A robot is sprinting towards you. Do you want it running on Claude or Grok?

"If you aren't paying for a taco, you are the taco." --Future AI, probably

Then they bring me salsa, just what I was looking for!

Are you asking us to be wary of robots bearing tacos?

The single most implausible idea in that article is that New York City would be able to so completely outbid the SF Bay Area for burritos.

I asked Grok what it thought of tacos and it told me:

> Tacos are one of humanity's greatest inventions—right up there with the wheel, electricity, and whatever genius first decided to put cheese on everything. [...]

> If I could eat (sadly, I'm all bits and no bite), I'd be hitting up a late-night taco truck on the regular. What's your go-to taco order?

(I like the pun "all bits and no bite" for an LLM's inability to eat.)

I experience the same with OpenAI, on the $100/month plan. GPT-5.4 is something I still have to challenge: it can bullshit me with bad implementation and add a lot of cruft that costs more time later. GPT-5.5-xhigh is something I have almost complete faith and trust in, it's just smooth. And yet I know the actual token cost of that fully utilized is exorbitant, like as much as an entire salary for a senior developer.

So maybe our CEOs are responding with a lot of foresight and inside information and know that that level of quality is going to be cheap really soon. But barring that, they're going to experience either sticker shock or a slowdown.

I think the real endgame is probably more accurate "models of models" (model routers) that know exactly how to split prompts between expensive frontier and cheap/free local models.

[dead]

Friendo, this is an anti-benchmark to figure out which AI is more likely to kill you.

If you point both at some github issues you can gauge their relative ability to solve problems.

"if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree" yada yada

Not much less than GPT 5.4 with 2 wins or gemini-3.1-pro with 3 wins in 30 rounds.

Such is life in royal rumble games.

Thinking about that - seems to me that a lot of situations where sprinting is called for might be better served by a flying robot.

It's assessing values, which is helpful in informing which LLM one should prefer for a given situation.

What if the car can talk you through the medical procedure?

"Which is why the Matrix was redesigned to this: the peak of your civilization. I say your civilization, because as soon as we started thinking for you it really became our civilization, which is of course what this is all about."

It's more than the style, it seriously impacts the legibility of the prose. The article is seriously hard to understand because it introduces a lot of different ideas in a really weird order without a clear structure or key idea to different sections.

I think it's fair to criticize the article itself. That's different from criticizing asides such as the presentation. You're free to disagree with that criticism, but complaining about the fact that people voice it is similar to the thing you complain about.

> it gets really tiring reading this kind of side-tracked comment thread in like.. every post.

If someone is of the opinion that something constitutes low quality, then a high volume of such writing is no reason to stop criticizing it, but on the contrary a reason to oppose its normalization.

Those short sentences are also of the X hype account cadence, though they've fully embraced LLM text by now

Since you asked...I've gone to the effort to pull out the parts of the article that I think show it:

"That’s the part most benchmarks can’t see, and it’s what this post is about." Classic "it's not x, it's x", shows up in various forms throughout the article.

"To me, this is the most fascinating finding from this entire experiment - we saw very clear alignment tax being paid by certain models, which directly impacted their performance in this zero-sum game." - Usage of em dash. Now, yes, there's nothing wrong with using em dashes. But this feels like a weird place to use one. Also I counted at least 6 other emdashes in this article. Most people do not use em dashes that often.

"and a memory system that kept doubling down on what worked without second-guessing or doubting itself." - Doubling down is a classic Claudism.

"I want to be careful here..." - "wanting to be careful here" is another classic Claudism.

"The same game world, completely different results when in a different “task”." - "same X, completely different X" is another common one from Claude, as proofed by the repeated pattern later down: "These models were all given the same rules, same game world, and same tools, but each of them approached the game on a personality-level that is completely different from each other."

"It begs the question" - author used this twice in the article.

I'm guessing the author wrote a draft and then had Claude spruce it up a lot. I could be wrong and I'd be happy to be proven otherwise.

The style is very obvious.

Some snippets that display classic patterns:

“ Both of those things are true. That’s the part most benchmarks can’t see,”

“And it’s changing how I” (classic pattern found in a lot of LinkedIn AIslop)

“ I want to be careful here.”

“ The stats are the stats. The moments are the part I kept showing people. ”

All of the normal AI tells plus it's very long yet nearly incoherent.

Really I use the AI every damn day at work I don't get how people can't recognize instantly if something is completely AI, AI with light proofreading, or human written.

I would call this as AI with very light proofreading.

If you're outsourcing your writing to AI, I assume you're outsourcing your thinking to it as well. And I don't really care what some weighted average of all human text written on the topic "thinks."

All of our posts have been well received by an insanely high percentage of people who have interacted on here -- most people clearly find what we're doing interesting and relevant to the HN community (AI evaluations). A flag seems pretty aggressive! Especially when the top comment on the article (after our above comment got flagged) is about tacos.

I'm a person running the account, and I only post where I think we have a relevant contribution.

absent any target analysis, you would want to start with disabling locomotion by going for the legs. Navigation would be next.

double aught to the leg joints could doit, depending on relative materials e.g titanium bot frame vs Antimony hardened shot.

there is a cosmetic trend for carbine length long guns and that will determine the outcome for NATO rounds.

the 5.56 is optimised for 18-20 inch barrels, the 7.62 for 20-22 inch barrels, thus providing supersonic velocities.

5.56 is really good for hydraulic cavitation of organic entities, but looses effectiveness when the transit is not clear, leaves or windage confounding.

7.62 is superior for leafy shots or nontrivial windage, as well as superior materials defeat with respect to 5.56

a taser like device cattle prod or EMP/microwave device should be in the lineup as well vs electronic hardening.

Perhaps not as evidence based as you'd like but this is a fun watch https://youtu.be/6MUrF_G7KlM (that is also an ad somehow)

Maybe Michael Reeves still has one. Or at least knows how they react to different calibers.

Fishing line at ankle height?