still find Opus is "sharper" technically, tackles problems more completely & gets the nuance.

But man Kimi k2.5 can write. Even if I don't have a big problem description, just a bunch of specs, Kimi is there, writing good intro material, having good text that more than elaborates, that actually explains. Opus, GLM-4.7 have both complemented Kimi on it's writing.

Still mainly using my z.ai glm-4.7 subscription for the work, so I don't know how capable it really is. But I do tend to go for some Opus in sticky spots, and especially given the 9x price difference, I should try some Kimi. I wish I was set up for better parallel evaluation; feels like such a pain to get started.


I also wonder if CC can be used with k2.5 with the appropriate API adapter


How does that translate into real cash?

well, what happens is netflix gives blender real cash. and thats the entirety of the translation

It's quite a bit of money, but a lot less than the equivalent Maya licenses. It would be great if more studios did this:

$240k "Press release, tech blogpost, dedicated product manager for your area" https://fund.blender.org/corporate-memberships/

Meta are paying $30k per year, which is crazy really, when you think how much Blender has assisted in getting content onto their platform. Nvidia is better at $120k, but again, think how many graphics card buys Blender cycles has driven.


Unless the membership pages is locale-specific, I believe the Patron level fee is actually €240k, not USD.

The problem is not reliance on AI but that the AI is not ready yet and using general-purpose models.

There isn't simply enough doctors to go around and the average one isn't as knowledgeable as you would want. Everything suggests that when it comes to diagnosis ML systems should be better in the long run on average.

Especially with a quickly aging population there is no alternative if we want people to have healthcare on a sensible level.


They really have arrived just in time, I think.

Not sure if it's me but at least for my use cases (software devl, small-medium projects) Claude Opus + Claude Code beats by quite a margin OpenCode + GLM 4.7. At least for me Claude "gets it" eventually while GLM will get stuck in a loop not understanding what the problem is or what I expect.


Right, GLM is close But not close enough. If I have to spend $200 for Opus fallback i may as well not use it always. Still an unbelievable option if $200 is a luxury, the price-per-quality is absurd.


I wonder how strong such an agent would be today if years ago AlphaStar was on par with pros. All those fun projects (the one with Dota 2) died out when LLMs took the scene and RL died out.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: