I don’t trust anything made by DHH now. He merged a PR that rewrote ttfx from rust to Claude generated asm (despite contributor objections) and then turned around and merged another that rewrote all of that into rust.
Which is to say that a normal organization would not be changing things so quickly based on the whims of a single individual.
Maybe I’d be ok to use omarchy just for fun, but could never use it seriously in any capacity.
I’m not sure I agree that g explains all model capabilities. I think “claudespeak” is a consequence of the shift from training on RLHF to training on verifiable rewards. Thus the models seem to become worse at storytelling, fiction, readability, not better.
Even if we do accept that models have some “g” and that it correlates with all domains, there’s no reason to think that the current trajectory of LLM intelligence will grow more quickly or even as quickly. In every other technology we have an early period of slow growth during experimentation, and then a rapid period of growth, and then stagnation.
For all we know, 2026 could be the year of stagnation. It’s possible that we will reach finishing returns. If thats true, then it won’t matter how much that task correlates with overall g, because g won’t be increasing that much.
> but I question how much folks are actually experimenting with what's out there
I did. Originally I had a project that I had been wanting to do and thought to use a decision model for it. Jev, OpenAI, etc. are all within percentage points of each other.
Then I used traditional ML and found a small classifier (gemma 4) with traditional embeddings worked 2x as well.
Jev is the general purpose ML pipeline for when you want average results. Nearly every application has a "better" option available with a small amount of work.
Anthropic raised their Series A a year and a half before ChatGPT had been released, when LLMs were still unproven technology and most VCs weren't paying attention to the field (they were mostly still chasing crypto).
Jev is used as an example of a successful marketing launch where they worked with many X "creators" prior to its release, so that all the creators would repost to put it to the top of everyone's feed. Then, over the following days they'd repost so it maintained momentum.
See: doomers.ai, clickstrike, growth matrix, etc. They use coordinated engagement, paid influencer networks, customized messaging, etc.
Jev isn't a terrible product, but it's way overhyped.
Just a question, are these creators paid to sponsor these products? Because at least in eu, they would need to add a "#adv" in their post, which makes it easy for me to spot sponsored content here. I guess in the rest of the world it may not be necessary
It's mentioned in video, here's an excerpt from FAQ [0]:
> Do creators disclose that a post is paid?
> Yes, every time. Every creator post we place carries X's paid partnership label. That is an FTC requirement for any post where a brand has paid or given something of value, and it is X's own rule for sponsored content.
Although, there are other services, that sound shady.
Oh this is interesting. I've seen it was added in the last months on x but it's cool nonetheless. Otoh, i don't miss not using a lot of social networks except for a few niche subreddits
From a design and manufacturing point of view you want everything to be identical. Differences are expensive.
From a profit maximization standpoint you want identical phones that can't easily be sold across market borders. Usually that's done in software (e.g. region locked video games), but that can usually be cracked, so a single design difference is the best solution. A great example is Nintendo's cartridge slot shapes that were different in each region despite the hardware being the same.
Apple had lightning everywhere; they were forced to change to USB-C. Therefore they changed to USB-C everywhere. The market protection design change remains the sim slot.
We see this more locally in the US as well. There's something called the California effect. California emission standards were more strict than the rest of the country, but it didn't make sense to make California only vehicles and then vehicles for the rest of the country. So automakers built to the California standards and residents in all of the other states got to benefit from cleaner air as a result.
> From a design and manufacturing point of view you want everything to be identical.
OK, so why not ship a SIM card slot in the US? eSIMs work perfectly well in Europe, the US and most of the rest of the world, "region locking" is clearly not the answer.
Apple did not have "lightning everywhere" either - Macs and iPads got it much earlier.
Claude: probably not (officially against the rules after the openclaw fiasco)
reply