The abstract appeals to a few intuitions, and then vaguely waves toward a kind of slippery slope based on those intuitions, while adding that we ought to not use spatial distribution as bearing on parthood for certain kinds of entities. This has further intuitive appeal for folks who think that consciousness is a kind of emergent property.

It's a little cheeky and seems a little undergrad-ish to me, but I wouldn't call that either absurdist or postmodern.

Also what's wrong with the ship of theseus? If _you're_ tired of hearing that kind of argument, that's fine, but why dismiss it? It's thought-provoking at least, and the kind of thought it provokes has, in my opinion, some practical import

The solution to the riddle of the Ship of Theseus is “continuity.” Continuity defines the form and embodiment of identity.

As for the rest, it is sad, for it is provoking a casual sarcastic hand waving appeal in the near fraudulent guise of constructive thought. Maybe the person has a publication quota? Or just wants to get their name out.

Not constructive. I accuse it as alluring to those who cannot take their ideas seriously.

> but it's nothing like the code generating models we're all using today for code and automation.

Is this true? Code is structured output. At the very least it seems like a question of degree rather than kind.

While the LLMs we're using today are limited to sequenced text, it seems that a model like Jev could excel at coding on a more structural level (factoring, controls) by working within the constraints of an actual language specification and supplemental domain model. I don't know, though -- maybe that's too deep and complex.

I think Martin F's team tied outcomes to factoring https://martinfowler.com/articles/exploring-gen-ai/refactori... which is crucial to code quality. Even grug brain developer agree.

On the other hand, there are claims that the best languages for robots tend to be terse (allegedly); I tend to regard a rich domain model (static types, not terse) as a major facet of high-quality code.

When is the best time of year to read it?

When you're trying to fall asleep but there is too much noise in your head, I suppose :)

Actually, Redwall and other slightly-mature anthropomorphic stories are also surprisingly good for that.

But if I had to pick a time of year, then I'd say winter, under the blankets or by a fire.

I bought Redwall for my kids a few years ago, and was stopped by three different people while walking from the back of the store to the checkout who commented on how good the books are!

The audiobooks are narrated by the author himself! Along with a full other cast and some music. Great for all ages to doze off to

Redwall mentioned!

Brian Jacques' other series Castaways of the Flying Dutchman is also very good.

Oh I forgot to say "as an audiobook" for the falling asleep to part

LLM-based code generation requires disciplined operation to lead to the best outcomes. Shops who only ever had taste as a proxy for discipline were missing this before, and they're missing it now. The fact that it's missing is why so many organizations are tolerating ever-growing mountains of slop. (Not new, by the way; just dramatically accelerated.)

Discipline can be linked to system design standards and your review process, and it can be translated to measurable outcomes at scale and over time, regardless of how agents are involved: unplanned work, time to recovery, employee retention, etc. When outcomes like these become your priority, you see that you can't rely on taste alone.

Yes in both theme and style, I agree. While I appreciate pretty much everything by Borges, his dives into the infinite were the most memorable.

Congratulations on the launch! Really intriguing product.

How well would it work for a company that has the kinds of artifacts that you mentioned, but that lacks the quality/precision/accuracy that Hyper might need?

I'm especially thinking about mature companies that don't sell software and that have made a lot of mistakes and memorialized inconsistencies.

Is Hyper just a bad fit for them? Or could there be a path toward refinement and correction that eliminates ambiguities, etc.? For companies like this, Hyper could provide the clarity that such a company lacks day-to-day.

appreciate the congrats! This is a good question. The core thesis is that the brain is continually self improving. If your initial information is really bad or messy, then Hyper is going to only be able to start with that. But we provide manual refinement and correction options that will gradually make the brain strictly better. For example, we expose skills like `/correct` via MCP that make explicit, hard corrections against the brain. Over time, the longer Hyper is active, the more refined the knowledge will get. It's a very anti-entropy system :)

For building web applications or a system that includes logic that needs to run on the web? TypeScript is mature enough, and it's top tier for domain modeling. As long as you stay disciplined, Claude Code will write excellent TypeScript for you, and you can run it pretty much anywhere.

The only reasons to hesitate, imo, are (A) you're worried that it won't perform as well as you need on your servers, or (B) you're scared of npm supply chain attacks.

Agreed -- it's a wonderful film, and deserves a special place right up there with Star Wars and Harryhausen for its practical effects.

While the article mentions Moebius, I think this level of praise still merits an extra Incal callout, even if it just serves as a recommendation to those who want more of this stuff: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Incal

> Claude Code and its ilk can turn "maybe one day" internal projects into live features after a single hour of work. You really, honestly, and truly are missing out if you're not looking for valuable things like that!

You're right, it's possible. But you might be both overestimating the ease of onboarding and underestimating the variety of tasks and constraints devs are responsible for.

I've seen Claude knock out trivial stuff with a sufficiently good spec. But I've also seen it utterly choke on a bad spec or a hard task. I think these outcomes are pretty broadly established. So is the expectation that the tech will get better. Waiting isn't unwise.

Waiting may not be “unwise” but acting now may be optimal. Even though tooling may be much better in 12 months, if it can improve quality or time now, that’s a net benefit.

Bikers in the Tour de France used to not wear helmets. They were seen as uncouth (“why jump on the bandwagon?”). Helmets today are way better than they were then. But if the utility provided is greater than the cost, of course it makes sense to act sooner.

I’m not explicitly arguing for investing in AI or other newfangled tech, I’m arguing that the premise of waiting may be “sounded” but also “leaves money on the table”, or in some cases, lives.

The author talks about vaccines as a counter example but doesn’t really address the cost/benefit in any detail.