I thought I'd never played it until I read your comment, which brought back a memory. I guess I must have played it at least once.

Opus, in my opinion, is steps away from AGI. 4o doesn't come close.

You could have saved yourself another 2 hours by getting Claude 4 Opus to write out the specs for you first. Why did you need to write them at all?

Can anyone explain what sort of "detector" is used to detect the photons? Is there a standard across all double-slit experiments?

I feel like the type of detector would have a significant impact on the outcome of the experiment, but explanations for layman always leave it out.

I get downvoted every time I praise Claude. But everyone in this thread is getting upvoted for saying the same things. Can someone explain to me the difference?

You're replying to people who had negative experiences with LLMs and posted their nuanced criticisms with: "OK but have you tried Claude 4??"

It's not helpful or justified within those conversations.

I guess I figured that, if someone told me they were scared of dying, and I happened to possess the secret to immortality, it would be worthwhile to share it with them.

The Internet is fickle and full of dullards. It's always a toss of the dice.

Yeah, you're in a thread of people who actually use it.

I think this should be renamed "I know when you're vibe coding with a last generation LLM".

Claude 4 Opus would not make any of the mistakes mentioned, because it knows and understands everything in your codebase. It would know when there's an existing utility function for that particular task, or that you prefer a functional rather than OOP approach. You say you want developers to care about the code they write, well, this is the next best thing; I believe it's as close as we'll see to a machine being able to "care" in my lifetime.

> But now, you're wondering if the answer the AI gave you is correct or something it hallucinated. Every time I find myself putting factual questions to AIs, it doesn't take long for it to give me a wrong answer.

I know you'll probably think I'm being facetious, but have you tried Claude 4 Opus? It really is a game changer.

Why is Meta still interviewing SWEs, is my question. Surely, at this point, an agent can beat any human candidate at any task. What am I missing?

You are missing the fact that an agent cannot beat any human candidate at any task.

Mark Zuckerberg himself predicted that AI would replace all mid-level engineers at Meta by the end of this year, with senior engineers continuing to work on tasks such as planning and architecture. With the release of Claude 4 it feels like, if anything, he was too conservative with his prediction — we're already there, and Mark must know it. So what's he playing at?

Look at Zuckerberg's actions, not what he says in podcasts to shill his AI tools and boost his company's stock price. Meta is currently hiring hundreds of software engineers every month and paying $200-300k/yr for entry level and $700k+ for senior roles. Why do you think that is?

AI snake oil salesman talks up AI snake oil, news at 11.

I have just fought 4 days with Claude 4 Sonnet because it generates too much garbage for my usage, and I am considering stopping the AI usage altogether. No matter what system prompt, rules et. all you give, they don't want to do as I said, but instead do something which compiles (Rust) but is not performant or is extremely verbose and includes all kinds of unnecessary things. They have too much assumptions that some function is used/not used in async context, or it is okay to clone, or whatever. Is the Opus really that big leap?

> In 99% of cases I do not care at all about the "artistic vision" of the UI designer and in the other 1% of cases (say an in-browser game or some useful data-viz) I could choose to allow the tab to go crazy with my resources.

I'm with you 100%. Although I'd go one step further and say CSS just isn't needed at all, and should be removed from all browsers. Same goes for WebGL (if you want to play a game, download Steam).

This would fix all of your issues and save an unbelievable amount of energy across the planet. Unfortunately people like us are a dying breed!

No css at all is pretty extreme, but I'd be on board with disabling css animations

That's very very sad. Animations can make UX much better when used correctly.

…how? How do they improve the user experience, at all?

Answering because I know the answer, even though I disagree:

There are some situations where having some animation can "attract attention" to parts of the UI, for guidance ("there's some info text here"), feedback ("operation complete"), state changes, timing. All this of course doesn't apply to decorative animations.

With that said: a lot of the situations I mention above are manufactured. They are often because of changes happening away from the mouse, or because the interface is brittle or too slow, and the user doesn't have confidence that something really happened, or because the organization of elements is not functional and things are too far apart that the user might miss something in a totally different part of the screen.

IMO, with enough thinking you can come up with alternative interfaces that don't require animations at all.

Imagine a list of 10 items that gets shuffled so that the order is completely rearranged. With no animation, it would take a lot of additional cognitive load to find where each item went. With animation, your brain would track the general movement of each item much more easily.

Basically, animation provides additional information about object state. Removing that extra information increases cognitive load.

This isn't to say all animations are useful. Many animations are excessive or completely unnecessary, which is probably what has given you a negative view of them.

Absolutely, without question. Do you think that humans, who evolved in a physical word where basically everything happens in an incremental way don't extract valuable information from in-flight state?

Also, as an example just try to use a window manager that just switches instantly to a new desktop, vs a very short animation. I find the former easily disorienting, and it is even more so when you have a more direct gesture controlling the action (e.g. touch or mousepad). Of course there is too much of everything, and too much animation sucks, no question. So is too much fat, but that doesn't make normal amounts any bad.

People are different, I guess. I remove those animations whenever I can. A desktop manager that switches virtual displays in a single frame is exactly what I want.

This is what I meant.

I disagree. The first thing I do on a new phone is to disable all animations. It makes the phone feel so much faster.

I'm doing something similar. I set them all to 2x the speed. That is much better than disabling them imo.

You can disable CSS in your browser. The fact that you even complain about this tells me that you didn't didable, yet you damned it to be removed. Pretty hypocritical of you.