"One-shot" means you type one prompt into Claude, press enter, and then judge the results when the AI completes the task. The article says that Claude was able to take a single prompt and produce a pixel-perfect replica.
Is there another definition of "one-shot" I'm not aware of?
Yea, the one that includes all the previous "one-shot" failures.
If you throw 4 basketballs at a hoop and only the 4th one makes it in, that's not "one-shot". It's 4.
Your definition appears to be, after many failed attempts, a single prompt that gets the AI to complete the task was found. You called that "one-shot" but what really happened is there were several "shots" that failed.
If three of my friends that have never played basketball take a shot and they all miss, that doesn't say anything about my ability to make a shot. Obviously, my friends are inexperienced with basketball. There is nothing wrong with that, but it's not a fair or just argument to tell people who do have experience that "your success not a true one-shot because other, inexperienced people, failed".
You appear to be extending the definition of "one-shot" to "an LLM should be able to accomplish anything no matter how poorly it was prompted", which is, I hope you can agree, not very reasonable. It's certainly not something I would be arguing in favor of.
your shot is not dependent on your 3 friends. The "one-shot" prompt only happened because they took the info from previous failed attempts to guide their prompt
You seem to be saying that I never would have thought of how to prompt Claude until I became inspired by reading the post yesterday. But I use Claude with Playwright + screenshots basically daily.
I can one-shot a 10-footer, might need few attempts to hit a half-court shot. not all shots are created equal but I have seen many full-court one-shots by LLMs which would have taken human (other than Steph) tens if not hundreds of shots :)
I know a fraudster that everyone speaks highly of. Outright fraud and advocates against fraud themself. Whenever I read "everyone speaks highly of" I stop reading.
I agree. Didn't these puzzles ruin interviewing for many years now. AI came along and they're still doing it. Some things will needlessly drag on before they die I guess
How do they ruin interviewing? The whole point of these puzzles is that they’re meant to be fun to solve, not a means to an end, but enjoyable for what they are.
By the same token, AI came along and we all still have intelligence, needless, eh? I mean people reading and writing stuff has nothing to do with AI. I don't see how some people see everything as a zero-sum game.
All AI is doing is solving these puzzles, which proves they don't need any form of intelligence. You're wrong for associating AI with human intelligence. It will never happen. It might be faked once, like the moon landing, but that's it.
Finally someone mentioned it. I'm surprised all the "tech enthusiasts" here turn a blind eye when it's their own community, but if it's someone else's then it's atrocious.
Why does't HN respect requests to delete accounts? That doesn't seem so nice as a community. I know they give an excuse, but... I have to admit though I did find a job on here once so it is somewhat useful, but I'm not Stockholm Syndrome-ish about it
On the topic of atomic bombs I have some rhetorical questions
1. What happened to the deadly radioactivity?
2. Would exploding the equivalent amount of TNT look exactly the same?
3. Would USA fake having a single bomb that destroys an entire city?
4. What happened to the deadly radioactivity in Japan?
5. What is carpet bombing?
6. Would USA fake having a single bomb that destroys an entire city?
I have a feeling the point made by these rhetorical questions is not the one you intended. These all have obvious, verifiable, and plain/boring answers.
People even detected the radioactivity before nukes were public, and you can still measure the differences in steel today.
I'll answer because some people are probably genuinely curious to some of these.
> 1. What happened to the deadly radioactivity?
It mostly decayed out. Generally speaking, 8 half-lives mean that it's essentially decayed to "gone". High-level atmospheric tests usually cause it to spread out and depending on wind patterns can dissipate enough to be essentially harmless - though with precision instruments you can measure the differences throughout the whole world. Steel from shipwrecks from before the first explosion can be desirable for some of this equipment.
With explosions closer to or below ground level, there can be longer-lasting elements baked into the ground, like Trinitite (a green glass like material) that can have trace amounts of cesium-137, with a half-life of 30 years, which going by the 8 times rule means that it'll be "dangerous" for ~240 years.
Also the type of bomb matters to what is left behind. A uranium bomb will leave different radioactive byproducts than a plutonium bomb.
To break it down to layman terms, nuclear explosions are also designed to emit energy extremely fast, meaning the radioactive chain reaction "burns" through elements very fast. This is different that the fuel in a nuclear reactor, which is designed to burn hot and slow, meaning there are more longer-lasting byproducts left over and why Chernobyl is a no go zone for thousands of years, but we can live in Hiroshima.
Most of the cancers that happened were from people downwind from the explosion. Most of these elements that caused the cancers and sicknesses decayed away within a couple of years.
> 2. Would exploding the equivalent amount of TNT look exactly the same?
No. It wouldn't produce anywhere near the amount of heat/light. The TNT equivalent is usually used to measure the destructive force equivalent of the explosion.
> 3. Would USA fake having a single bomb that destroys an entire city?
The US may "fake" having a number operating bombs ready, etc. But obviously there's no need to fake it as the US destroyed 2 cities at the end of world war 2 and exploded hundreds of test bombs since.
> 4. What happened to the deadly radioactivity in Japan?
The bombs dropped were exploded high in the atmosphere to spread the explosive force of the bombs. Most of the radioactive material was carried away by the winds and/or had a short half-life. Most radioactive material from the bombs decayed away and there is no longer a statistically significant higher risk of cancer in either Hiroshima or Nagasaki.
> 5. What is carpet bombing?
It's when you have a fleet of bombers drop massive amounts of traditional bombs on a city, as was done to Germany and Japan during world war 2 (and by the Germans to a few cities like Rotterdam).
> 6. Would USA fake having a single bomb that destroys an entire city?
1. It is difficult to believe that the deadly radioactivity was just blown away. Where was it blown to? Upwards to space?
2. Then perhaps a larger amount of TNT
3. Unfortunately USA has a long list of questionable history (moon landing, 911, to name a few)
4. Cancers could be from the chemical weapons used
5. Fire bombing and carpet bombing could explain what happed in Japan
6. Again, Hollywood, currency backed by Gold fakery, list goes on.
You seem to not be operating in good faith, but that one is interesting:
> Then perhaps a larger amount of TNT
You can replicate something on the size of the WWII bombs with TNT, but you can't get anything much larger. A TNT explosion is relatively slow, and if you blow too much of it, it will disperse before blowing.
Or other types of explosives that mushroom with lights and colors. We've seen real life examples of those. I'm just trying to have a controversial discussion while following HN rules and vibes. No politics, just facts. I didn't provide references hoping some curious mind would go searching for the truth themselves. Compelling evidence is out there. For example
- Tokyo was carpet/fire bombed at the same time. Image comparisons between Tokyo and Hiroshima/Nagasaki destructions are extremely identical
- Both Nagasaki and Hiroshima are harbor cities, which explains implanting the large amounts of TNT. (this tactic happened several times in recent history and is documented). This is actually the opinion of an American army member from when the alleged bombing happened. Good luck finding the video.
Not a lot of facts, as most of your comment is trivial to disprove.
> Image comparisons between Tokyo and Hiroshima/Nagasaki destructions are extremely identical
The destruction in Tokyo is completely different from Hiroshima/Nagasaki. It's not centralized, and there's no mark of the extreme high temperatures the nuclear weapons create.
> Both Nagasaki and Hiroshima are harbor cities, which explains implanting the large amounts of TNT.
The place where the explosions happened is completely clear from the remains you can find there today. You can just get some satellite images and look.
You are clearly going for a "wake up sheep!" comment, so go and wake up.
I'm open to discussion. If I see compelling evidence I could change my mind. Unfortunately I don't believe there is anything called "nuclear weapons". Just nuclear energy. Anyway that's old news. The new race is AI. Soon there is going to be a major event claiming to be AI superiority that will seem like magic. If that happens, I hope you remember my comment.
I've seen a lot of conspiracy theories but nuke denialism is a new one. Do you think the US is faking it and the rest of the nuclear nations developed nukes, or the US was faking it but no longer is, or everyone is in on the conspiracy?
The answer to 1 is the always-popular "dilution is the solution to pollution", although that's not good enough for all cases, see the concept of "low-background steel".
I also don't think fire bombing and carpet bombing could explain the very nuke-specific effects observed in Japan. Remember, not everyone in the targeted cities and surrounding areas died, and to the survivors, a carpet/fire bombing is quite obviously different from a nuke. Faking it with 10000 tons of TNT (or "perhaps a larger amount") is kind of hard (unless you want to claim that the Japanese were in on it) when the largest heavy-lift aircraft (An-225) had a max takeoff weight (not payload) of 630 tons and was built decades later.
It's not new. Like I said the U.S. army exposed it back when it happened. Don't worry about "nuclear bombs". I advise you to worry about Volcanoes. Did you know they are more frequent now. Did you know a volcano is stronger than many "atomic bombs" combined. Seek knowledge from the only Mighty God, before it's too late. Stop turning a deaf ear. That's my advice.
