Viewing profile — nsingh2
nsingh2
HN member- Joined
- Wed, May 29, 2024, 6:24 PM UTC
- HN karma
- 388
- Public activity
- 134 items
- HN profile
- View on Hacker News ↗
About nsingh2
Recent public activity
- comment
-
comment
Comment #48909024
Their models don't consume encrypted text, it would be absurd to train them to do so. Surely they decrypt the text before feeding it into the LLM, so the contents could get leaked …
- comment
-
comment
Comment #48819436
My own experience: much less context bloat, and hidden system prompts. Can tune it to your own workflow, instead of dealing with whatever hidden system prompt Claude Code forces on…
-
comment
Comment #48819267
To be fair, Pi only had to be useful. Claude Code had to solve the difficult unsolved problem of making a terminal print text, so naturally they built a small game engine [1] [1] h…
-
comment
Comment #48795944
I think it might affect real work if part of it requires a lot of thinking, i.e. something similar in nature to a puzzle. There seems to be something wrong with the "commentary" ch…
-
comment
Comment #48795491
This is preliminary, but it seems like it might somehow be related to the `## Intermediary updates` system prompt that's provided to the model. Seems like it forces the model to st…
-
comment
Comment #48794877
This is preliminary, but it seems like it might somehow be related to the `## Intermediary updates` system prompt that's provided to the model. Seems like it forces the model to st…
-
comment
Comment #48790438
From some of the numbers I'm seeing in the GitHub issue, the codex desktop app has the same 516 spikes. So most likely it is affected.
- comment
-
comment
Comment #48789957
Oh this seems bad, and is fairly easy to reproduce using codex cli. You give it a puzzle prompt that it has to reason about and solve, occasionally it will seemingly short circuit …
- comment
-
comment
Comment #48767537
Codex apparently added this too, I only noticed a few days ago: https://github.com/openai/codex/issues/28969 I'm usually at my desk, and get a notification when it stops to ask a q…
-
comment
Comment #48758665
A highly detailed specification is not what I mean here. It's closer to plugging in a few sentence descriptions (or a totally cluttered brain dump) and having the model interview y…
-
comment
Comment #48758463
Refusing to sufficiently specify a task and hoping the model guesses correctly is not being productive. Again, these models still don't really ask questions when they should. You h…
-
comment
Comment #48757017
Why supply underspecified requirements in the first place? Both models are good at challenging assumptions/edge cases and asking questions to clarify, but seemingly only when expli…
-
comment
Comment #48739221
Cost per task is shockingly high. More expensive than Opus 4.8, second in place to Fable. Cost per task data is only available for max effort though, might just be very inefficient…
-
comment
Comment #48736854
That seems to only be true for the "Agentic Search" benchmark. That benchmark in particular is a bit weird, because Sonnet 4.6 effort levels had a relatively small effect, so Sonne…
- comment
-
comment
Comment #48711576
> Don't use it to write code One of the things I've started doing is to write the high level scaffold myself, create stubs (with comments) and have it fill out the details. I haven…
-
comment
Comment #48709147
This is false. A process needs read permission on the relevant `/dev/input/` device, typically by running as root or as a user in a group like `input`. Normal desktop users general…
- comment
-
comment
Comment #48692909
Yea these plots are too noisy and dense. Especially that second one, lines all over the place.
- comment
-
comment
Comment #48689418
From what my own experiences are, and what's on their checkout page, $100 is 5x base usage and $200 is 20x. If $100 was 10x, then I personally would drop down. They want people to …