Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

CrankGPT

crankgpt.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 252 posts

Re: CrankGPT

#191

Post by anana_ »

rpastuszak wrote: post #102

Playdate (the came console) is amazing for this! I was really bored once and built a Claude Code remote control for Playdate. Voice recognition was done via parrot + handy.computer Basically: different key combos were tied to different actions, e.g. \ - hold A to speak - move the crank slowly to navigate - crank super fast to send the prompt Eventually this became a universal remote control for the computers in my ho…

I have one too and it never occurred to me to use it for anything other than games. Would be interested in seeing how you did it!

Re: CrankGPT

#192

Post by zaat »

overfeed wrote: post #187
zaat wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a strange comparison. Wheels are incredibly limited in the type of surfaces they can be used on.

> That's a strange comparison It's not strange at all, I was responding to a specific, incorrect claim. I even quoted the wrong claim in my earlier comment , and I'll repeat it again, with added emphasis >>> humans are incredibly efficient, from an energy perspective, in anything we do, compared to machines I simply provided contrary evidence to a well-defined, falsifiable claim. How is that strange?

Yes, but walking and moving on wheels is oranges and apples. It would be a relevant comparison if a robot with a movement mechanism based on two feet was more efficient than a human.

Re: CrankGPT

#194

Post by pona-a »

I kept thinking this was a play on crank as in charlatan and crank as in hand-crank. Generate any flavor of crankery with the turn of a crank. Turns out it wasn't satire...

Re: CrankGPT

#195

Post by Chrise_N »

gchamonlive wrote: post #154
zahlman wrote: post #48

The webpage linked is an example of everything I wish people would stop doing in web design. Fortunately, at the bottom there is a link to the "technical documentation" ( https://squeezlabs.github.io/handcrank/ ) which is vastly improved (aside from being light-mode-only and linked from a dark-mode-only marketing page). It also gives me much more interesting information (specifically: models that can apparently run a…

Calling this web design is giving it too much credit. This is just a glorified marketing pamphlet, which is fine for its purpose.

boo wendy boo. i liked it.

Re: CrankGPT

#196

Post by rpastuszak »

Waterluvian wrote: post #184
rpastuszak wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean it's 100-160 mHz CPU, 16 MB RAM, 4 GB storage -- you could run diablo 1 on it!

Yeah in retrospect I really got it wrong with “underspecced.” I really should have said “not colour.” This all comes as a retrospective comparing it to my kids handheld for their MakeCode Arcade projects. The device that was 4x the price ended up on a shelf and I find myself borrowing theirs. I just wish it had that dumb crank. It’s so weird and yet I love it.

The lack of colour is actually quite cool (and it’s a fun creative constraint). But the lack of backlight and usb (iirc) is annoying. The first because you can’t use it in bed and I like to play something cosy/silly in low light (https://untested.sonnet.io/notes/obsidian-for-vampires/).

The second - because now I need a companion app/script to handle comms over WiFi (bonjour). You can use cable, but if I could pair this with my phone… as a personal assistant - that would be amazing!

Re: CrankGPT

#199

Post by arximboldi »

pants2 wrote: post #149
eks391 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I took several biomechanics classes as electives back in my undergrad, and in one assignment I remember comparing the energy outputs between the human and robot equivalents of different tasks, whether or not the robot was humanoid in how it was designed. The most impressive think that stuck with me is that humans are incredibly efficient , from an energy perspective, in anything we do, compared to machines. Every tim…

If you're comparing raw calories to output, yes. Even gasoline has a caloric value, but humans can't drink gasoline. Growing and preparing food for human consumption uses a lot more energy than pumping and refining gasoline, so at the end of the day, human efficiency gains are not that impressive.

that's a misleading equivalence because you're also not considering the energy it took to grow the plants that produce that oil millennia ago. perhaps comparing to biodiesel or alike would be better. but even then it underestimates the efficiency of the human body, because food contains not only the energy we use, but also the materials to build the body itself. so you'd need to account for the inputs into that biodiesel and then all the extraction of materials and production of the machine itself. biology is amazing
Post reply on HN