sam

After the failed Fable 5.2, I started wondering: is the AI industry a fake and a scam? If you dig into the latest releases from AI labs, here's what you find: 1. In the five years since LLMs appeared, there has been no revolutionary leap in intelligence. It's the same transformer, stuffed with more parameters and increasingly elaborate RL tuned for specific tasks. No radically different architectures are on the horizon, so our experience with AI will stay at the same level 2. The cost of compute keeps rising and will keep rising. AI has been heavily used in large projects for more than 10 years. CUDA and GPUs in servers are ancient history. Before giant LLMs there were plenty of other important, resource-hungry workloads: GANs, CNNs, diffusion models, and many derivatives. Yet the cost of compute only went up At the chip level, we never came up with anything radically better than what we have now. And nothing cheaper or newer is in sight either 3. Look closely at the models themselves, and you'll see labs resorting to all kinds of tricks to work around the problems above. Fable 5.2 is the apotheosis of this. It handles a certain class of tasks brilliantly but is awful at others. They clearly tried to compress it and focus it on what shows up most often in agentic systems. Opus 5.5 is the best coder in the world. But give it anything else and it performs like ancient NLP from 2017 4. This includes distillation, cramming more thinking resources into fewer layers, synthetic training (which it's now fashionable to call RSI), and many other things I'm not aware of. No lab does this because things are going well 5. AI doesn't invent scientific solutions, despite what the press releases say. It brute-forces millions of candidates until at least one fits. If you dig into OpenAI's recent papers presenting solutions to math problems, you'll see that most of them are meaningless. They're found by trial and error, and all they do is prove solvability, not applicability to real-world laws. This is also a direct consequence of point 1 6. AI is not capable of inventing in the sense we're used to. It's the same iteration over tokens already embedded in the training data. The transformer architecture doesn't allow it to go beyond that. At a fundamental level, it's still brute-forcing answers. And brute force won't get you very far As a result, we have models like Opus 5.5, GPT-6.1 Terra, and Fable 5.2 that have lost their evenness of intelligence because of the problems described above. The labs are trying to cut costs. The new generation of models has already started to degrade on certain intellectual tasks

Built a physical simulation of a record player with WebGL2 and Web Audio. It's *shockingly* accurate: vinyl-gl.vercel.app. Instead of playing a song, it works by converting it into the physical shape of a groove. Then a simulated stylus rides those walls 384,000 times a second, and you hear the voltage that motion would induce in a cartridge. So the crackle, the pops, the wow/flutter, the dull inner grooves are natural byproducts of the simulation. You can also "DJ" the record. (The converted songs are in the public domain or CC-licensed. Code is linked for you to remix and re-deploy.)

HOLY: Anthropic's Claude Code engineer Addy Osmani is warning about a brutal AI paradox: the more coding you hand to agents, the more you risk losing the very skills needed to supervise them. He calls it "cognitive surrender." AI-generated code looks pristine, tests pass, and engineers start approving work they no longer understand. Anthropic's own research warns: "supervising Claude requires the very coding skills that may atrophy from AI overuse." Osmani makes a striking observation: "When you're producing more than you can stand behind, you're no longer reviewing. You're hoping."

"Yes, men dominate computing. There are many reasons for that; none of them justifies collective guilt. Turning the percentages into a struggle session is nonsense." world.hey.com/dhh/be-a-tech-…

We've decided to sunset Arc on December 22, 2026. That's not an easy sentence to write. We spent years building Arc and celebrating each and every release along the way: we have so much pride and love for what we made alongside the Arc community. Our priority is to deliver best-in-class security for our members. Keeping a browser secure takes constant, dedicated work that is only increasing in the age of AI. Dia was built from the ground up to meet today’s security standards, so that's where our engineering and security teams will focus moving forward. We've worked to make switching to @diabrowser as easy as possible for Arc members. Here's how: · Your passwords, bookmarks, extensions and history come over to Dia seamlessly. · Spaces, Folders, and Tab Groups are in Dia and import over with your data intact. · Dia now surpasses Arc benchmarks in stability, speed, and security. · The browser features you use in Arc are free in Dia, and the AI is optional. Thank you for using Arc, for pushing us to make it better, and for building alongside us. The team that made Arc is the same team behind Dia, and some of our most ambitious work is just ahead. We'd love for you to be there with us when it lands.

Video 2 GLSL I gave Claude Opus 5.5 a 20-second video clip. It rebuilt the whole thing as one GLSL fragment shader: 156 KB of code, no textures, no video frames. Just math, looping seamlessly

used a trick @tejasybhakta came up with gave my agent an alarm tool so it can wake me up if needed during overnight /goal sessions i sleep so much better now that i don't have anxiety it's going to get stuck somewhere #meattool