Subindev

Building things nobody asked for, trading stocks nobody recommended, and living in a city built on sand. AI does the boring parts.

[Vaibhav Sisinty @VaibhavSisinty]

A 25-year-old housewife in Chennai earns ₹250/hour ($3) just by doing her normal housework.

She wears a phone on her head and records herself making coffee, cutting fruit, folding laundry.

These first-person videos get sent to AI companies training humanoid robots to handle real-world tasks. She shoots 90+ clips a day.

Her quote: "Who else will pay you ₹250/hour ($3) an hour just for doing housework?"

She's part of a growing gig economy in India where thousands are doing the same thing, filming everyday life to train the robots of tomorrow.

[Claude @claudeai]

Introducing Claude Opus 4.8: it builds on Opus 4.7 with sharper judgment, more honesty about its own progress, and the ability to work independently for longer than its predecessors.

Available today at the same price.

[Subindev @subindev]

@sama Voice to to code :)

[Subindev @subindev]

@Mr_Derivatives Green on weekend :)

[Subindev @subindev]

We over-engineer clusters for apps that won't see 10k users, while a single-file DB powers Airbus A350 flight software.
It handles 281TB of data and 1GB rows, often 10x faster than a networked DB. The "small" is a lie. Simple is the ultimate power move.

#SQLite #Programming

[Subindev @subindev]

10:12 pm

[Tom Warren @tomwarren]

Anthropic just took a big swipe at OpenAI's decision to put ads in ChatGPT. Anthropic is airing ads mocking ChatGPT ads during the Super Bowl, and they're hilarious 😅 Anthropic is also committing to no ads in Claude https://t.co/LR1v4xz9ds

[Evan @StockMKTNewz]

I am on this live stream right now ... come join up

I will take a trade live on the stream

What should I be looking at?

[Subindev @subindev]

@GithubProjects demo

[Subindev @subindev]

@anythingai How

[James Montemagno @JamesMontemagno]

Background coding agent tasks now in #vscode!!! This incredible!!! Start working or assign a task at any time to the agent and it will start working on it on a new branch in the cloud so you can work on something else.

https://t.co/sVjxkuHuP4

[Andrej Karpathy @karpathy]

Good post from @balajis on the "verification gap".

You could see it as there being two modes in creation. Borrowing GAN terminology:
1) generation and
2) discrimination.
e.g. painting - you make a brush stroke (1) and then you look for a while to see if you improved the painting (2). these two stages are interspersed in pretty much all creative work.

Second point. Discrimination can be computationally very hard.
- images are by far the easiest. e.g. image generator teams can create giant grids of results to decide if one image is better than the other. thank you to the giant GPU in your brain built for processing images very fast.
- text is much harder. it is skimmable, but you have to read, it is semantic, discrete and precise so you also have to reason (esp in e.g. code).
- audio is maybe even harder still imo, because it force a time axis so it's not even skimmable. you're forced to spend serial compute and can't parallelize it at all.

You could say that in coding LLMs have collapsed (1) to ~instant, but have done very little to address (2). A person still has to stare at the results and discriminate if they are good. This is my major criticism of LLM coding in that they casually spit out *way* too much code per query at arbitrary complexity, pretending there is no stage 2. Getting that much code is bad and scary. Instead, the LLM has to actively work with you to break down problems into little incremental steps, each more easily verifiable. It has to anticipate the computational work of (2) and reduce it as much as possible. It has to really care.

This leads me to probably the biggest misunderstanding non-coders have about coding. They think that coding is about writing the code (1). It's not. It's about staring at the code (2). Loading it all into your working memory. Pacing back and forth. Thinking through all the edge cases. If you catch me at a random point while I'm "programming", I'm probably just staring at the screen and, if interrupted, really mad because it is so computationally strenuous. If we only get much faster 1, but we don't also reduce 2 (which is most of the time!), then clearly the overall speed of coding won't improve (see Amdahl's law).

[Subindev @subindev]

The one and only time ever i smiled and felt good when a subscription charged me. Thank you @lovable , it’s worth every penny. Thanks again for giving me the super power I never had (ui ux) :)

[Jurassic World @JurassicWorld]

We see no possible way this could go wrong

[Subindev @subindev]

@sama Not good

[Subindev @subindev]

@TheCinesthetic Dexter

[Subindev @subindev]

@ohhanxiety 50+20+10+5

[Subindev @subindev]

@florinpop17 Sanity

[Subindev @subindev]

@mwaseemzakir It depends, mostly Cosmos

[Subindev @subindev]

@CodingGarden If something ain't broke don't fix it