[mjr00]

No they didn't. You can see all the commits as this was built iteratively[0]. This project started development on Saturday morning and now it's here.

This is pretty common now, people love to rapidly throw together stuff and show it off a few days later. The only thing different about this from your average Show HN sloppa is that it's living under the NVIDIA Github org, though that also has 700+ repositories[1] in it so they don't appear too discerning about what makes it into the official repo.

My best guess is this was an internal hackathon project they wanted to release publicly.

[0] https://github.com/NVIDIA/NemoClaw/commits/main/?after=241ff...

[1] https://github.com/orgs/NVIDIA/repositories?type=all

[hypfer]

Cash in on the claw brand recognition by having "claw, but Nvidia".

And, to be fair to them, it works. It sticks. It gets the desired reactions.

[_zoltan_]

it's the new norm that you put together stuff, it works and you show it off.

all the naysayers, "senior" engineers who haven't done any assisted coding by Claude/codex, just need to get either with the program or it's time to retire, as this is just the beginning.

if you can't ship stuff in days then I have some bad news for you.

[mjr00]

> it's the new norm that you put together stuff, it works and you show it off.

You're probably right, but it'd be nice if the new norm were you put together stuff quickly using AI-assisted coding, you use it yourself and iterate on the product for a while as you discover things you dislike/features you want/etc, and then you share it with the world.

It seems like everyone wants to skip the second step. Most of the "Show HN" sloppa that gets built in a few days and shared here ends up abandoned immediately after.

[_--__--__]

There was some kind of public knowledge of this project over a week ago because people were trying to domain squat them and submit it to HN: https://news.ycombinator.com/from?site=nemoclaw.bot

[elif]

Sorry to be the one to inform you that we edit history in git.

There has been reporting on nemoclaw for the last couple weeks. Are you supposing that journalists were writing about software that hadn't even been designed?

[mjr00]

> Sorry to be the one to inform you that we edit history in git.

Who is "we"? Do you work for NVidia?

> There has been reporting on nemoclaw for the last couple weeks.

The earliest reporting I've seen was yesterday. Can you link something from prior to March 14?

edit: I did find some articles from before March 14[0] which says NVidia was "prepping" this. Which is extremely funny, because it means they were hyping up software which hadn't even started being written yet. The AI bubble truly does not stop delivering.

> Are you supposing that journalists were writing about software that hadn't even been designed?

If you think journalists writing about things that will never exist is new, welcome to the real world. There's a whole term for it.[1]

[0] https://fudzilla.com/nvidia-opens-the-gates-with-nemoclaw/

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vaporware

[elif]

alright so the git history goes back 4 days.

I learned about nemoclaw 5 days ago here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fL2lMpLjxWA

but it was reported 8 days ago here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=345GsxnrHHg

I am not anyone special. I don't know anything about nvidia. I just know that the "4 day history" you think matters, is not a reasonable belief given that random youtubers have been reporting on it.

and by "we" i mean git users. people who used git for its usefulness before github existed, and understand the value of a clean history over an accurate history.

[mjr00]

There's nothing clean about the history. You think commits like [0], with the commit message "improve", count as "clean"? What do you think the motivation for the author would be to modify git history to make it appear that this was written over a weekend, including separating each feature/commit by a few hours, which corresponds to a reasonable amount of time that it may have taken to write that feature? Including a break on Mar 15 at 1:18 AM PDT before continuing to commit at Mar 15 at 12:43 PM PDT. Hey, isn't there a normal human behaviour that occurs around this time every day which takes 6-10 hours?

I'm fully aware you can rewrite git history to whatever you want, but this is an occam's razor situation here. You'd only think this wasn't a weekend project if you desperately wanted to believe that this was some major initiative for some reason.

[0] https://github.com/NVIDIA/NemoClaw/commit/b9382d27d13b160dcf...

[cloudfudge]

Just let go of the notion that a 4 day github history necessarily means the project is only 4 days old. It's a ridiculous assumption to base an argument off of. It's extremely normal to have work in one, perhaps internal, repo which you then blast over to a public repo in one (or a few) big commits. There is zero reason for them to let you see their internal progress.

[mjr00]

> It's extremely normal to have work in one, perhaps internal, repo which you then blast over to a public repo in one (or a few) big commits.

Did you even read the commit history? That is not what is happening here.

This is turning into a "don't believe your lying eyes" situation. Why are you people so desperate to pretend this wasn't written in a weekend?

> There is zero reason for them to let you see their internal progress.

Again, I ask you -- what is the reason for them to edit commit history to show incremental progress as if it were written in a weekend, when it actually was not?