Readit Newssince their conversation has no goal whatsoever it will generalize and generalize until it's as abstract and meaningless as possible
By comparison o3 is brutally honest (I regularly flatly get answers starting with "No, that’s wrong") and it’s awesome.
In France, the name Claude is given to males and females.
From your list it is first and mostly:
1. a plaintext file format (.urtext) - specifically, a syntax
2. a Python library to parse & manipulate said file format (syntax)
These in turn require some implementation within an editor. Sublime Text was chosen for its built-in Python interpreter, its package install system, and its GUI features that together comprise a low barrier to entry.
Thanks for the feedback, we will try to make this clearer.
That’s a very strange priority. Why would non-technical users would be interested in a file format and a Python library ?
I feel like I'm missing something in the example below this statement. I can type in 'hello world' and there is no P on the curve in the graph if I zoom it out, just a bunch of points that seem disconnected from the curve itself.
Very roughly speaking, putting the complication of "point at infinity" problem under the rug, a characteristic feature of a EC is that a straight line passing through two points on the curve will pass through a third point on the curve (yes, unless you take a vertical line, point at infinity). So you can define an "addition of points on the curve" : take two points A and B, draw a straight line passing through them, name the third intersection point between the line and the curve C, declare A + B = C (actually there’s a symmetry around the x axis involved for the usual properties of addition to hold, another complication, let's sweep it under the rug too).
(for A = B, take the tangent of the curve at A ; in R you can see that it works because you can take the limit as B goes arbitrarily close to A : that gives you the tangent ; in a finite field that’s less obvious but the algebraic proof is the same)
So k*G is just G + G + ... + G, k times.
If you want more details, your favorite reasoning LLM can do a better job explaining what I’ve swept under the rug.
Keep in mind this is the commenters first attempt. And I'm surprised he paid so much.
Using Aider and Sonnet I've on multiple occasions produced 100+ lines of code in 1-2 hours, for under $2. Most of that time is hunting down one bug it couldn't fix by itself (reflective of real world programming experience).
There were many other bugs, but I would just point out the failures I was seeing and it would fix it itself. For particularly difficult bugs it would at times even produce a full new script just to aid with debugging. I would run it and it would spit out diagnostics which I fed back into the chat.
The code was decent quality - better than what some of my colleagues write.
I could probably have it be even more productive if I didn't insist on reading the code it produced.
This is why expectations are all out of whack.
1. It’s a learning experience 2. Looking at the chat transcripts, many of those dollars are burned for stupid reasons (Claude often fails with the insertLines/replaceLines functions and break files due to miss-by-1 offset) that are probably fixable 3. Remember that Claude started from a really rudimentary base with few tools — the bootstrapping was especially inefficient
Next experiment will be on an existing codebase, but that’s probably for next weekend.
All the incredible performance and success stories always come from these Twitter posts, I do find value in asking simple but tedious task like a small refactor or generate commands, but this "AI takes the wheel level" does not feel real.
After interacting with this tool, I decided it would be nice if the tool could edit itself, so I asked (him ? it ?) to create its next version. It came up with a non-working version of this https://gist.github.com/sloonz/3eb7d7582c33e95f2b000a0920016.... I fixed the bug manually, but it started an interactive loop : I could now describe what I wanted, describe the bugs, and the tool will add the features/fix the bugs itself.
I decided to rewrite it in Typescript (by that I mean: can you rewrite yourself in typescript). And then add other tools (by that: create tools and unit tests for the tools). https://gist.github.com/sloonz/3eb7d7582c33e95f2b000a0920016... and https://gist.github.com/sloonz/3eb7d7582c33e95f2b000a0920016... have been created by the tool itself, without any manual fix from me. Setting up the testing/mock framework ? Done by the tool itself too.
In one day (and $20), I essentially had recreated claude-code. That I could improve just by asking "Please add feature XXX". $2 a feature, with unit tests, on average.
Loaded question (well, affirmation), on a confident sneery tone while using poorly defined terms ("essential humanity") and very poor comprehension of object-level facts of the ground ("Markov chains"). And no sign of even trying to understand the other side, just trying to score rhetoric points on a internet board.
Performing operations on data directly in the SQL provider is the peak of human enlightenment. It takes a lot of leadership or wisdom to push a modern team away from using crap like EF to process everything, but 100x slower.
In exactly 0% of cases of cycling records through code will you see a higher performance result than executing a single T-SQL or PL/SQL script against the provider.
The procedural SQL languages are Turing complete. SQL itself is as of recursive common table expressions. There's not any reasonable argument for not trying this if all the information is already in the SQL store.
Moving information is way more expensive than processing information that is already in place (cache). Your SQL server process can iterate on items in L1 millions of times before a packet makes it across the data center one time.
Now, give me ephemeral, per-connection procedures (call them unstored procedures for fun) that I can write in the language I want but that run on provider side, sure I’ll happily use them.