So funny seeing these kinds of frameworks being vibe-coded. I can tell the author has never used the zillions of frameworks the LLM was trained on. Writing (and maintaining) this kind of code is absolute nightmare fuel.
There's a reason QT uses XML for their layouting, there's a reason people prefer Tauri + Vue/React, there's a reason Swift uses declarative paradigms in all their UI code. It's not that you can't build good UI frameworks in low-level languages; for example, I think Go's Fyne[1] is a pleasure to use. But people actually used their brains when designing that framework, as opposed to "hey Claude build a UI framework in C, make no mistakes."
That looks pretty readable to me. Somewhat noisier than SwiftUI due to all the repeated "cui_", but not much. I've seen far worse.
I would be more concerned about the opposite problem: the fact that it's apparently reactive and thus inherits the same performance pitfalls as every other reactive UI framework. Retained-mode UI is much uglier (at least if you build the UI in code) but doesn't have these issues.
edit: actually it's worse than reactive, it's full immediate-mode render-everything-every-frame.
Actually the reason is a very good one: most people design UIs graphically (Qt Designer, XCode Interface Builder, etc.), and UIs naturally lend themselves to the structure found in XML.
The use of C, in that case, was likely made for performance reasons and avoiding dependencies.
The author added dozens of complex widgets in a few days, AI driven of course. The intended audience is not manual coders, you would show some examples to the clankers and ask for you UI and custom widgets.
I don't want to be presumptuous, but people that say this have rarely really ever built anything mostly pointless. But maybe you can prove me wrong and point me to your github.
Building pointless things is often about prototyping some idea, seeing if something can be done, or just messing around. It's never been about wrestling with OS APIs or grokking out-of-date docs. LLMs handle all this stupid boring stuff so you can do something cool that you think is cool.
Any reason why? To be honest, they never sit well with me either, but not sure what my argument would be for banning them. All investors are well aware of what they're putting their money into.
I think it pairs with the limited liability. It just isn't good to give unaccountable power to anyone. So it isn't about the investors, its about not letting the thing exist.
Yeah, allow loans as appropriate, but stocks ("ownership") should come with voting power exactly proportional to their face value.
Otherwise you're subsidizing oligarchs by cutting investors off from kicking the board the next week if/after it's caught acting against the share holders.
I'm an engineer and data professional interested in team-building, consulting and architecting data pipelines. At Edmunds.com, I worked on a fairly successful ad-tech product and my team bootstrapped a data pipeline using Spark, Databricks, and microservices built with Java, Python, and Scala.
At ATTN:, I re-built an ETL Kubernetes stack, including data loaders and extractors that handle >10,000 API payload extractions daily. I created SOPs for managing data interoperability with Facebook Marketing, Facebook Graph, Instagram Graph, Google DFP, Salesforce, etc.
More recently, I was the CTO and co-founder of a crypto gaming startup. We raised over $6M and I was in charge of building out a team of over a dozen remote engineers and designers, with a breadth of experience ranging from Citibank, to Goldman Sachs, to Microsoft. I moved on, but retain significant equity and a board seat.
I am also a minority owner of a coffee shop in northern Spain. That I'm a top-tier developer goes without saying. I'm interested in flexing my consulting muscle and can help with best practices, architecture, and hiring.
Would love to connect even if it's just for networking!
Or just.. download the books, and slap a search engine on top of them. It'll be like 10x smaller than the model. "Survival LLM" is absolutely a non-relevant use case.
When you’re living in an igloo trying to stay warm in the hollowed out belly of a cow having a few books around the place is probably more useful than some files on a laptop that ran out of battery just before it got morbidly damp. Plus you can burn them if you really need to.
On the other hand, the laptop struggling to power a good-enough LLM will probably be a great heat source for you in that igloo... for about 45 minutes.
As I said elsewhere, you can always burn the books! And eating a laptop is considerably crunchier and more fraught than chewing through some good old fashioned leather facings, horse glue and nice heavy 120gsm wove.
Yes I slightly mangled that one. But I’m sure there is a survival technique that involves crawling into the body cavity of a hollowed out cow. You probably wouldn’t want to do that in an igloo though. I’m not even sure you could get a cow into an igloo. If standard issue humans are this flawed it’s hardly surprising that top flight LLMs get things so wrong sometimes.
Recoll it's far smaller and it runs on a potato. It's a desktop search engine which can parse tons of files. Under GNU/Linux just install all the recommended dependencies for APT/RPM. Or just use Flatpak and to hell with transitive dependencies.
> not one seems to have really stuck or set a new standard for web discovery
It's because most content worth seeing these days is behind a walled garden: Twitter, reddit, TikTok, Instagram, Snapchat, YouTube, and even news articles these days are often paywalled. It's just a fundamentally different internet than it was in 2009. The corporations have definitively won.
One reason I personally like AI is that it at least puts the end-user on the same level (at least automation-, scraping-, and compute-wise) as big companies.
"worth seeing" is subjective, but I can assure you that there are websites way cooler than any Twitter post or TikTok video. People just don't care about regular websites anymore, that's the problem.
Tried going through some random stuff on jumpstick, got like three 404s in a row, and I know Neocities, but it's just kind of meme-y, not really that interesting to scroll through.
There's some genuinely awesome stuff out there, but it's (paradoxically) much rarer imo than it was a decade ago. HN and Twitter is a place where it occasionally bubbles up.
It's why unit tests are worthless when humans write them, and less than worthless when AI writes them. Same concept: you're testing yourself, of course you're going to pass with flying colors.
I wouldn’t call them worthless. I guess it depends on the unit. But also having someone or something independently write tests is generally better than testing your own code.
> What is today a moral imperative is not the same as what was moral 50/100 years ago
This is absolutely not true, and I would strongly suggest taking an ethics course. One of the most fascinating realities of the human condition is that it does seem that moral imperatives tend to be constant, the most obvious of which is the Golden Rule (which is at least 3000 years old), but there are many (the Ten Commandments or Hammurabi's Code are good jumping off points).
Hogwash. We don't even have a consistent set of ethics on how to treat animals today, in the age of the Internet. We have people who refuse to eat meat because of how the animals are treated, and we have places where the locals make sport out of torturing animals to death, and indeed, our own recent history includes that as well (look up badgering).
Not to mention, the variation in treatment of homosexuals (including what constitutes homosexuality), people of different skin colors, handedness, how rape is treated in various cultures (often tied in with notions of property and ownership of all things), or even the various definitions of rape... The list goes on.
Maybe there's a core there in terms of how we treat a given in-group, but equally important is who belongs in that group and why, and that part seems to be tremendously flexible. Ditto for what constitutes acceptable treatment of outsiders.
You seem to be arguing that the one socially acceptable way to do something is not constant, rather than that moral imperatives truly do change. The reason there are still so many competing philosophies from hundreds or thousands of years ago is because they all more or less make their own kinds of good points to different people or in different situations. That largely doesn't change over time.
One example is the trolley problem and its variations. There's no one correct answer. There are people who believe that interacting with the switch would make you responsible, and there are people who believe that not interacting with the switch when you had the chance would make you responsible. There are other beliefs too, but my point is there's no one single way to view it.
I tend to have a variety of views in general about all things, in part due to being multiple entities (see profile) but also depending on circumstances, rather than sticking to any one philosophy.
That we vary doesn't mean that there is no consensus. There is consensus on many things, and the disagreements we encounter are a source of strife exactly because of the groups that do agree on each side.
Who the consensus extends to is really the heart of the matter. Most people agree that killing certain people is wrong, but if they disagree on who those certain people are, there's no useful commonality. Some people believe that all killing of others is wrong, some believe that it's okay to kill others under certain circumstances (which can range from a threat to one's life, to petty "dishonor"), and some people historically believed that killing was a necessary duty (e.g. human sacrifice). There is no useful commonality to be had there. You can't appeal to the humanity of someone who doesn't see you as being the same as them, and the restrictions for inclusion as one of them can be arbitrary, broad, and fickle.
By definition, variation is the opposite of consensus.
That people's beliefs about X vary is not evidence that X itself varies. People have different beliefs about whether vaccines cause autism, but this doesn't mean that sometimes vaccines cause autism and sometimes they don't. Rather, some people are wrong.
Similarly, people have different beliefs about whether it's okay to inflict massive suffering on animals in exchange for some pleasure for us. But this doesn't necessarily mean that sometimes it's okay to do that and sometimes it isn't. It could just be that some people are wrong.
Ditto for other moral issues. It could be that the people who say (e.g.) homosexuality should be punished by death are wrong about this.
> That people's beliefs about X vary is not evidence that X itself varies.
That works with things where "X" exists outside of people's beliefs.
Like where X is "gravity". It doesn't matter what you believe why an apple falls down, it will fall down the same.
But where X is "ethics" that doesn't exist outside of people's beliefs about it.
In one culture if you have a guinea pig, you kill it and then roast it that is just and proper. A sucullent meal. In an other culture if you do the same you will be forever known as the "monster who eat his guinea pig", will be harassed and likely even reported to authorities. Try it. Get a guinea pig from the pet store, roast it and serve it to your guests. See what they think of you in the Andes, or in California. The apple falls the same in both places, but the guinea pig doesn't taste the same in both places.
There is no "ethics as the ethicometer measures it". Just "ethics as the society around you recognises it".
You seem to believe that there's one consistent set of moral guidelines that separate people into wrong and right camps. This is not true, and most likely never will be true. Instead, there are many competing moral philosophies, many from hundreds or thousands of years ago, that do or don't encourage certain behavior. People tend to pick philosophies, or at the very least act consistently with some set of them, and different people pick or act with different ones.
Vaccines causing autism is simply false though, regardless of any philosophy. It's rather the inverse, much like violence can cause video games.
I think its more accurate to say where you find consensus in morality, e.g. murder is wrong outside authorized violence (e.g. war or policing), you also find extensive selective pressure behind this behavior. It makes sense that all collective society cultures would outlaw murder; such a behavior is incompatible with collective living behavior whether you are in a cave or a modern skyscraper. Early societies have always been rejecting those alleles from their gene pool.
When you find shades of grey and great spectrum of opinions across time or space, its more that there isn't a strong selective pressure either way. How people are expected to dress is a good example of this. This has no real affect on society behavior or fecundity, so you see a spectrum of opinions that explain the differences between what you see in the middle east and a beach in brazil.
I did a philosophy minor, one class of which was the philosophy of ethics. There are many rules that definitely are not ethical today even if they were in the past so I don't think the point you're making really holds. Hammurabi (an eye for an eye) is probably one of the worst examples you could have cited.
Can't say I agree with this, considering lex talionis[1] is still the primary directive of most legal systems when it comes to criminal law, as well as basically all military operations (jus in bello, jus ad bellum, etc.). The principle of proportionality ("an eye for an eye") also is relevant to self-defense, capital punishment, etc.
In fact, I would counter and say that Hammurabi's Code is a quintessential example.
Lex talonis is an idea by humans, for humans. At it's core are dozens of untrue assumptions about the way the world, and the other actors in it work. All of those assumptions are about monkey social orders. Many of them are wrong.
For example it assumes the other party can fear, and has a sense of self preservation. Those things are often untrue of other humans, let alone machines.
More fundamentally it also assumes all sort of things about free will itself, implying that retaliation is "deserved" and other value judgments that only make sense if the other party has free will to begin with. Something which science tells us is debatable even about humanity.
No, game theory tells us the right answer and it's not "hold back when retaliating" or "teach them a lesson." Those are things only humans would do, and even then only the ones who share your neurology and upbringing.
Hammurabi's code may feel fundamental, but it's no more fundamental to the human condition than boys preferring blue to pink.
The law isn't and never has been a moral benchmark. At best, a law reflects social consensus at the time of its enactment, but even that's not a given.
And proportionality matters. Community service and counseling, loss of time (imprisonment), and loss of a hand have all been used to punish theft. Which is correct? Which is the more moral, because it doesn't seem to me that they're the same?
I think there cannot be an objectively most correct punishment for a given crime. The closest we could maybe get is "undo the harm that you have caused", but some harm cannot be undone.
The law isn't a moral benchmark, because morality shifts over time, both for what constitutes a crime, and what constitutes appropriate punishment. At various points in time, it's been legal to own slaves, illegal to be homosexual, and illegal for certain groups to vote (and I consider voting at all to be a subset of this); those laws (and ideas) were eventually updated, largely on moral grounds.
Similarly, most western countries no longer execute criminals.
But those ideas aren't universal, even today. Assuming that they are is imo, extraordinarily foolish, because there's ample evidence to show that they're not.
Did the Golden Rule apply to women, gays, and slaves over the last 3000 years?
The definition of moral imperative is "an ethical principle, rule, or action that is strongly felt, urgent, and required because it is morally right." The Golden Rule is clearly not a strongly felt part of the human condition, or it would not be so ignored over ages and continents.
Thank you. The OP is urging others to take an ethics class, when they need to be taking a history class. The golden rule apparently didn't apply to the guy whose heart you had to eat to keep the sun rising.
Seriously. This idea that humanity has not spent millennia analyzing these concepts is pervasive in the modern world, and the only thing I can think to attribute it to is a lack of education. Not because I want to be insensitive, but because as soon as you start absorbing material and integrating the real timeline, you can't unsee it.
Hammurabi Building Law 230: If a house falls due to improper construction, and kills the son of the owner, the son of that builder shall be put to death.
Given my dad designed and built homes, I'm very much against this rule.
We still have criminal negligence laws, so apart from the capital punishment (which, at least in the US, requires intent), it's actually pretty forward-thinking. Of course professionals being criminally negligent should be charged. Are you seriously saying that you don't think the crew of the Key Bridge collapse[1] incident ship shouldn't be held criminally responsible?
I seem to remember that a lot of it is about how much to pay when you kill someone, and the relative prices of slaves and women. Or am I thinking of Ur-Nammu.
I agree, I believe I would disagree with most of the Hammurabi's code, and I also happen to disagree with the majority of the ten commandments. (I am an atheist leftist humanist, cosmopolitan liberal socialist.)
It's not the case that all aspects are constant. There's some common themes across cultures and times, but it's definitely not the case that the morality of ancient people was the same as today.
Non-mathematicians talking about this (especially in a cultural battleground like Wikipedia, yuck) will never be productive. Citing it here on HN does everyone a disservice. For those uninitiated, OpenAI used a fundamentally different method (without forcing in the Euler case) and the idea that the proof was plagiarized (other than the completely kosher strategy of using prior art, of course) is a complete fabrication.
In fact, the proof is such a mess, nobody really understands how it works. Which is becoming commomplace with these permutation machines where we can come up with something that passes some tests (e.g., a proof checker), but we have no idea wtf we did to get there, which doesn't really seem to do much to push human understanding forward.
It seems like such a dumb hill to die on, too. OpenAI literally stole the entire Internet (including copyrighted works), and we're arguing about a silly math puzzle.
The plagiarism and copyright stuff is just a smoke screen.
A lot of people are upset because they used to be special, their identities were tied to them being smarter, or having more niche domain knowledge than anyone else. Ai has changed that.
A lot of people are upset that people are praising garbage and outright stolen output, and any attempt to disagree with this praise labels them as a luddite who will be behind on the times and is against progress.
Such a take on "people don't feel special" feels borderline bad-faith. People of science tend to be some of the most humble people as their knowledge to seek the truth constantly leaves them with more answers than questions. It's instead this borderline cult of people praising output that is understandable to them that seems to be the ones with the hubris to try and claim that thinkers will be obsolete.
Negativity bias means We'll mostly remember the smug person who wanted to advance their careers and not their field, as opposed to the hundreds of well meaning people who want to do their work. And sadly that smug person tends to be on leadershi. I've seen that pattern in several different industries, at least from the US perspective. I
Nobody capable of a minute of honest introspection believes that. If you shuffled all the backend devs in the world and randomly assigned them a role elsewhere most will do perfectly fine. I began my own career in VFX, moved into compliance and am now working on automotive software - there's no moat around even the most niche domain knowledge, you just need to be prepared to spend time learning it. If I had to roll that into an identity it would be the learning I get to do at every turn in my career. That's what I enjoy but there's absolutely nothing unique or special about it.
Maybe the reason people are upset is simpler? Maybe people with a mortgage and kids to support don't like being told they'll absolutely 100% soon be out on their arse. Even if you don't believe that it's still tiring having to hear the same mindless taunts and vapid bullshit repeated on a daily basis.
[1] https://fyne.io/
reply