The HeroIcons component matched almost exactly, except the stroke width was too thin on the new component. I wasn’t familiar with HeroIcons React components, so I asked Claude Opus 4.5 to make them match exactly in terms of thickness etc. Claude swore up and down there was no way to change the stroke of a HeroIcons component, and told me I’d have to “just use the inline SVG”, “accept the difference”, or simply “match by adjusting the inline SVG”.
Maybe I’m just tired, but the wording of this felt a little bit unclear, to the point I had to read it over again to discern that you were discarding the old component and wanted the new one to ‘match’ it by looking similar to what it replaced, rather than adding a new component somewhere but leaving the old one in place elsewhere in your branding with the desire that things remain visually consistent. I wasn’t there, of course, but, depending on the phrasing, I could see a human making this mistake.
I would love to see an example. I saw people saying something similar about AI poetry once, but then I read the poetry and it was trash. The people just didn’t have any taste when it came to poetry, and thought any vague language that rhymed basically constituted an amazing poem.
I saw one a while back, but I unfortunately don’t remember where it was. To summarize, it had some fairly standard but seemingly original jokes, a coherent plot, and a theme at the end that came through throughout. I think Claude was used to generate it. Not something I’d read for fun, but I didn’t see anything missing from it on a qualitative level. I was left thinking that a smarter model, ideally without that ubiquitous tone, which evokes the Corporate Memphis art style and comes standard in the post-training of every LLM currently on the market, could write something legitimately good.
I personally won’t give the AI any credit unless it does it by itself. After all, I said AI won’t generate important scientific breakthroughs, not that it couldn’t be used in some way to help generate a breakthrough.
The challenge, here, is that there isn’t a universally agreed-upon atomic unit for a research contribution (Alas, Salami Slicing will continue to exist). If I write out some lemmas which constitute X percent of the work needed to solve an open problem, give them to a friend, and he pieces them together to write the proof that was needed, did he make a contribution by himself?
I’m not a mathematics researcher, so I can’t say exactly how impressive this is, but Terrance Tao thinks that the meaningful autonomous progress box has been ticked.
Are we? Even in a blizzard at night? I’m Canadian, so that matters for me.
There are videos, but at the end of the day, performance is ambiguous enough that two people can look at them and draw different conclusions. Human driver quality comes from a wide distribution; I’d wager that self-driving cars can do better in a Canadian blizzard than a kid who just got his license in CA, but would falter in situations that an Alaskan roughneck with 40 years of experience could handle readily.
Maybe I’m just tired, but the wording of this felt a little bit unclear, to the point I had to read it over again to discern that you were discarding the old component and wanted the new one to ‘match’ it by looking similar to what it replaced, rather than adding a new component somewhere but leaving the old one in place elsewhere in your branding with the desire that things remain visually consistent. I wasn’t there, of course, but, depending on the phrasing, I could see a human making this mistake.
I saw one a while back, but I unfortunately don’t remember where it was. To summarize, it had some fairly standard but seemingly original jokes, a coherent plot, and a theme at the end that came through throughout. I think Claude was used to generate it. Not something I’d read for fun, but I didn’t see anything missing from it on a qualitative level. I was left thinking that a smarter model, ideally without that ubiquitous tone, which evokes the Corporate Memphis art style and comes standard in the post-training of every LLM currently on the market, could write something legitimately good.
The challenge, here, is that there isn’t a universally agreed-upon atomic unit for a research contribution (Alas, Salami Slicing will continue to exist). If I write out some lemmas which constitute X percent of the work needed to solve an open problem, give them to a friend, and he pieces them together to write the proof that was needed, did he make a contribution by himself?
I’m not a mathematics researcher, so I can’t say exactly how impressive this is, but Terrance Tao thinks that the
meaningful autonomous progressbox has been ticked.There are videos, but at the end of the day, performance is ambiguous enough that two people can look at them and draw different conclusions. Human driver quality comes from a wide distribution; I’d wager that self-driving cars can do better in a Canadian blizzard than a kid who just got his license in CA, but would falter in situations that an Alaskan roughneck with 40 years of experience could handle readily.