Effectively everyone is building the same tools with zero quantitative benchmarks or evidence behind the why / ideas … this entire s...
Effectively everyone is building the same tools with zero quantitative benchmarks or evidence behind the why / ideas … this entire space is a nightmare to navigate because of this. Who cares without proper science, seriously? I look through this website and it looks like a preview for a course I’m supposed to buy … when someone builds something with these sorts of claims attached, I assume that there is going to be some “real graphs” (“these are the number of times this model deviated from the spec before we added error correction …”) What we have instead are many people creating hierarchies of concepts, a vast “naming” of their own experiences, without rigorous quantitative evaluation. I may be alone in this, but it drives me nuts. Okay, so with that in mind, it amounts to heresay “these guys are doing something cool” — why not shut up or put up with either (a) an evaluation of the ideas in a rigorous, quantitative way or (b) apply the ideas to produce an “hard” artifact (analogous, e.g., to the Anthropic C compiler, the Cursor browser) with a reproducible pathway to generation. The answer seems to be that (b) is impossible (as long as we’re on the teet of the frontier labs, which disallow the kind of access that would make (b) possible) and the answer for (a) is “we can’t wait we have to get our names out there first” I’m disappointed to see these types of posts on HN. Where is the science?
Posted by mccoyb on Feb 7, 2026, 6:55 PM
Tags
Related issues
- I mean that's the problem though.
- I've always believed the opposite: get conditionals deep in your code so that the higher level control flow is regular.
- The biggest problem with AI isn't being able to do things.
- I am a 3D printing maker type nerd (I make my own tools for other creative tasks, rather than as their own outcomes) and I saw an incredi...
- Of course not, those are clearly scams.
- Claude makes more detailed plans that seem better if you just skim them, but when analyzed, has a lot of errors, usually.
Raise real-world problems, find people facing the same issue, and discuss solutions.2,000 issues0 comments
hackernews (EdTech)
I mean that's the problem though.
I've always believed the opposite: get conditionals deep in your code so that the higher level control flow is regular.
The biggest problem with AI isn't being able to do things.
I am a 3D printing maker type nerd (I make my own tools for other creative tasks, rather than as their own outcomes) and I saw an incredi...
Of course not, those are clearly scams.
Claude makes more detailed plans that seem better if you just skim them, but when analyzed, has a lot of errors, usually.
Effectively everyone is building the same tools with zero quantitative benchmarks or evidence behind the why / ideas … this entire s...
> creating and operating a small company in Germany is a nightmare To be fair, I think the problem operating in Germany is its federated...
Effectively everyone is building the same tools with zero quantitative benchmarks or evidence behind the why / ideas … this entire s...
Effectively everyone is building the same tools with zero quantitative benchmarks or evidence behind the why / ideas … this entire space is a nightmare to navigate because of this. Who cares without proper science, seriously? I look through this website and it looks like a preview for a course I’m supposed to buy … when someone builds something with these sorts of claims attached, I assume that there is going to be some “real graphs” (“these are the number of times this model deviated from the spec before we added error correction …”) What we have instead are many people creating hierarchies of concepts, a vast “naming” of their own experiences, without rigorous quantitative evaluation. I may be alone in this, but it drives me nuts. Okay, so with that in mind, it amounts to heresay “these guys are doing something cool” — why not shut up or put up with either (a) an evaluation of the ideas in a rigorous, quantitative way or (b) apply the ideas to produce an “hard” artifact (analogous, e.g., to the Anthropic C compiler, the Cursor browser) with a reproducible pathway to generation. The answer seems to be that (b) is impossible (as long as we’re on the teet of the frontier labs, which disallow the kind of access that would make (b) possible) and the answer for (a) is “we can’t wait we have to get our names out there first” I’m disappointed to see these types of posts on HN. Where is the science?
Comments (0)
No comments yet. Start the discussion.