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

Karpathy’s Pelican

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 461 posts

Re: Karpathy’s Pelican

#151

Post by lowbloodsugar »

HarHarVeryFunny wrote: post #47

It seems pretty clear that Anthropic models have been specifically trained to be good at generating three.js (JavaScript 3-D Graphics) code, so given current state of AI code generation in general, I don't find three.js models/animations as indicative of anything other than the model's ability to write three.js code. When Fable was first released the day-1 demos of it on Twitter (presumably from people who were given…

Don’t worry. I’m sure they’re not training it to be good at things like writing database backends, financial services, logistics systems, user interfaces, or anything of economic value. As long as you’re not working on three.js specifically, I’m sure Anthropic isn’t making any progress you should be worried about.

Re: Karpathy’s Pelican

#152

Post by mdp2021 »

rzzzt wrote: post #117
mdp2021 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, in that case - if it is just a "hear, hear" - I do not see why the utterance from that actor would be of note. Maybe nozzlegear wanted to suggest some importance on Musk remaining a bet-ter on the general tech, regardless of the competition?

This gets me thinking (although there is not much to divine from three letters). Maybe it's a Jennifer Lawrence GIF-inspired "Yeah, right" then? Downplaying the significance?

To some online sources, it is used for both.

> "Yah": slang spelling of the word "yeah" (which of course can also be used ironically)

> Merriam-Webster: "Yah": used to express disgust, contempt, defiance, or derision; probably imitative of the sound of retching

Re: Karpathy’s Pelican

#153

Post by lowbloodsugar »

qrios wrote: post #89
fzeindl wrote: post #18

Regarding the argument about LLMs having difficulties auditing their work: I wonder whether we are entering the era of throwaway software. Just like cheap plastics and improved processes has enabled us to rapidly manufacture anything we want for a very low price, maybe LLMs give us the same for software. Produce it cheaply and if it breaks throws it away and reproduce it.

I'm sure this will become the standard. And plastic is an excellent analogy. Maybe we can take it a step further and compare it to on-demand 3D printing. Why would anyone still use off-the-shelf software when they can have a system that has access to all data, can transform it into any form, and can export it in any format? After years of thinking that I needed to develop a decent movie management system for my own f…

This. This is why the burst of posts on HN of “I made this useful tool/crate/application” were just so sad. The old model was getting what the kids now call aura by developing useful open source products: products where it’s far easier for someone to consume the product than write it themselves. We had people posting things as if that model still existed. Dude, you wrote it with an LLM! Posting them (here) is not only pointless, it’s advertising that the person who wrote it isn’t smart enough to understand that I have an LLM too.

Re: Karpathy’s Pelican

#154

Post by abletonlive »

HarHarVeryFunny wrote: post #47

It seems pretty clear that Anthropic models have been specifically trained to be good at generating three.js (JavaScript 3-D Graphics) code, so given current state of AI code generation in general, I don't find three.js models/animations as indicative of anything other than the model's ability to write three.js code. When Fable was first released the day-1 demos of it on Twitter (presumably from people who were given…

[flagged]

Re: Karpathy’s Pelican

#156

Post by xnx »

misiti3780 wrote: post #5
qwertox wrote: post #3

I'd rather have them battle on the topic "Who builds a better Google Wave for LLM chats" to explore the space of how AI studios could be. "Getting Started with Google Wave": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKUAqNGVwX0

i remember this failing, but this product looks pretty useful in 2026

It was too far ahead of its time.

Re: Karpathy’s Pelican

#157

Post by [deleted] »

qwertox wrote: post #3

I'd rather have them battle on the topic "Who builds a better Google Wave for LLM chats" to explore the space of how AI studios could be. "Getting Started with Google Wave": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKUAqNGVwX0

[deleted]

Re: Karpathy’s Pelican

#158

Post by IsTom »

jmugan wrote: post #93

A lot of people are posting here about how bad the end product is, but that is kind of the point. Models have moved beyond generating images to a new kind of benchmark that better exposes understanding of the physical world, and we can use benchmarks like this to measure future progress. (Of course, it will have to be a qualitative/subjective measurement.)

Aren't they still bad at understanding how bicycle frame works? Especially the steering part?

Re: Karpathy’s Pelican

#159

Post by baxtr »

qwertox wrote: post #3

I'd rather have them battle on the topic "Who builds a better Google Wave for LLM chats" to explore the space of how AI studios could be. "Getting Started with Google Wave": https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eKUAqNGVwX0

It’s a fun idea to re-animate dead google products by feeding product videos to an AI

Re: Karpathy’s Pelican

#160

Post by ActionHank »

NitpickLawyer wrote: post #39
trentor wrote: post #34

I always thought of the Pelican more of like a gimmicky quick test. There are people who took it as a serious benchmark for overall model performance?

"Draw a pelican on a bicycle" is not a serious benchmark. "Draw an animation of this long ass scene from a movie, and only call me when everything works e2e" can be.

I feel like we are going to look back on this era of llm usage like we do at the period of time when we thought radiation was magic.

Consuming radium and using uranium glass, that’s what we’re doing.

Post reply on HN