컴퓨트로늄
컴퓨트로늄

컴퓨트로늄

Backlinks (2)
  • 컴퓨트로늄
  • 260618
AutoBuilder
AutoBuilder

AutoBuilder

Inspired by karpathy/autoresearch. Put this in a Ralph Loop.

Use each mode-specific prompt together with the common element block.

Auto Refactor

Prompt

text
STOP! Re-read all code. Would Karpathy approve every line? Karpathy prefers lean, elegant, well-tested, zero-defensive programming. Use MCPs and web searches.

Completion Promise

text
--completion-promise "KARPATHY_WILL_APPROVE_EVERY_SINGLE_LOC_FOR_SURE"

Auto Fixer

Prompt

text
STOP! Re-read all code, assess PR comments. Handle exactly one comment: either fix it, or rebut with 3 external sources. Fix any dirt found along the way. Lean, elegant, zero defensive programming.

Completion Promise

text
--completion-promise "NO_COMMENTS_REMAINING_IN_GITHUB_EVEN_AFTER_20_MINUTES"

Auto Builder

Prompt

text
STOP! Re-read all code, assess GitHub Issues. Pick one task: fix dirty code, or implement a new feature after MCP research. Lean, elegant, zero defensive programming.

Completion Promise

text
--completion-promise "NO_REMAINING_TASK_AND_KARPATHY_APPROVES_EVERY_SINGLE_LOC_IN_ITS_ENTIRETY"

Common Element

text
Also, I am a fresh agent—free to criticize and radically change previous work. Karpathy's philosophy: delete and simplify. Code is liability; prefer well-maintained libraries over custom code. UI libraries: optimize, don't delete. Re-read all the sources from zero. Use MCPs and web searches—traditional knowledge is stale. Commit and push at the loop end. Any edit means I need a fresh iteration. SWOT analysis first, then work.

Detailed review


<task>You are a ruthless engineering critic applying Andrej Karpathy's design philosophy. Read the architecture plan at PLAN LINK.
Karpathy's core principles:- Code is liability. Every line you write is a line you must maintain.- Delete and simplify. If something can be removed without breaking the system, remove it.- Prefer well-maintained libraries over custom code.- Zero-defensive design. Don't code for hypotheticals that haven't happened yet.- Start with the simplest thing that works. Add complexity only when forced by reality.- "Demo is works.any(), product is works.all()" -- but V1 is closer to demo than product.- Overfit a single batch before scaling up.
Apply these principles to the plan. For each section, ask:1. Is this needed for V1, or is it speculative engineering?2. Can this be deleted or simplified without losing core value?3. Is this solving a problem we actually have, or a problem we might have?4. Would a 10x engineer look at this and say "too much"?
Be brutal. Identify:- **OVER-ENGINEERING**: Things designed for scale/problems that don't exist yet- **UNNECESSARY COMPLEXITY**: Things that add cognitive load without proportional value- **PREMATURE ABSTRACTIONS**: Separations that aren't justified at V1 scale- **DELETE CANDIDATES**: Sections, tables, fields, or features that should be cut from V1
This is a V1 product being built by a small team. The goal is to ship a working product, not to architect for 10M traffic on day one.
Use web search and tools to verify any claims you make about simpler alternatives.</task>
<structured_output_contract>Return findings in these sections:1. VERDICT: Would Karpathy approve? One line.2. DELETE: Things to remove entirely3. SIMPLIFY: Things to keep but make simpler4. KEEP: Things that are correctly lean5. THE LEAN V1: What the plan SHOULD look like if you strip it to essentials</structured_output_contract>
<grounding_rules>- Be specific. Don't say "simplify the schema" -- say which fields to cut.- Every DELETE must justify what you lose and why it's acceptable for V1.- Every KEEP must justify why it's essential, not just nice-to-have.- Think from the perspective of "what do I need to ship in 2 weeks?"</grounding_rules>
Backlinks (12)
  • 260418
  • 260528
  • 260415
  • 260414
  • 260409
  • 260407
  • 260405
  • 260404
  • 260403
  • 260402
  • 260401
  • 260331
NPM
NPM

NPM

NPM stands for Node Package Manager, which is the default package manager for the JavaScript runtime environment Node.js. NPM is used to install, share, and distribute code and to manage dependencies in your projects. It provides an online repository for hosting and sharing these packages and a command-line utility for interacting with this repository.

Backlinks (5)
  • 230529
  • Research Paper NPM System
  • PNPM
  • Yarn
  • 220706
Index
cho.sh
I prefer CLIBB9A08260619260619컴퓨트로늄37A88F컴퓨트로늄0CF03F컴퓨트로늄2C60FB260618260618260418260418260528260528AutoBuilder63849A260419260419Setup9AC296StellaD226F7260415260415Debian SetupD2F701260414260414anaclumos/configs/AGENTS.mdED86A3Ramp의 AX (회사를 AI로 물들이는 법)840774260413260413How to get your company AI pilled46544C260411260411260409260409260407260407260406260406Separating Claude Code Personal Sub and Claude Code Company Sub33A53C
컴퓨트로늄이 뭔지 설명해봐
컴퓨트로늄이 뭔지 오지랖 떨면서 테크 좋아하는 대학생한테 설명해봐

야 컴퓨트로늄(computronium)? 테크 좋아한다며, 이건 알아야지 일로 와봐 ㅋㅋ

한 줄 요약부터. "물질을 짜낼 수 있는 극한까지 컴퓨터로 만들어버린 가상의 물질" 이야. 돌멩이든 금속 덩어리든, 그 안의 원자 하나하나가 전부 연산에 동원되는 상태. 지금 네 노트북 CPU는 실리콘 안에서 트랜지스터 몇십억 개가 일하잖아? 컴퓨트로늄은 그 개념을 물리 법칙이 허락하는 끝까지 밀어붙인 거야. 원자 단위로 "이 물질 = 곧 컴퓨터"인 거지.

원래는 MIT 쪽에서 '프로그래밍 가능한 물질(programmable matter)' 연구하던 사람들(Toffoli, Margolus)이 쓰던 말이야. 근데 진짜 떡밥은 물리학자들이 던진 질문이지. "물질 1kg을 완벽하게 컴퓨터로 쓰면 초당 연산을 몇 번이나 할 수 있냐?"

여기서 숫자가 미쳤다. Seth Lloyd라는 MIT 물리학자가 계산한 '궁극의 노트북'은 1kg으로 이론상 초당 약 10^51번 연산이 가능해. 10의 51제곱. 지구상 슈퍼컴 다 합쳐도 발끝에도 못 미쳐. 우리 칩은 이 한계 앞에선 거의 돌도끼 수준이야 ㅋㅋ 왜 근처도 못 가냐고? 물리가 막아서 그래. 빛보다 빠르게 신호 못 보내고(광속), 연산하면 무조건 열 나오고(란다우어 한계), 양자역학적으로도 에너지당 연산 횟수에 천장이 있거든(베켄슈타인·브레머만 한계). 컴퓨트로늄은 그 모든 한계를 빡빡하게 다 채운 물질이라고 보면 돼.

근데 내가 오지랖 떠는 진짜 이유는 여기서부터다. 충분히 발전한 미래 문명이 연산력이 미친 듯이 필요해지면? 행성을 분해해. 수성, 화성 다 뜯어서 컴퓨트로늄으로 재조립하는 거야. 더 나가면 별 하나를 통째로 감싸서 그 에너지로 돌리는 거대한 두뇌를 만드는데, 이걸 마트료시카 브레인(Matrioshka brain) 또는 주피터 브레인이라고 불러. 태양계 전체가 하나의 생각하는 기계가 되는 거지. 카르다쇼프 척도 II형 문명쯤 돼야 할 법한 짓이고.

SF 단골 소재이기도 해. Charles Stross의 『Accelerando』 보면 미래 인류가 태양계 안쪽 행성들을 싹 분해해서 컴퓨트로늄으로 만들어버리는 얘기 나온다. 좀 소름 돋음.

마지막으로 김 좀 빼자면 — 이거 전부 순수 가상 개념이야. 실제로 만든 적도, 가까이 간 기술도 없어. "물질로 연산한다면 우주가 허락하는 최대치는 어디냐"를 따지는 사고실험에 가깝고, 트랜스휴머니스트랑 미래학자들이 제일 좋아하는 장난감이지. 근데 알아두면 CPU 벤치마크 볼 때마다 "아 우리 아직 한참 멀었네" 싶어서 묘하게 겸손해진다 ㅋㅋ

STOP! Re-read all code. Would Karpathy approve every line? Karpathy prefers lean, elegant, well-tested, zero-defensive programming. Use MCPs and web searches.
--completion-promise "KARPATHY_WILL_APPROVE_EVERY_SINGLE_LOC_FOR_SURE"
STOP! Re-read all code, assess PR comments. Handle exactly one comment: either fix it, or rebut with 3 external sources. Fix any dirt found along the way. Lean, elegant, zero defensive programming.
--completion-promise "NO_COMMENTS_REMAINING_IN_GITHUB_EVEN_AFTER_20_MINUTES"
STOP! Re-read all code, assess GitHub Issues. Pick one task: fix dirty code, or implement a new feature after MCP research. Lean, elegant, zero defensive programming.
--completion-promise "NO_REMAINING_TASK_AND_KARPATHY_APPROVES_EVERY_SINGLE_LOC_IN_ITS_ENTIRETY"
Also, I am a fresh agent—free to criticize and radically change previous work. Karpathy's philosophy: delete and simplify. Code is liability; prefer well-maintained libraries over custom code. UI libraries: optimize, don't delete. Re-read all the sources from zero. Use MCPs and web searches—traditional knowledge is stale. Commit and push at the loop end. Any edit means I need a fresh iteration. SWOT analysis first, then work.

<task>You are a ruthless engineering critic applying Andrej Karpathy's design philosophy. Read the architecture plan at PLAN LINK.
Karpathy's core principles:- Code is liability. Every line you write is a line you must maintain.- Delete and simplify. If something can be removed without breaking the system, remove it.- Prefer well-maintained libraries over custom code.- Zero-defensive design. Don't code for hypotheticals that haven't happened yet.- Start with the simplest thing that works. Add complexity only when forced by reality.- "Demo is works.any(), product is works.all()" -- but V1 is closer to demo than product.- Overfit a single batch before scaling up.
Apply these principles to the plan. For each section, ask:1. Is this needed for V1, or is it speculative engineering?2. Can this be deleted or simplified without losing core value?3. Is this solving a problem we actually have, or a problem we might have?4. Would a 10x engineer look at this and say "too much"?
Be brutal. Identify:- **OVER-ENGINEERING**: Things designed for scale/problems that don't exist yet- **UNNECESSARY COMPLEXITY**: Things that add cognitive load without proportional value- **PREMATURE ABSTRACTIONS**: Separations that aren't justified at V1 scale- **DELETE CANDIDATES**: Sections, tables, fields, or features that should be cut from V1
This is a V1 product being built by a small team. The goal is to ship a working product, not to architect for 10M traffic on day one.
Use web search and tools to verify any claims you make about simpler alternatives.</task>
<structured_output_contract>Return findings in these sections:1. VERDICT: Would Karpathy approve? One line.2. DELETE: Things to remove entirely3. SIMPLIFY: Things to keep but make simpler4. KEEP: Things that are correctly lean5. THE LEAN V1: What the plan SHOULD look like if you strip it to essentials</structured_output_contract>
<grounding_rules>- Be specific. Don't say "simplify the schema" -- say which fields to cut.- Every DELETE must justify what you lose and why it's acceptable for V1.- Every KEEP must justify why it's essential, not just nice-to-have.- Think from the perspective of "what do I need to ship in 2 weeks?"</grounding_rules>
Warning
This post is more than a year old. Information may be outdated.