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

I am worried about Bun

wwj.dev

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

301–310 of 368 posts

Re: I am worried about Bun

#301

Post by Philpax »

remexre wrote: post #197
Philpax wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A month with a superintelligence at your hands could be quite impactful, especially if you're willing to break the law / normal operating decorum in the pursuit of protecting what you have. A superintelligence, if wielded so, could destroy your competitors in a great many ways, including the relatively-benign solution of outcompeting them, to exploiting them and tearing them apart from the inside. A genuine superinte…

If I interpret "a machine superintelligence" as "a classroom of 300IQ humans," I'm not really sure how this is true? You still have material and energy constraints, you can't think your way out of those.

For the concrete problem we're discussing, you can hack your competitors out of existence, replace all of your knowledge workers to shed costs, hyperoptimise your logistics, etc. It's not just intelligence, it's speed and scale.

Bostrom's Superintelligence (2014) is a bit of a dreary read, and I didn't finish it, but it pulls no punches about the leverage that a superintelligence might have in our highly-connected world.

Re: I am worried about Bun

#302

Post by [deleted] »

marcus_holmes wrote: post #277
josephg wrote: post #228

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ASI is the acronym you’re looking for. It stands for Artificial Superintelligence. Arguably it’s already here. ChatGPT knows more than any human who has ever lived. It can carry out millions of conversations at once. And it has better working memory (“context”) than humans. And it can speak and write code much faster than humans. Humans still have some advantages: Specialists are smarter than chatgpt in most domains.…

ChatGPT can only respond to a prompt, and in the context of that prompt. It has no continuous awareness of anything. That isn't superintelligence. We are easily fooled because we have stupid monkey brains.

[deleted]

Re: I am worried about Bun

#303

Post by strken »

stkdump wrote: post #173
Anon1096 wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> We understood (and knew for a long time) that the large AI labs are not monetarily profiting from subscription users that make heavy use of their subscription. I dont think this is "understood" or "known" to anyone except Ed Zitron. Subscription plans like Claude Code also have rolling usage limits, it could be profitable. Inference is very cheap and unless you're using OpenClaw no one is actually maxing out the us…

Then explain why they started banning all third party harnesses, including those that work through Claude Code, if it still makes them money. They are cutting off profit for no good reason? I think there were reasons to doubt that heavy subscription users are unprofitable before they did that. OpenClaw was just the tip of the iceberg. Why don't they make token pricing dynamic if that was the case? It should then allo…

If each additional user is a net benefit for them, but they're still struggling to find enough capacity, it would make sense to cut down usage from existing users so they can onboard new ones.

They're trying to capture the market! Can't do that if you have to stop onboarding users because NVIDIA are struggling to manufacture enough GPUs for you.

Re: I am worried about Bun

#304

Post by Eufrat »

echelon wrote: post #255
mediaman wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's a big leap to go from "some users may be using large quantities of tokens" to "the labs are burning money on subs in an attempt to kill the competition." Lots of businesses have subscription programs in which a small number of users are money losers, but which in aggregate make money. It's not even obvious that the labs are losing a lot of money on even a minority of users; the rate use caps are fairly aggressiv…

I work in the video AI world. We gave up on subscriptions long ago. They're rinky dink and get you a paltry amount of utilization before they run out. The per day per seat costs can exceed $1000. This is already normal for studios, and it's already producing positive ROI. There's simply no way to price video any other way than by usage. I suspect the same will come for everything.

> There's simply no way to price video any other way than by usage. I suspect the same will come for everything.

I don't think there's any way for all of the current AI models to work except as a usage model. The question is whether or not people are willing to pay for it that way in the long-term.

It sounds like it is producing positive ROI for your side, but I’m curious what the bean counters at the studios think of the bill when the budgets tighten.

Re: I am worried about Bun

#305

Post by echelon »

Tarsul wrote: post #287
echelon wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I work in the video AI world. We gave up on subscriptions long ago. They're rinky dink and get you a paltry amount of utilization before they run out. The per day per seat costs can exceed $1000. This is already normal for studios, and it's already producing positive ROI. There's simply no way to price video any other way than by usage. I suspect the same will come for everything.

positive ROI for customers?

AI is already in commercials, TV, and movies. Companies for the most part just don't tell you because the reaction of the general public is "eww, AI".

It's already here in a big way. You just won't be told about it until the public lightens up on the "AI hate".

Re: I am worried about Bun

#306

Post by red75prime »

ethin wrote: post #187
zem wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

only if said galactic superintelligence takes immediate steps to kill all its potential competitors, or hoover up all the world's resources, or some other aggressively zero sum thing. otherwise I don't see what difference it makes down the line of you have the second superintelligence rather than the first. and that's under the assumption that you can create a superintelligence that will continue to slavishly serve y…

This is also assuming that AGI is even possible. So far there is no evidence that this is actually doable over anything but billions of years (and even then we have no idea how nature really managed it). Edit: Meant to say AGI (superintelligence didn't make sense). Superintelligence is undefinable at the moment so even considering if it's possible or not is more of a philosophical thing/si-fi thought experiment than…

> So far there is no evidence that this is actually doable over anything but billions of years (and even then we have no idea how nature really managed it).

"The brain is so mysterious and unique, that we should abandon all attempts to even try to apply results like the general approximation theorem to it and discard all signs that some approximation is happening."

Why we don't see signs of intelligence in the universe? The simplest self-replicator requires accidental synthesis of the sequence of 200 (or so) RNA nucleobases.

BTW, your argument could have been applied word-for-word to powered flight in 1899. In short, argumentum ad ignorantiam.

Re: I am worried about Bun

#307

Post by saghm »

atonse wrote: post #78
saghm wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Now, even though their parent company does some shitty practices with their other software (claude code), it's a stretch to assume this will also translate into making Bun worse: Being worried makes sense but I remain optimistic about Bun. Can you point to any examples of a company with shitty practices buying one without shitty practices that didn't end up with the shitty practices diffusing through the newly-acqu…

I'm not the parent poster which is why I still stick to looking at the people... If you start seeing the people that created bun leaving Anthropic, then I'd probably start to worry. And I haven't seen any sign of that yet.

I feel like you're overestimating how much power the people who sell their company have to prevent anything that gets pushed from the top

Re: I am worried about Bun

#308

Post by wartijn_ »

alanning wrote: post #106
hootz wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is type stripping and is incompatible with syntax that requires transpilation, so it is not native TypeScript support.

Node v22.7.0 added support for TypeScript syntax that requires transformation: `node --experimental-transform-types example.ts` As for whether this matches your definition of "native support" or not... Source: https://nodejs.org/en/blog/release/v22.7.0

In Node 26 it will be removed

https://github.com/nodejs/node/pull/61803

Re: I am worried about Bun

#309

Post by remote-dev »

ericyd wrote: post #226
jazzypants wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, Node didn't have any of these things until Deno & Bun challenged it. Deno didn't seem to move the needle by itself very much for whatever reason, but Bun's existence has had a tangible effect on the Node Technical Steering Committee. I would even argue that much of the current impetus has been driven by Jarred Sumner's savvy social media marketing. It got people talking, and Node is better because of it.…

No disagreement, but this article was posted 2 days ago, the argument isn't relevant right now.

I honestly did not know Node had all of these things now, but that is great to hear. Clearly I haven't been keeping up well enough.

Node didn't have all of these features when I initially went down the path of choosing Bun, so I have a number of existing projects that have Bun baked into them.

Post reply on HN