Grzmot's recent activity
-
Comment on That one study that proves developers using AI are deluded in ~tech
-
Comment on Why are we still doing this? in ~tech
Grzmot Link ParentThere's no need to be sustainable when venture capitalism keeps giving you more than a hundred billion US dollars every funding round. The AI has its place. It can be, in specific applications,...There's no need to be sustainable when venture capitalism keeps giving you more than a hundred billion US dollars every funding round.
The AI has its place. It can be, in specific applications, the correct solution. But it really only helps when you know exactly what you need out of it and can also verify its output.
I just hope that the expected workload of developers won't rise, and in general, AI won't be used to automate tasks and turn people into rubber-stamping machines that just check its output, even when said output is way too large to be manually verified. Something that Cory Doctorow pointed out in his excellent essay.
-
Comment on Why are we still doing this? in ~tech
Grzmot Link ParentZitron also makes the argument that once AI companies have to raise prices to a sustainable level for them, no one will pay them. That's the core of what he's getting at. The simple subscription...Zitron also makes the argument that once AI companies have to raise prices to a sustainable level for them, no one will pay them. That's the core of what he's getting at. The simple subscription fee makes no sense for this business model, because the cost of every request cannot be anticipated, but the API usage based cost is exceedingly difficult to sell to customers, because if Claude charges you for every dead end it reaches because it can't actually think, using these models becomes a lot less quirky and a lot more "cancel right now".
Investors, in particular these large investment firms should be doing their due diligence for these investments, but a lot of it is obfuscated.
-
Comment on Why are we still doing this? in ~tech
Grzmot Link ParentI mean, they prefer it because they think that they'll be able to let go a lot of employees. But when AI actually gets both unpredictable but also more expensive than a programmer in silicon...But hey, if companies prefer that to a consistently paid employee, so be it.
I mean, they prefer it because they think that they'll be able to let go a lot of employees. But when AI actually gets both unpredictable but also more expensive than a programmer in silicon valley making >USD 100k then yeah, might be time to reconsider your strategy.
-
Comment on Why are we still doing this? in ~tech
Grzmot Link ParentIf you can avoid it becoming a crutch, then sure, go ahead. I mean, it'll also do decent damage to the world even while it's a honeypot, but that's outside of your personal responsibility because...If you can avoid it becoming a crutch, then sure, go ahead. I mean, it'll also do decent damage to the world even while it's a honeypot, but that's outside of your personal responsibility because all governments have gone mad with AI.
-
Comment on Why are we still doing this? in ~tech
Grzmot LinkA fantastic, long essay on the financials of AI companies and the insanity we currently live in.In fact, let’s talk about that for a second. At the end of January, OpenAI CFO Sarah Firar said that “our ability to serve customers—as measured by revenue—directly tracks available compute,” messily suggesting that the more compute you have the more revenue you have.
This is, of course, a big bucket of bollocks. Did OpenAI scale its compute dramatically between hitting $20 billion in annualized revenue (to be clear, I have deep suspicions about these numbers and how OpenAI measures “annualized” revenue) in January 2026 and $25 billion in March 2026? I think that’s highly unlikely.
What about Uber? Uber is a completely different business to Anthropic and OpenAI or any other AI company. It lost about $30 billion in the last decade or so, and turned a weird kind of profitable through a combination of cutting multiple markets and business lines (EG: autonomous cars), all while gouging customers and paying drivers less.
The economics are also completely different. Uber does not pay for its drivers’ gas, nor their cars, nor does it own any vehicles. Its PP&E has been between $1.5 billion and $2.1 billion since it was founded. Uber’s revenue does not increase with acquisitions of PP&E, nor does its business become significantly more expensive based on how far a driver drives, how many passengers they might have in a day, or how many meals they might deliver. Uber is, effectively, a digital marketplace for getting stuff or people moved from one place to another [...].
In any case, there is no future for any AI company that uses a subscription-based approach, at least not one where they don’t directly pass on the cost of compute.
This is a huge problem for both Anthropic and OpenAI, as their scurrilous growth-lust means that they’ve done everything they can to get customers used to paying a single monthly cost that directly obfuscates the cost of doing business.
Let’s say that Anthropic and OpenAI immediately decide to switch everybody to the API. How would anybody actually budget? Is somebody that pays $200 a month for Claude Max going to be comfortable paying $1000 or $1500 or $2500 a month in costs, and have, at that point, really no firm understanding of the cost of a particular action?
First, there’s no way to anticipate how many tokens a prompt will actually burn, which makes any kind of budgeting a non-starter. It’s like going to the supermarket and committing to buy a gallon of milk, not knowing if it’ll cost you $5 or $50.
A fantastic, long essay on the financials of AI companies and the insanity we currently live in.
-
Why are we still doing this?
36 votes -
Comment on I before she — on the shift in narrative perspective in romance novels in ~books
Grzmot Link ParentI'm happy that we both took away something's positive. No harm done. ❤️I'm happy that we both took away something's positive.
No harm done. ❤️ -
Comment on I before she — on the shift in narrative perspective in romance novels in ~books
Grzmot Link ParentI agree with everything. You made the world kinder today. Thank you. ❤️I agree with everything.
You made the world kinder today. Thank you. ❤️
-
Comment on I before she — on the shift in narrative perspective in romance novels in ~books
Grzmot Link ParentThank you for trying to provide clarity. Now we're getting into trying to anticipate someone's intent and thoughts in an already loaded conversation, so I appreciate you venturing in here and...Thank you for trying to provide clarity.
Now we're getting into trying to anticipate someone's intent and thoughts in an already loaded conversation, so I appreciate you venturing in here and helping out.
I think that my original comment got equated to as being the same thing as calling fanfiction for people who hate words, which is not something I agree with, in a comment which quoted two different people in a way that's oblique to the fact didn't feel great to me.
When calling out the whole empathy thing, I was trying to respond to the part of the comment that did address what I said, even agreed to it in a way, and in my head the original comment was no longer present. However, you're totally correct that inadvertedly, that is a double standard. I just didn't catch it, because for whatever reason, the original inflammatory comment about fanfiction didn't hit me as much, and later on I was too hung up on defending myself to take a step back and realize what's actually going on.
-
Comment on I before she — on the shift in narrative perspective in romance novels in ~books
Grzmot (edited )Link ParentIt's very much possible? Some of the greatest works of literature are romance stories. There isn't a single form of story that is incompatible with being "true art". At the same time, a lot of...It's very much possible? Some of the greatest works of literature are romance stories. There isn't a single form of story that is incompatible with being "true art".
At the same time, a lot of romance books are consumption oriented novels that are fun to read but don't have much more to say. They're very similar to your average thriller. Fun in the process of reading, but that's about it. At the same time, there are thrillers out there that do more with the format, and most that don't.
That doesn't make one worse than the other, nor does it degrade the people that enjoy these stories into some lower class beneath the true art connoisseurs or whatever silly name you wanna call them. It's a completely arbitrary distinction that's pointless. Sometimes the goal of a story is the ride and the tension that ends in either two people making out, or catching a killer. Sometimes both!
-
Comment on I before she — on the shift in narrative perspective in romance novels in ~books
Grzmot (edited )Link ParentOriginal comment: Once again: didn't say that hates words sentence, don't agree with it. Hence your insistence on creating sides in a discussion when there are none and in particular casting me...Original comment:
Once again: didn't say that hates words sentence, don't agree with it. Hence your insistence on creating sides in a discussion when there are none and in particular casting me with one on a point I have repeatedly disagreed with sits very ill with me.Edit: I do not want to dismiss your feelings on the matter. It's legitimate to feel insulted by said sentence. Personally I like fanfiction, I find writing it to be very human, and it's to an extent the highest honor if as a writer people adore your work so much they're inspired to do their own thing with it.
But it is only tangentially related to what I said.
Thankfully someone else made me aware that I kinda missed the point entirely. Yes, people should be more empathethic, but that goes for the original comment dismissing fanfiction in its entirety as writing for people who hate words, when it is a much more wonderful thing.
I'm sorry.
-
Comment on I before she — on the shift in narrative perspective in romance novels in ~books
Grzmot Link ParentI feel similar. Ultimately this is the same for every art form which has major commercial players, and the truth is that some people just want to engage with books on that level and not move from...I feel similar. Ultimately this is the same for every art form which has major commercial players, and the truth is that some people just want to engage with books on that level and not move from that level, because they're happy there.
But the truth is that some others will also want more and challenge themselves to more difficult books that have more to say, rather than being pure consumerist entertainment like a shoddy romance novel or a captivating thriller. And you very rarely have people start with the more difficult stuff. And sometimes the easy books are a nice change of pace between the more difficult ones.
And sometimes the easy to read ones are those that have a tremendous amount of things to say. Terry Pratchett is a fantastic example. The Discworld novels are incredibly easy to read but are true art.
Movies are similar. A lot of folks just want to be entertained. But sometimes the average cinema goer stumbles into something more challenging than the next Marvel Cinematic Universe entry. And some people remain on that level forever. It's not bad per se.
What I will say is that we should keep an open eye out for folks and keep avenues open so that they know that they can challenge themselves to more difficult books. I'm afraid that a lot of this resurgence of romantasy is pushed by algorithmic social media, which will keep people on such levels without ever pushing them to even try to read anything that doesn't fit their exact niche. It's okay if they say no. But it would be a shame to just let one of the oldest art forms wither when it could thrive with such global communities.
-
Comment on I before she — on the shift in narrative perspective in romance novels in ~books
Grzmot Link ParentSlight correction that might've been lost in the convo: I'm not the person who you originally responded to in this thread, and I didn't say that it's literature for people who hate words, I don't...Slight correction that might've been lost in the convo: I'm not the person who you originally responded to in this thread, and I didn't say that it's literature for people who hate words, I don't agree with that statement.
That being said, it's a very "old man yells at cloud" sentiment in general, because it's fewer books getting published about the things you in particular enjoy, and more getting published in something that you don't, displacing what you previously did. It's a venting statement. You're right in the rational sense, but I don't find it very empathetic to respond to an emotional vent with "the universe doesn't give a shit about you, boo." :D
-
Comment on I before she — on the shift in narrative perspective in romance novels in ~books
Grzmot Link ParentUnless you're unreasonable, the issue isn't the fact that people are in their own space having fun with their own, mostly harmless thing. The issue is more when that thing you explicitly do not...Unless you're unreasonable, the issue isn't the fact that people are in their own space having fun with their own, mostly harmless thing. The issue is more when that thing you explicitly do not enjoy starts to creep into the thing you do. A current example is how romantasy basically swallowed the fantasy genre whole. Aspiring writers who want to write fantasy but are uninterested in making romance the main focus are getting turned away by publishing houses, and is changing the genre.
-
Comment on "I started growing lettuce in a spare server cabinet. This is, for many reasons, a terrible idea. Here's how I did it." in ~tech
Grzmot LinkThank you for posting, this post gave me the good vibes. I can't add anything unfortunately, but I just wanted to thank you like this, instead of silently upvoting. Really, this experiment needs...Thank you for posting, this post gave me the good vibes. I can't add anything unfortunately, but I just wanted to thank you like this, instead of silently upvoting. Really, this experiment needs no discussion. It's perfect as is.
-
Comment on I before she — on the shift in narrative perspective in romance novels in ~books
Grzmot Link“It’s just off-putting to me. I feel like books are easier to understand when they’re written in first person,” said Lee, when I reached out to her for an interview. “Sometimes when I’m seeking out a new book, I want it to be as dumbed down as possible. These fantasy books often have all of this world-building. Sometimes I’m not in the mood to think. I just want to get lost in a story.”
Readers’ increasingly vocal partiality for first-person perspective over third person amounts to a profound shift in taste. Even while publishing is in dire straits elsewhere, the romance genre is in the midst of an unprecedented boom period. Sales in the genre have doubled since 2020, almost single-handedly rehabilitating an industry that had been ailing for decades. (Of America’s 10 best-selling books in 2024, six of them were romance.) But the readers buying those titles often demand that authors render them to their precise specifications: first person, with a fixed perspective, no omniscient lapses allowed. It’s a minor aesthetic preference, but it also might be transforming literary culture as a whole.
For decades, the quintessential romance novel was a gooey parlor drama with bursting corsets and lacy gowns written entirely in third-person omniscient.
It is hard to say when or why those norms changed, other than the fact that they most certainly have. Taylor Capizola, manager of the Los Angeles romance-centric bookstore The Ripped Bodice, told me that the ratio of first-person novels she stocks has “expanded greatly” in the four years she’s worked as a bookseller, to the point that they now dominate her shelves.
“It’s become the predominant perspective in the genre,” said Capizola. “We have readers come in and ask if we have entire sections dedicated to first person.”
-
I before she — on the shift in narrative perspective in romance novels
33 votes -
Comment on US government announces pilot program for eVTOLS and ultralight aerial vehicles even without FAA certification in ~transport
Grzmot LinkEven assuming this program goes anywhere, which in the desastrous state that the US government is, I seriously doubt, and even assuming that this goes all perfectly, and aerial vehicles are as...Even assuming this program goes anywhere, which in the desastrous state that the US government is, I seriously doubt, and even assuming that this goes all perfectly, and aerial vehicles are as affordable, easy to drive and safe (or even safer) than normal cars, this still doesn't really solve any problems because it replicates the same problems that cars have, i.e. extremely poor scalability when transporting a lot of people.
-
US government announces pilot program for eVTOLS and ultralight aerial vehicles even without FAA certification
14 votes
Because it's exactly the sort of code that hides issues which are devious, frustrating and difficult to find. When it doesn't compile, the compiler tells you why, and where the issue is. An error is similarly explicit. But code that mostly runs except when it hits some edge case is pure hell.
Mind you, I've used Claude Opus 4.6 (I don't bother with other models) successfully at work as a dev. But it's best used for general directions about a code base you have no idea about. It recently helped me analyze how a complex component in a front-end worked in which many systems interlocked: a way to filter data, syncing that filtering with the state and sending off database queries with it... I was a little lost, because the code base is vast and frankly speaking trash, and Claude helped there.
But the code with which it proposed to solve the problem I was facing was pretty bad.