Good artists get paid plenty. The hard part of art was always about either representing emotion, or a story. AI can't do that as it has no emotion, nor story.

> how you do one thing is how you do everything.

That simply isn't true though. It's not even possible to be true. Will a neurosurgeon put as much time in their cooking/cleaning/etc as they do their surgeries? There's not enough time/energy.

that’s a pretty big oversimplification. it means that the way you do one thing is indicative of the type of person you are. if someone cheats on their wife, don’t trust them as a business partner. if someone puts in a lot of effort into a group project, you can probably trust them to take on responsibility outside of school as well. if someone always cuts corners on the “small stuff” like not tucking in their bedsheets all the way, not vaccuming under furniture, etc, they’re probably going to take shortcuts on other things as well. and if someone takes lazy shortcuts by generating mediocre ai slop art, they probably have a similar mentality to the food they make as well.

They are profitable to opex costs, but not capex costs with the current depreciation schedules, though those are now edging higher than expected.

Amazingly, the current depreciation overestimates the retained value of GPUs.

In 2023, the depreciation schedule for H100s was 2 years, but they are still oversubscribed and generating signficant income.

Coreweve has upped their depreciation for GPUs to 6 years(!) now, which seems more realistic.

https://www.silicondata.com/blog/h100-rental-price-over-time

That's GPT4 thinking. New models use tools to look at current events or latest versions, and rely very little on weight knowledge.

You can pull new information into the context via RAG, but that is expensive and only gives very shallow understanding compared to retraining.

Mythos is basically this

It doesn't reveal that they have no clue of what they're talking about. They know that a good number of idiot CEOs will hear this and dictate their engineers spend more claude/codex money, which benefits them.

Jensen isn't an idiot, he's capitalizing on the market.

> They know that a good number of idiot CEOs will hear this

This is true regardless of the specific jargon used, though. Or are you saying that idiot CEOs will not be impressed by correct claims only stupid claims?

It doesn't reveal they don't have no clue either - the problem is that both "Doesn't actually understand" and "Does understand but saying it because they think it'll benefit their products" look exactly the same from the outside.

All we know is he's saying things that are technically incorrect. And I'm not sure where that falls on the line of "Just Acceptable Marketing BS" to "Lying to the market about a Publicly Traded company" that would fall if he does understand it.

And while true he very much had deep technical education and roles, he's been C-level for over 30 years now. And a lot can change - both in the underlying technology and an individual's technical understanding - in 30 years.

He might be, but this sounds suspiciously like "Trump is playing 4D chess and trolling the media - he would never actually do the dumb thing he just suggested he was about to do."

The joke is on everyone else, our favorite leader is just pretending to be an idiot!

I mean you're kind of attributing this to malice when its actually incompetence. Nvidia doesn't need any shilling by its CEO to increase its sales or capitalize on the market. It's purely banter from his pov, not some super intelligence spectre ploy to sell more GPUs.

Minimax 2.7 is fine for most web stuff. It's slightly worse than Claude at backend, but works great for frontend.

They're all slop when the complexity is higher than a mid-tech intermediate engineer though.

> They're all slop when the complexity is higher than a mid-tech intermediate engineer though.

This right here. Value prop quickly goes out the window when you're building anything novel or hard. I feel that I'm still spending the same amount of time working on stuff, except that now I'm also spending money on models.

10x more code output is 10x more review.

We've gone from doing the first 90% and then the second 90% to the first 90% and the second 990%, its exausting.

Kimi is surprisingly good at Rust.

Must be nice working on simple stuff.

Several fintechs like Block and Stripe are boasting thousands of AI-generated PRs with little to no human reviews.

Of course it's in the areas where it doesn't matter as much, like experiments, internal tooling, etc, but the CTOs will get greedy.

I don't think anybody is doubting its ability to generate thousands of PR's though. And yes, it's usually in the stuff that should have been automated already regardless of AI or not.

Depends on your circle. On HN I would argue that there are still a fair number of people that would be surprised to see what heavy organizational usage of AI actually looks like. On a non programming online group, of which I am a member of several, people still think that AI agents are the same as they were in mid 2025 and they can't answer "how many R's are in the following word:". Same thing even when chatting with my business owner friends. The majority of the public has no clue of the scale of recent advancement.

Not arguing, but I just prompted Opus with a made up word and it responded with this:

“There are 4 Rs in the word “burberrorrly.” Here they are highlighted: burberrorrly (positions 3, 6, 7, 9)”

Obviously not a real word, but perhaps the fundamental concept remains

these companies contribute to swathes of the west's financial infrastructure, not quite safety critical but critical enough, insane to involve automation here to this degree

Law enforcement ICs do not have public records.

IC?