@AnujKum82046422 Who cares.... We work for incentives that people without Bharatiya Samskaras don't understand.
येन केन प्रकारेण यस्य कस्यापि देहिनः ।
सन्तोषं जनयेत् प्राज्ञस्तदेवेश्वरपूजनम् ॥
I got completely owned by the most sophisticated hack I've ever encountered.
I'm a developer. I know what scams look like.
This didn't look like one.
🧵
"We aren't going to the Moon, but rather meeting it at an exact point in space.
And it isn't necessary to spend fuel, either; the calculations are made so that everything works through pure physics and gravity.
It is flawless."
I’ve always wondered, Why does a house-cleaning robot need legs? ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
A Roomba with arms could handle most of this. Doesn’t two legged balance burn more compute? (and cost?) 🤔
Maybe the “human” factor makes it easier to sell to investors and users.
Today we're showing Helix 02 that can tidy a living room fully autonomously
Figure is designed so when you leave the house, your home resets exactly how you like it
> clock in 9–5 daily
> come home
> open laptop again
> “this AI side project will change my life”
few months later…
>realize you’re just doing overtime for free
> training models
> paying $200/month for the privilege
escaped the rat race
entered the compute race
Prof. Donald Knuth opened his new paper with "Shock! Shock!"
Claude Opus 4.6 had just solved an open problem he'd been working on for weeks — a graph decomposition conjecture from The Art of Computer Programming.
He named the paper "Claude's Cycles."
31 explorations. ~1 hour. Knuth read the output, wrote the formal proof, and closed with: "It seems I'll have to revise my opinions about generative AI one of these days."
The man who wrote the bible of computer science just said that. In a paper named after an AI.
Paper: https://t.co/juSOmK9vOt
One reason vibe coding is so addictive is that you are always *almost* there but not 100% there. The agent implements an amazing feature and got maybe 10% of the thing wrong, and you are like "hey I can fix this if i just prompt it for 5 more mins"
And that was 5 hrs ago
This has been said a thousand times before, but allow me to add my own voice: the era of humans writing code is over. Disturbing for those of us who identify as SWEs, but no less true. That's not to say SWEs don't have work to do, but writing syntax directly is not it.
I vibe coded a super fun and useless AI toy with Claude Code running on my Raspberry Pi.
Speak into a web page → AI generates an image → thermal printer spits it out in 5 seconds.
Here's how I built it 🧵
Claude can code- but can claude grow?! 🪴
So far the answer is YES.
Claude is successfully keeping a living organism ALIVE.
There were some hiccups this week!
Some errors and resets, but Claude managed to power through and take care of Sol 🍅
A week in review:
The Laptop Test. Why most remote jobs will disappear within 10 years.
Insights from an interview with Shane Legg, cofounder of Google DeepMind.
A short clip, but it lands like a brick. Legg lays out a framework that quietly nukes a huge chunk of today’s job market.
•The Laptop Test
If your job can be done fully remote with just a laptop, screen, and internet, it’s pure cognitive labor. No physical presence. No embodiment. That is exactly the domain advanced AI will dominate. Conclusion: most remote, computer-only jobs are on a countdown.
•Yes, humans still matter but less than we think
Some digital work survives because people follow people. Influencers, creators, personalities. The value isn’t the task, it’s the human behind it. But that’s the exception, not the rule.
•Experts are behind the curve
Legg points out something uncomfortable: many academics and professionals seriously underestimate AGI. They judge AI by outdated capabilities, not by where it is actually heading. The pace of progress is faster than their mental models.
•Why “normal people” often get it first
Non-experts look at AI and think: it writes better, knows more, speaks more languages, solves more problems than I do. Why wouldn’t it replace jobs?
Experts, meanwhile, assume their niche is too special. That belief is often more ego than evidence.
Bottom line:
If your income depends on work that lives entirely on a screen, you are not competing with AI yet, but you are on borrowed time. The question is no longer if, but how society adapts when this becomes obvious.