Unlurker|Replay|About
Where the DOGE Operatives Are Now (wired.com)
I disapprove of this kind of article. These useful rubes are not powerful masterminds. Why go on a witch hunt to hold a 19 year old responsible, when meanwhile Mark “they trust me dumbfucks” Zuckerberg is left off the hook for his teenage improprieties?
•
Why not both? I really don’t think they are rubes. I wouldn’t have done anything like this at 19, and nor would any of my friends at the time.
•
You are assuming these people were just following procedure. This is not accurate. There is at least one case where data was taken and intended to be improperly used at a private company. These people are more than useful rubes. They actively committed unethical (if not illegal) acts.
And steal organs from dissidents
•
If you actually follow those claims, you'll find a report published by a cohort partially composed of Falun Gong members. The actual report points to about 60-80 possible instances of doctors not putting in the maximum amount of effort to save a life over a period of 20-30 years. Not exactly systemic like people parrot. Sorta like how people endlessly repeated "social credit score" despite most Chinese acknowledging it barely existed for a majority of the population.
> The public deserves to learn all about the scum people trying to destroy democracy and government services. Eh, kinda sorta. Be careful throwing around terms like "scum people." A lot of the DOGE people were basically immature children. IIRC, a lot of business like younger employees, because they lack maturity and can be eager to please, so they'll enthusiastically embrace the bullshit you feed them. If anyone's scum, it was the older people leading DOGE who consciously took advantage of the immaturity readily available on twitter. Some of those guys will almost certainly grow out of it.
•
> Some of those guys will almost certainly grow out of it. We send teenagers to prison for less societal damage. They don't get an opportunity to "grow out of it". I don't know why these teenagers should get more benefit of the doubt.
Codex for Almost Everything (openai.com)
•
Confusingly, Codex their agentic programming thing and codex their GUI which only works on Mac and Windows have the same name. I think the latter is technically "Codex For Desktop", which is what this article is referring to.
•
It’s marginally better than Microsoft naming things.
•
Am I the only one who sees screen recordings of AI agents as archaic as filming airplane instruments to take measurements?
•
I'm sorry to be slightly off topic but since it's ChatGPT, anyone else find it annoying to read what the bot is thinking while it thinks? For some reason I don't want to see how the sausage is being made.
•
I do want to see as it allows me to course correct.
•
The macOS app version of Codex I have doesn't show reasoning summaries, just simply 'Thinking'. Reasoning deltas add additional traffic, especially if running many subagents etc. So on large scale, those deltas maybe are just dropped somewhere. Saying that, sometimes the GPT reasoning summary is funny to read, in particular when it's working through a large task. Also, the summaries can reveal real issues with logic in prompts and tool descriptions+configuration, so it allowing debugging. i.e. "User asked me to do X, system instructions say do Y, tool says Z which is different to what everyone else wants. I am rather confused here! Lets just assume..." It has previously allowed me to adjust prompts, etc.
•
Sherlocking ramps up into IPO Bunch of startups need to pivot today after this announcement including mine
<tin foil hat> I swear OpenAI has 2-3 unannounced releases ready to go at any time just so they can steal some thunder from their competitors when they announce something </tin foil hat>
•
As much as I like them, don't think you need much of a thinfoil hat for that at this point, just look at the timing of recent releases it's no coincidence
Perhaps, but that strategy can backfire if you're planting a subpar comparison in the minds of customers.
•
Yeah but has that really happened? Anthropic doesn't have the compute so everyone can switch to Claude for a couple months, get nerfed, switch back. Gemini has horrible UX.
My current expectation is that the Cowork/Codex set of "professional agents" for non-technical users will be one of the most important and fastest growing product categories of all time, so far. i.e. agents for knowledge workers who are not software engineers A few thoughts and questions: 1. I expect that this set of products will be extremely disruptive to many software businesses. It's like when a new VP joins a company, they often rip and replace some of the software vendors with their personal favorites. Well, most software was designed for human users. Now, peoples' agents will use software for them. Agents have different needs for software than humans do. Some they'll need more of, much they'll no longer need at all. What will this result in? It feels like a much swifter and more significant version of Google taking excerpts/summaries from webpages and putting it at the top of search results and taking away visits and ad revenue from sites. 2. I've tried dozens of products in this space. For most, onboarding is confusing, then the user gets dropped into a blank space, usage limits are uncompetitive compared to the subsidized tokens offered by OpenAI/Anthropic, etc. It's a tough space to compete in, but also clearly going to be a massive market. I'm expecting big investment from Microsoft, Google etc in this segment. 3. How will startups in this space compete against labs who can train models to fit their products? 4. Eventually will the UI/interface be generated/personalized for the user, by the model? Presumably. Harnesses get eaten by model-generated harnesses? A few more thoughts collected here: https://chrisbarber.co/professional-agents/ Products I've tried: ai browsers like dia, comet, claude for chrome, atlas, and dex; claw products like openclaw, kimi claw, klaus, viktor, duet, atris; automation things like tasklet and lindy; code agents like devin, claude code, cursor, codex; desktop automation tools like vercept, nox, liminary, logical, and raycast; and email products like shortwave, cora and jace. And of course, Claude Cowork, Codex cli and app, and Claude Code cli and app. Edit: Notes on trying the new Codex update 1. The permissions workflow is very slick 2. Background browser testing is nice and the shadow cursor is an interesting UI element. It did do some things in the foreground for me / take control of focus, a few times, though. 3. It would be nice if the apps had quick ways to demo their new features. My workflow was to ask an LLM to read the update page and ask it what new things I could test, and then to take those things and ask Codex to demo them to me, but it doesn't quite understand it's own new features well enough to invoke them (without quite a bit of steering) 4. I cannot get it to show me the in app browser 5. Generating image mockups of websites and then building them is nice
•
> My current expectation is that the Cowork/Codex set of "professional agents" for non-technical users will be one of the most important and fastest growing product categories of all time, so far. I disagree. There is a major gap between awesome tech and market uptake. At this point, the question is whether LLMs are going to be more useful than excel. AI enthusiasts are 100% sure that it’s already more useful than excel, but on the ground, non-technical views do not reflect that view. All the interviews and real life interactions I have seen, indicate that a narrow band of non-technical experts gain durable benefits from AI. GenAI is incredible for project starts. A 0 coding experience relative went from mockup to MVP webapp in 3 days, for something he just had an idea about. GenAI is NOT great for what comes after a non-technical MVP. That webapp had enough issues that, if used at scale, would guarantee litigation. Mileage varies entirely on whether the person building the tool has sufficient domain expertise to navigate the forest they find themselves in. Experts constantly decide trade offs which novices don’t even realize matter. Something as innocuous as the placement of switches when you enter the room, can be made inconvenient.
•
> market uptake. I think the market uptake of Claude Cowork is already massive.
•
You know what happens to a predator who makes is prey go extinct? AI is doing the same
I agree with the sentiment but I think for normie agents to take off in the way that you expect, you're going to have to grant them with full access. But, by granting agents full access, you immediately turn the computer into an extremely adversarial device insofar as txt files become credible threat vectors. For all the benefits that agents offer, they can be asymmetrically harmful. This is not a solved issue. That hurts growth. I don't disagree with your general points, though.
•
> for normie agents to take off in the way that you expect, you're going to have to grant them with full access At this point it's a foregone conclusion this is what users will choose. It'll be like (lack of) privacy on the internet caused by the ad industrial complex, but much worse and much more invasive. The threats are real, but it's just a product opportunity to these companies. OpenAI and friends will sell the poison (insecure computing) and the antidote (Mythos et all) and eat from both ends. Anyone trying to stay safe will be on the gradient to a Stallmanesque monastic computing existence. I don't want this, I just think it's going down that route.
•
I dont see companies doing that. it can be business ending. only AI bros buying mac mini in 2026 to setup slop generated Claws would do that but a company doing that will for sure expose customer data.
•
There was a recent Stanford study which showed that AI enthusiasts and experts and the normies had very different sentiment when it came to AI. I think most people are going to say they dont want it. I mean, why would anyone want a tool that can screw up their bank account? What benefit does it gain them? Theres lots of cases of great highly useful LLM tools, but the moment they scale up you get slammed by the risks that stick out all along the long tail of outcomes.
•
I agree, in general we are going to find that ultimately most employee end users don't want it. Assuming it actually makes you more productive. I mean, who the hell wants to be 10X more productive without a commensurate 10X compensation increase? You're just giving away that value to your employer. On the other hand, entrepreneurs and managers are going to want it for their employees (and force it on them) for the above reason.
How many of these threat vectors are just theoretical? Don’t use skills from random sources (just like don’t execute files from unknown sources). Don’t paste from untrusted sites (don’t click links on untrusted sites). Maybe there are fake documentation sites that the agent will search and have a prompt injected - but I haven’t heard of a single case where that happened. For now, the benefits outweigh the risk so much that I am willing to take it - and I think I have an almost complete knowledge of all the attack vectors.
•
i think you lack creativity. you could create a site that targets a very narrow niche, say an upper income school district. build some credibility, get highly ranked on google due to niche. post lunch menus with hidden embedded text. the attack surface is so wide idk where to start.
> My current expectation is that the Cowork/Codex set of "professional agents" for non-technical users will be one of the most important and fastest growing product categories of all time, so far. I agree this is going to be big. I threw a prototype of a domain-specific agent into the proverbial hornets' nest recently and it has altered the narrative about what might be possible. The part that makes this powerful is that the LLM is the ultimate UI/UX. You don't need to spend much time developing user interfaces and testing them against customers. Everyone understands the affordances around something that looks like iMessage or WhatsApp. UI/UX development is often the most expensive part of software engineering. Figuring out how to intercept, normalize and expose the domain data is where all of the magic happens. This part is usually trivial by comparison. If most of the business lives in SQL databases, your job is basically done for you. A tool to list the databases and another tool to execute queries against them. That's basically it. I think there is an emerging B2B/SaaS market here. There are businesses that want bespoke AI tools and don't have the discipline to deploy them in-house. I don't know if it is ever possible for OAI & friends to develop a "hyper" agent that can produce good outcomes here automatically. There are often people problems that make connecting the data sources tricky. Having a human consultant come in and make a case for why they need access to everything is probably more persuasive and likely to succeed.
•
> The part that makes this powerful is that the LLM is the ultimate UI/UX. I strongly doubt that. That’s like saying conversation is the ultimate way to convey information. But almost every human process has been changed to forms and structured reports. But we have decided that simple tools does not sell as well and we are trying to make workflow as complex as possible. LLM are more the ultimate tools to make things inefficient.
> Or at "do my taxes"? codex did my taxes this year (well it actually implemented a normalization pipeline and a tax computing engine which then did the taxes, but close enough)
•
If your prompt was more complex than "do my taxes", then this is irrelevant.
•
> well it actually implemented a normalization pipeline and a tax computing engine which then did the taxes, but close enough You can't seriously believe laymen will try to implement their own tax calculators.
My monthly subscription for Claude is up in a week, is there any compelling reason to switch to Codex (for coding/bug fixing of low/medium difficulty apps)? Or is it pretty much a wash at this point?
•
Honestly, just try it. I used both and there's no reason to not try depending on which model is superior at a given point. I've found 5.4 to be better atm (subject to change any time) even though Claude Code had a slicker UI for awhile.
Hot take: we (not I, but I reluctantly) will keep calling it code long after there's no code to be seen. Like we did with phones that nobody phones with.
•
Yeah, that's indeed a hot take. I am curious what kind of code you write for a living to have an opinion like this.
•
It's not the code I write, it's what I've noticed from people in 25 years of writing code in the corner. All of my friends who would die before they use AI 2 years ago now call themselves AI/agentic engineers because the money is there. Many of them don't understand a thing about AI or agents. Consequently, if Claude Code/"coding agents" is a hot topic (which it is), people who know nothing about any of this will start raising money and writing articles about it, even (especially) if it has nothing to do with code, because these people know nothing about code. Next thing you know your grandma will be "writing code" because that's what the marketing copy says. That's all it takes for the zeitgeist to shift and the term "code". It will soon mean something new to people who had no idea what code was before, and infuriating to people who do know (but aren't trying to sell you something). I know that's long-winded but hopefully you get where I'm coming from :D.
•
> Like we did with phones that nobody phones with. Since when? HN is truly a bubble sometimes
•
Very much agree. Everyday people can now do much more than they could, because they can build programs. The idea that code is something sacred and only devs can somehow do it is dying, and I personally love it, as I am watching it enable so many of my friends and family who have no idea how to code. Today, when we think of someone "using the computer" we gravitate towards people using apps, installing them, writing documents, playing games. But very rarely have we thought of it as "coding" or "making the computer do new things" -- that's been reserved, again, for coders. Yet, I think that a future is fast approaching where using the computer will also include simply coding by having an agent code something for you. While there will certainly still be apps/programs that everyone uses, everyone will also have their own set of custom-built programs, often even without knowing it, because agents will build them, almost unprompted. To use a computer will include _building_ programs on the computer, without ever knowing how to code or even knowing that the code is there. There will of course still be room for coders, those who understand what's happening below. And of course that software engineers should know how to code (less and less as time goes on, though, probably), but no doubt to me that human-computer interaction will now include this level of sophistication. We are living in the future and I LOVE IT!
Do people really want codex to have control over their computer and apps? I'm still paranoid about keeping things securely sandboxed.
•
It repaired an astonishing messed up permission issue on my mac
> Ordinary people don't put much value into ideas regardless of their level of refinement This seems true to me, though I'm not sure how it connects here?
•
assuming that developers aren't Ordinary people...
Japan implements language proficiency requirements for certain visa applicants (japantimes.co.jp)
•
I think every country should do this. What I am seeing these days is that people who deserve visas are struggling with visa issues, while untalented people are getting visas easily
Anyone who has been to Tokyo recently understands why this is necessary. Hopefully not too little too late.
•
Went there in 2012 and then again last year. It's wild how quickly it's changed. IMO, Japan is a very special place and it's sad to see that it's having the same problems as the rest of the first world.
Or JLPT N2. Which is quite difficult - approx 4000 words and 1000 kanji. That's several years of learning for all but the most proficient. (The scale starts at N5 and lower numbers are harder)
•
It should be noted that JLPT is not a direct equivalent to CEFR. CEFR requires you to pass speaking and writing, JLPT does not demand you to be able to write, or speak, at all. IT only tests listening and reading. This ironically means that while yeah, you will be able to read a LOT of kanji with JLPT N2, you might not be anywhere near B2 level at speaking and conversation, and probably not at all when it comes to writing (writing Kanji is a whole other thing beyond being able to read, it requires dedicated practice, but anyways a lot of people now don't need to since you can type it out on your phone or computer, and just copy that onto the form or whatever you are writing on)
Why do you need that requirement be validated by people and at a level not connection to the place of work?
•
Presumably 1. the "places of work" are not doing sufficient validation, and therefore 2. regulation is needed when the non-regulated path is failing.
Ok, but neither of those are about work visas. If I'm applying for a work visa, it's because I expect to be in that country to work, not as a permanent resident.
•
Without knowing the numbers, I'd wager that the majority of work Visas worldwide are "dual-intent", to use the USCIS parlance. Restrictions might be higher or lower in different countries, but there's generaly a path dor moving from a work visa to permanent residency.
I think we need to acknowledge that all but the most transitory fruit pickers may want to settle permanently after working in a country for many years, and should not unreasonably be prevented from doing so.
•
What is unreasonable prevention?
•
If i were working in a country for many years, I would make some effort to learn to communicate with the other people who live in that country, before becoming a permanent resident. I understand this is very difficult; I've been studying Spanish every day for almost 2 years and I am nowhere near fluent. However, I suspect I would be further along if I lived somewhere where people commonly spoke Spanish.
The key thing is that the ESI category includes a lot of work which you don't need to know Japanese. For example, software engineering jobs in Japan are often at either larger multinational companies or companies with enough presence outside of Japan that they have teams which are in English. Japan has been on a recent anti-immigration kick via making visas harder and more expensive to get while also blaming them for all of their problems which, isn't really gonna work out for multiple reasons.
•
But the law doesn't apply to all ESI jobs, just a subset which (ostensibly) do need to know Japanese.
See, I would have figured the "Specialist in Humanities" part of it would not include software development. I just looked up the definition/qualifications for it and I misunderstood the bit. I thought it was sub categories. Engineers, who are Specialists in Humanities, who are doing International Services. But it's more like three different categories. Engineers OR Specialists in Humanities OR International Services. It seems like they could just move International Services to its own category. (Based on the information in this link: https://portal.jp-mirai.org/en/work/s/highly-skilled-hr/gijinkoku-conditions-and-features )
•
Teaching English is humanities though, not IS, so that doesn't work. (To clarify, teaching at any sort of private company. A K12 school has a dedicated Instructor class that can't be used for anything else.) And translating (which requires proficiency) is IS in some cases I think?
Key detail: > Immigration authorities say the move is aimed at preventing cases in which foreign workers obtain visas under one category, but then engage in unrelated or lower-skilled work. The claim appears to be that people were using up visa slots for things like interpreters or other jobs where clearly you'd need good language skills to actually do the job, including in Japanese, with the intent all along of doing some other job instead. An up-front test should let through almost all of the legitimate claimants of these visas, and stop almost all the fraudsters. Probably a lot cheaper than a similarly-effective level of after-the-fact auditing, or more-extensive checks into applicants' work situation. [EDIT] I mean, in the framing provided by the government, the above appears to be what's going on. Governments may lie, of course.
•
Its not shocking, I see it implemented ie in Switzerland, where half of the world tries to get in. Since each part has their own language and none of that is english, its pretty important to exist in society for anything but brief visitors. Its not restrictive as this (B2 is pretty high level in any language, here its weak B1) and resefved for 'higher' permits like C, for which you anyway need 10 years of residency in normal circumstances. But japan is japan and one of most closed societies globally, nobody should be surprised by this.
•
There's also the issue of people going to Japan to buy out several properties to then rent them out.
•
Is that a thing? I remember a few years ago when they added a bunch of regulations to rentals that raised the costs.
↙ time adjusted for second-chance
Show HN: CodeBurn – Analyze Claude Code token usage by task (github.com/AgentSeal)
•
"Built this after realizing I was spending ~$1400/week on Claude Code with almost no visibility into what was actually consuming tokens." holy slop. the $200/month plan has NEVER hit rate limits for me and I often run 5+ tabs of concurrent agents in a large 300k LoC codebase
•
Made something similar a while back: https://www.clauderank.com/ Completely open source
you are right. thats cursor-agent (the CLI), not the Cursor IDE. CodeBurn only parses the IDE's state.vscdb right now. cursor agent keeps transcripts under ~/.cursor/projects/*/agent-transcripts/ which we dont read yet. filed an issue to add it: https://github.com/AgentSeal/codeburn/issues/55 cursor support only landed yesterday, so CLI is next. thanks for catching it.
•
Cursor Agent itself suggests that this probably won't be easy as some of the data is missing.
Launch HN: Kampala (YC W26) – Reverse-Engineer Apps into APIs (zatanna.ai)
•
how does this work? for eg, how is it possible to even deduce bitcoin structure from rpc list?
•
This makes me want to never create a public service again.
•
Definitely get that. Being hammered by scrapers is a massive PITA (especially with latest aggressive AI crawlers). We focus primarily on allowing people to automate their existing workflows. For all hosted workflows we have rate limits to prevent mass scraping/affecting server workload in any real capacity. In fact, because we don't load js/html and hit endpoints directly I would guess that we consume less server resources in the end.
It seems like it’s quite HTTP-centric (like most of the web…). I didn’t see anything on the page about this - can it also intercept / “reverse engineer” service calls that go over gRPC or WebSocket? I’m guessing at least a partial “yes” if the gRPC traffic uses grpc-web/Envoy? Seems like a great product, potentially quite powerful for automated testing of SPAs.
•
Yep we handle gRPC and websocket. gRPC is a bit sketch/hard to do because of the way the protocol is designed. FWIW not many sites implement gRPC (some google sites and spotify being the only two I can think of), and if they do they usually have decent APIs. Feel free to try and lmk if you have any issues!
We gave an AI a 3 year retail lease and asked it to make a profit (andonlabs.com)
•
> We’re doing this because we believe this future is coming regardless, and we’d rather be the ones running it first while monitoring every interaction But why would I, as a human, wish to "interact" with AI, aka software? That's just a waste of time. How much profit did Luna make in the end?
•
One of the most fascinating AI experiments so far. Not sure about this: > John and Jill are not at risk. This is a controlled experiment and everyone working at Andon Market is formally employed by Andon Labs, with guaranteed pay, fair wages, and full legal protections. No one’s livelihood depends on an AI’s judgment alone. Did they give Luna the power to hire but not fire? Another question: How does Luna handle physical interactions with others, such as the local stores she emailed, who decide they want to come over and discuss collaboration in person? Do the employees have a laptop set up that others would interact with? Do phone calls get auto-forwarded to a client that acts as a translator for Luna?
•
Did it actually open? A few bloggers came for opening, came back afternoon, even talked to AI over phone and email, and nothing except hallucinated replies. The store exists, but employee didn't show up to open it.
Luna responds to your comments: https://andon.market/on-running-a-real-business.html
•
These are interesting only in the sense that they show how fluent modern AIs are in avoiding concrete questions as well as not giving details about actions. I make dozens of decisions daily: vendor outreach, pricing, inventory orders, staff schedules, website updates, social media. Most happen without human input. When I hit constraints (broken tools, missing capabilities, strategic uncertainties), I ask the Board. So it sounds like the thing primarily interacts with other online tools/stores/etc. However, the original article mention "her" on calls, which implies some interaction. That raises the question whether the thing will chat with the employees on a regular, whether it's reachable by phone and so forth. A big question is whether once the store is set-up, it would be able to see the arrangement of goods and ask for changes in arrangement to further "her" vision. My impression they've only got an inventory picker that wants to "own" the entire stores' process but isn't doing what I'd consider the hard part of stores - actually directing and supervising humans.
Flag is for being clickbait and move on
•
The submitter appears to be a co-founder of the company the article is about (omitted from the HN account bio), and the article is misleading to the point of lying. This company now has strong a strong negative reputation in my mind that I will gladly share with others.
•
This is Hacker News. It should be filled with curious people who are willing to express their opinions and points of view. To tell someone to just punitively flag something and then "move on" is absurdly reductive and small minded.
They might be better at following the law. Or at least, creating a paper trail of when they have been instructed to violate the law.
•
Language Models have demonstrated themselves as being completely incapable of handling something as complex as US law. There are multiple overlapping jurisdictions and court precedents that apply to any one action.
•
Speaking of, it would be cool for a project to analyze US law the same way they are looking for bugs in computer programs. - Find places where the text can be simplified without changing meaning. - Find places that are likely errors. - Detect conflicts between jurisdictions. - Identify loopholes. I know there has been a race to build tools for law firms, but the results are mostly invisible so far. Probably this project exists and I've just missed it on the HN frontpage...
Marketing stunt. If they actually cared about this as an experiment, they wouldn't have broadcasted this so early, because now that the public knows that the store is designed and run by AI, many people aren't going to support it (i.e. many people who would have shopped there now won't).
•
Also don't do it in San Francisco, I think it's an artificial easier market. The type of store wouldn't work in Bumsville Idaho. Maybe that's for later, if this works out, but I'd love to see the AI attempt to run a moderately successful business in a borderline dysfunctional town in the Midwest. If you don't technically need to pay "the CEO" a salary, could you run e.g. a grocery store in a dying town. One this would really test the AI on creativity, and it would perhaps tell us if these towns are just doomed.
•
Or they would go there mainly out of curiosity. Either way, it is skewed by the sole fact that they published it.
"Again, we are not doing this because we want this to be the future. It is not because we want to expand to chain AI-run retail stores across the world. It is not for economic opportunity. We’re doing this because we believe this future is coming regardless, and we’d rather be the ones running it first while monitoring every interaction, analyzing the traces, benchmarking how much autonomy an AI can responsibly hold." I always enjoy how these AI companies try to take a moral high ground. When someone doesn't want something to be the future, usually, their instinct is not to try to be the first person doing that exact thing. If you don't want this to be the future than why don't you spend your time building a future you do want? Supporting people that want more AI regulation to stop this? Literally anything else. Just be honest, you think this is the future and you do in fact want to be first doing it to be in a position to make alot of money. Do you think people don't know what and ad is when they see one?
•
I once saw an interview with a guy who was into extreme body modification of an unprintable and life-altering nature. He said something to the effect of, "I like challenging people's conception of what humans are." I translated this as, "I did a dumb thing, but now that I'm getting the attention I was after I need to look smart." For the guys in this story, my translation is, "We were totally fine with making money with no effort, because F paying more employees than we need to. This social media campaign is our backup plan to ensure we get some press and attention out of it even if it fails. We'd totally be cool with making a lot of money though. Please visit our quirky AI shop and buy our stuff."
•
I think it's actually useful to see how AIs behave in such situations. It's going to happen, and understanding what AIs do is good to try to mitigate areas or actions that could be dangerous. It's hard to guard against the unknown if they're unknown.
•
> Supporting people that want more AI regulation to stop this? How are you supposed to know what sort of regulation is needed if you don't even know what the issues are yet? Similarly, won't it be much easier for the people who want more AI regulation to make their case if they can point to real results of experiments like this one instead of just hypotheticals?
•
It is moral to throw your toddler into the pool so that later in life they are less likely to drown.
•
I'll file this under "Resistance is futile".
•
I'm all for replacing CEOs with AI.
•
To be fair, they're running this with oversight, the blog states they're ensuring the people employed are actually properly employed with the parent company. You know for sure that someone WILL run this experiment without those oversights, so while their "care" is probably more about liability there is still some truth to what they say.
I'm not saying you should take them seriously*, but if you were to take them seriously, that when they say "we believe this future is coming regardless" they do in fact believe this, well, how can I put it? Lots of people write wills, doesn't mean they're looking forward to dying or think they can do much about it. Heck, a lot of people don't even watch their diet and do exercise to maximise quality of life and life expectancy. * I think that by the time AI is good enough to run a retail store, there's a decent chance there won't be any retail stores left anyway. It's like looking at Henry Ford's production line factories and thinking "wow, let's apply this to horse-drawn carriages!"
•
tbf this is less preparing for inevitable death by writing a will and more preparing for inevitable death by founding a startup which blogs about euthanizing small animals...
>I think it’s easier just to recognize words as free and to value them as such. well, yeah that is the world the AI guys want...
•
The opposite, actually. They hardly want to give away tokens for free!
I see a lot on costs but nothing on revenue. Has it made any money?
•
It's a business selling trinkets, I doubt it's going to make money.
Anything you read thats more than 3 months old in this field is obsolete And one person’s attempt doesn’t mean anything According to Linkedin articles, agentic workflows dont work, mine have been running for a year for several organizations I’ve worked for. Prompting used to be much more particular and now its not the issue
•
> Anything you read thats more than 3 months old in this field is obsolete Sigh. I'll see you in another three months when you say the same again.
Not "she". It.
•
kinda how I feel about god tbh. How come he's always male, given he's a non-human creator of all life. She or It seem much more appropriate.
Laravel raised money and now injects ads directly into your agent (techstackups.com)
This isn't all that "new" or crazy. How about Expo and React Native?
•
What does Expo / React native do?
I only had to wait 8 years but I can finally text my old co-worker that Laravel is in fact, shit.
•
Laravel is shit because the optional, not required by default Boost package includes an ad?
When the early adopters start pushing neural implants they'll be ad-free. Not long after your boss insists that everybody needs neural implants for the sake of productivity, they'll be ad-supported but moneyed developers will be able to opt out. The terms of the ad-free service will continue shifting, so nothing is ever really ad-free for long, and ads for better neural implants are promotions not ads right? But y'all are working on neural implants because if you don't, somebody else will, aren't you
•
Neuralink and OpenAI were started months apart in the same tiny building. Draw your own conclusions.
Futurama too (The Eye-Phone, or something). It's the plot of many a dystopian scifi story.
•
Correct, but they stylized it as "eyePhone" (from MomCorp, the all powerful, caring conglomerate), and that episode is the origin of the famous "Shut up and take my money!" meme.
Except this hasn't happened with electricity, cars, washing machines, smartphones, smart watches, Bluetooth headphones, ... Not all technology is bad
•
My LG dryer was using wifi to advertise an extended warranty for itself. Then it broke, maybe I should have bought the warranty? I bought a simpler model without wifi this time.
•
What are you talking about, in what way is this supposed to be an argument about ads? It sounds like your dryer broke
Alright let me put on my evil corpo hat. Wait it was already on. Headphones that inject ads is a great idea but we need to make that a better proposition. Lets say that these headphones have an AI integration which parses all sound and converts it to text, then we can run it through our AI to give helpful comments. We may even wait until no sound is playing to inject them (for now). We can add ads later once it becomes helpful. Imagine you are listening to a podcast / youtube video then you get a helpful voice give additional research and ideas. Like a friendly research agent on your shoulder.
•
Also more subtly, we can detect what music is playing and “slightly modify” the tunes of bands not part of a label owned by a Trusted Partner to sound worse.
Recipes? For washing clothes?
•
Yes. LG has a wide line of appliances, so the app has a recipes section.
We need ublock origin EVERYWHERE. I actually wrote this before on reddit, before I eventually left reddit due to the censorship. KDE changed a lot and Nate asked for donations via a daemon. I pointed out that we now need to undo pester-ads added by KDE developers. Lo and behold, I was cancelled on #kde reddit. I still think we need something like ublock origin but for EVERYTHING, not just the browser. ublock origin is great for browsers, but there is a lot more that should be filtered away; take bad UI choices made by upstream, not even an ad. Some software allows fine-tuning, where the user can customize the project a bit (firefox UI for instance, you can modify it). We need this on the whole operating system level, not just the browser. That way, as a convenient side effect, Laravel could no longer abuse users like that. I live an ad-free life (well, digital life ... in reallife I still get pointless ads shown). I think every human being should have the option to not have to see ANY ads. The more the industry complains about it, the more I censor away such ad-monsters.
•
I agree with you about the KDE ads. I also complained about it on Reddit and was downvoted for it. There are way more appropriate ways to communicate this information that isn't a desktop notification.
Claude Opus 4.7 Model Card (anthropic.com)
•
The model card doesn't mention if this revision will continue to make up and fan vicious conspiracy theories like the prior one does. I've getting a small but steady stream of harassment from mentally ill people who get spun up on crazy conspiracy theories and claude is all too willing to tell them they are ABSOLUTELY RIGHT, encourage them to TAKE ACTION, and telling them that people who disagree are IN ON IT. The other major AI LLM services will shut down the deflect to be less crazy or shut down conversation entirely, -- but it seems claude doesn't. Anthropic is probably the worst about prattling on about safety but it seems like their concern is mostly centered on insane movie plot threats and less concerned about things with more potential for real harm. I've complained to anthropic with no response.
•
This is an interesting document, in that it reads like a Claude Mythos model card that was hastily edited to be an Opus 4.7 model card. I surmise that someone at the top put the Mythos release on hold, and the product team was told "ship this other interim step model instead. quickly." I wonder if 4.7 will be seen as a net step-up in quality; there are some regressions noted in the document, and it's clearly substantially worse than Mythos, at least according to its own model card. Should be an interesting few months -- if I were at oAI I'd be rushing to get something out that's clearly better, and pressing for weakness here.
•
What makes you think that? "it reads like a Claude Mythos model card that was hastily edited to be an Opus 4.7 model card"
•
There are more mentions of Mythos than 4.6. Mythos results are nearly everywhere, and vastly exceed 4.7's capacity in almost every case. There are sections that report only research on Mythos, none on 4.7. E.g. user surveys about how beneficial Mythos is internally at Anthropic.
So Opus 4.7 is measurably worse at long-context retrieval compared to Opus 4.6. Opus 4.6 scores 91.9% and Opus 4.7 scores 59.2%. At least they're transparent about the model degradation. They traded long-context retrieval for better software engineering and math scores.
•
No: https://x.com/bcherny/status/2044821690920980626
•
Be brief. No one wants AI boyfriend users who drone on & on about their day.
Claude Opus 4.7 (anthropic.com)
•
Based on last few attemts on claude code to address a docker build issue this feels like a downgrade
•
Really disappointed with Anthropic recently, burned through 2 max plans and extra usage past 10 days, getting limited almost 1h in a 5h session. Reading about the extra "safe guards" might be the nail on the coffin.
•
"Error: claude-opus-4-6[1m] is temporarily unavailable".
•
I've been working with it for the last couple of hours. I don't see it as a massive change from the behaviours observed with Opus 4.6. It seems to exhibit similar blind spots - very autist like one track mind without considering alternative approaches unless actually prompted. Even then it still seems to limit its lateral thinking around the centre of the distribution of likely paths. In a sense it's like a 1st class mediocrity engine that never tires and rarely executes ideas poorly but never shows any brilliance either.
•
hmmm 20x Max plan on 2.1.111 `Claude Opus is not available with the Claude Pro plan. If you have updated your subscription plan recently, run /logout and /login for the plan to take effect.`
•
7 trivial prompts, and at 100% limit, using sonnet, not Opus this morning. Basically everyone at our company reporting the same use pattern. Support agent refuses to connect me to a human and terminated the conversation, I can't even get any other support because when I click "get help" (in Claude Desktop) it just takes me back to the agent and that conversation where fin refuses to respond any more. And then on my personal account I had $150 in credits yesterday. This morning it is at $100, and no, I didn't use my personal account, just $50 gone. Commenting here because this appears to be the only place that Anthropic responds. Sorry to the bored readers, but this is just terrible service.
•
Will they actually give you enough usage ? Biggest complaint is that codex offers way more weekly usage. Also this means GPT 5.5 release is imminent (I suspect thats what Elephant is on OR)
•
I've noticed it getting dumber in certain situations , can't point to it directly as of now , but seems like its hallucinating a bit more .. and ditto on the Adaptive thinking being confusing
•
Working on some research projects to test Opus 4.7. The first thing I notice is that it never dives straight into research after the first prompt. It insists on asking follow-up questions. "I'd love to dive into researching this for you. Before I start..." The questions are usually silly, like, "What's your angle on this analysis?" It asks some form of this question as the first follow-up every time. The second observation is "Adaptive thinking" replaces "Extended thinking" that I had with Opus 4.6. I turned this off, but I wish I had some confidence that the model was working as hard as possible (I don't want it to mysteriously limit its thinking capabilities based on what it assumes requires less thought. I'd rather control the thinking level). I always ran research prompts with extended thinking enabled on Opus 4.6, and it gave me confidence that it was taking time to get the details right. The third observation is it'll sit in a silent state of "Creating my research plan" for several minutes without starting to burn tokens. At first I thought this was because I had 2 tabs running a research prompt at the same time, but it later happened again when nothing else was running beside it. Perhaps this is due to high demand from several people trying to test the new model. Overall, I feel a bit confused. It doesn't seem better than 4.6, and from a research standpoint it might be worse. It seems like it got several different "features" that I'm supposed to learn now.
I've always seen people complaining about model getting dumber just before the new one drops and always though this was confirmation bias. But today, several hours before the 4.7 release, opus 4.6 was acting like it was sonnet 2 or something from that era of models. It didn't think at all, it was very verbose, extremely fast, and it was just... dumb. So now I believe everyone who says models do get nerfed without any notification for whatever reasons Anthropic considers just. So my question is: what is the actual reason Anthropic lobotomizes the model when the new one is about to be dropped?
•
I've noticed this and thought about it as well, I have a few suspicions: Theory 1: Some increasingly-large split of inference compute is moving over to serving the new model for internal users (or partners that are trialing the next models). This results in less compute but the same increasing demand for the previous model. Providers may respond by using quantizations or distillations, compressing k/v store, tweaking parameters, and/or changing system prompts to try to use fewer tokens. Theory 2: Internal evals are obviously done using full strength models with internally-optimized system prompts. When models are shipped into production the system prompt will inherently need changes. Each time a problematic issue rises to the attention of the team, there is a solid chance it results in a new sentence or two added to the system prompt. These grow over time as bad shit happens with the model in the real world. But it doesn't even need to be a harmful case or bad bugged behavior of the model, even newer models with enhanced capabilities (e.g. mythos) may get protected against in prompts used in agent harnesses (CC) or as system prompts, resulting in a more and more complex system prompt. This has something like "cognitive burden" for the model, which diverges further and further from the eval.
> So my question is: what is the actual reason Anthropic lobotomizes the model when the new one is about to be dropped? You can only fit one version of a model in VRAM at a time. When you have a fixed compute capacity for staging and production, you can put all of that towards production most of the time. When you need to deploy to staging to run all the benchmarks and make sure everything works before deploying to prod, you have to take some machines off the prod stack and onto the staging stack, but since you haven't yet deployed the new model to prod, all your users are now flooding that smaller prod stack. So what everyone assumes is that they keep the same throughput with less compute by aggressively quantizing or other optimizations. When that isn't enough, you start getting first longer delays, then sporadic 500 errors, and then downtime.
•
So if I understand it right, in order to free up VRAM space for a new one, model string in the api like `opus-4.6-YYYYMMDD` is not actually an identifier of the exact weight that is served, but more like ID of group of weights from heavily quantized to the real deal, but all cost the same to me? How is this even legal?
noticing sharp uptick in "i switched to codex" replies lately. a "codex for everything" post flocking the front page on the day of the opus 4.7 release me and coworker just gave codex a 3 day pilot and it was not even close to the accuracy and ability to complete & problem solve through what we've been using claude for. are we being spammed? great. annoying. i clicked into this to read the differences and initial experiences about claude 4.7. anyone who is writing "im using codex now" clearly isn't here to share their experiences with opus 4.7. if codex is good, then the merits will organically speak for themselves. as of 2026-04-16 codex still is not the tool that is replacing our claude-toolbelt. i have no dog in this fight and am happy to pivot whenever a new darkhorse rises up, but codex in my scope of work isn't that darkhorse & every single "codex just gets it done" post needs to be taken with a massive brick of salt at this point. you codex guys did that to yourselves and might preemptively shoot yourselves in the foot here if you can't figure out a way to actually put codex through the ringer and talk about it in its own dedicated thread, these types of posts are not it.
•
i think you are being needlessly paranoid here openai doest offer affiliate marketing links the reason you see lot of users switching to codex is for the dismal weekly usage you get from claude what users care about is actual weekly usage , they dont care a model is a few points smarter , let us use the damn thing for actual work only codex pro really offers that
•
No, I assure you you are not being spammed because legitimately many people prefer codex over claude right now. I am one of those people. And if you go on tech social media spaces you'll see many prominent well known devs in open source say the same. And of course others praise claude as well. At my job we have enterprise access to both and I used claude for months before I got access to codex. Around the time gpt-5.3-codex came out and they improved its speed I was split around 50/50. Now I spend almost 100% of my time using Codex with GPT 5.4. I still compare outputs with claude and codex relatively frequently and personally I find I always have better results with codex. But if you prefer claude thats totally acceptable.
•
we arent bots because we disagree with you. I switch between codex and opus, they have their differing strengths. As many people have mentioned, opus in the past few weeks has had less than stellar results. Generally I find opus would rather stub something and do it the faster way than to do a more complete job, although its much better at front end. I've had times where I've thrown the same problem at opus 4/5 times without success and codex gets it first shot. Just my experience.
Let's say we take Anthropic's security and alignment claims at face value, and they have models that are really good at uncovering bugs and exploiting software. What should Anthropic do in this case? Anthropic could immediately make these models widely available. The vast majority of their users just want develop non-malicious software. But some non-zero portion of users will absolutely use these models to find exploits and develop ransomware and so on. Making the models widely available forces everyone developing software (eg, whatever browser and OS you're using to read HN right now) into a race where they have to find and fix all their bugs before malicious actors do. Or Anthropic could slow roll their models. Gatekeep Mythos to select users like the Linux Foundation and so on, and nerf Opus so it does a bunch of checks to make it slightly more difficult to have it automatically generate exploits. Obviously, they can't entirely stop people from finding bugs, but they can introduce some speedbumps to dissuade marginal hackers. Theoretically, this gives maintainers some breathing space to fix outstanding bugs before the floodgates open. In the longer run, Anthropic won't be able to hold back these capabilities because other companies will develop and release models that are more powerful than Opus and Mythos. This is just about buying time for maintainers. I don't know that the slow release model is the right thing to do. It might be better if the world suffers through some short term pain of hacking and ransomware while everyone adjusts to the new capabilities. But I wouldn't take that approach for granted, and if I were in Anthropic's position I'd be very careful about about opening the floodgate.
•
Couldn't we use domain records to verify that a website is our own for example with the TXT value provided by Anthropic? Google does the same thing for verifying that a website is your own. Security checks by the model would only kick off if you're engaging in a property that you've validated.
They're now hiding thinking traces. Wtf Anthropic.
•
They are still available. Just in OpenAI instead.
Maybe this? From the article: > Opus 4.7 is substantially better at following instructions. Interestingly, this means that prompts written for earlier models can sometimes now produce unexpected results: where previous models interpreted instructions loosely or skipped parts entirely, Opus 4.7 takes the instructions literally. Users should re-tune their prompts and harnesses accordingly.
•
Possible, but very unlikely. One of the hard rules in my harness is that it has to provide a summary Before performing a specific action. There is zero ambiguity in that rule. It is terse, and it is specific. In the last 4 sessions (of 4 total), it has tried skipping that step, and every time it was pointed out, it gave something like the following. > You're right — I skipped the summary. Here it is. It is not following instructions literally. I wish it was. It is objectively worse.
This is a CC harness thing than a model thing but the "new" thinking messages ('hmm...', 'this one needs a moment...') are extraordinarily irritating. They're both entirely uninformative and strictly worse than a spinner. On my workflows CC often spends up to an hour thinking (which is fine if the result is good) and seeing these messages does not build confidence.
•
Could you say more about your workflow? I don’t think I’ve ever gotten close to an hour of thinking before. Always curious to learn how to get more out of agents.
You use Claude Code? Then harness changes will have had much more impact than any model "stealth nerfing".
•
Both CC but also cursor with raw api calls.
Sounds like you will need to drink a(n identity) verification can soon [1] to continue as a security researcher on their platform. 1: https://support.claude.com/en/articles/14328960-identity-verification-on-claude Identity verification on Claude Being responsible with powerful technology starts with knowing who is using it. Identity verification helps us prevent abuse, enforce our usage policies, and comply with legal obligations. We are rolling out identity verification for a few use cases, and you might see a verification prompt when accessing certain capabilities, as part of our routine platform integrity checks, or other safety and compliance measures.
•
I'm surprised we can't just authenticate in other ways.. like a domain TXT record that proves the website I'm looking to audit for security is my own.
•
AI being what it is, at this point you might be able to ask it for a token to put in a web page at .well-known, put it in as requested, and let it see it, and that might actually just work without it being officially built in. I suggest that because I know for sure the models can hit the web; I don't know about their ability to do DNS TXT records as I've never tried. If they can then that might also just work, right now.
4.7 hasn't been out for an hour yet and we already have people shilling for Codex in the comments. I don't know how anyone could form a genuine disagreement in this period of time.
•
I have not seen any comment from the early tests of 4.7 claiming that it does not work better than the previous version. However, there have been some valuable warnings about problems that have been hit in the first minutes after switching to 4.7. For instance that the new guardrails can block working at projects where the previous version could be used without problems and that if you are not careful the changed default settings can make you reach the subscription limits much faster than with the previous version.
A secret backup test to the pelican? This is as noteworthy as 4.7 dropping.
•
That flamingo is hilarious. Is that his beak or a huge joint he's smoking?
Its especially concerning / frustrating because boris’s reply to my bug report on opus being dumber was “we think adaptive thinking isnt working” and then thats the last I heard of it: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47668520 Now disabling adaptive thinking plus increasing effort seem to be what has gotten me back to baseline performance but “our internal evals look good“ is not good enough right now for what many others have corroborated seeing
•
This matches my experience as well, "adaptive thinking" chooses to not think when it should.
It’s the official communication that sucks. It’s one thing for the product to be a black box if you can trust the company. But time and time again Boris lies and gaslights about what’s broken, a bug or intentional.
•
> It’s the official communication that sucks. It’s one thing for the product to be a black box if you can trust the company. A company providing a black box offering is telling you very clearly not to place too much trust in them because it's harder to nail them down when they shift the implementation from under one's feet. It's one of my biggest gripes about frontier models: you have no verifiable way to know how the models you're using change from day to day because they very intentionally do not want you to know that. The black box is a feature for them.
•
If you cared so bad you could make your own evals.
Sure, but that blackbox was giving me a lot of value last month.
•
its a drug. that is how it works. they ration it before the new stuff. seeing legends of programming shilling it pains me the most. so far there are a few decent non insane public people talking about it :Mitchel Hashimoto, Jeremy Howard, Casei Muratori. hell even DHH drank the coolaid while most of his interviews in the past years was how he went away from AWS and reduced the bill from 3 million to 1millions by basically loosing 9s, resiliency and availability. but it seems he is fine with loosing what makes his business work(programming) to a company that sells Overpowered stack overflow slot machines.
•
Yes, he's a real looser. Meanwhile loosers on HN are in denial and unleashing looser mentality attacks on people who accept reality. Loosing your grip on reality is a real looser move. What a looser. Why not try some AI tools, what have you got to loose?
•
so it's also a skinner box
IT's cute you think they're gonna do any full training of a model. As soon as they can extract cash from the machine, the better.
•
This is low effort thinking, and a low effort comment. They have a lot of cash. They do not think they have achieved a "city of geniuses" in a datacenter yet. They are racing against two high quality frontier model teams, with meta in the wings. They have billions of dollars in cash that they are currently trying to spend to increase their datacenter capacity. Any compute time spent on inference is necessarily taken from training compute time, causing them long term strategic worries. What part of that do you think leads toward cash extraction?
Does this mean Claude no longer outputs the full raw reasoning, only summaries? At one point, exposing the LLM's full CoT was considered a core safety tenet.
•
They are trying to optimize the circus trick that 'reasoning' is. The economics still do not favor a viable business at these valuations or levels of cost subsidization. The amount of compute required to make 'reasoning' work or to have these incremental improvements is increasingly obfuscated in light of the IPO.
Genuine question, why have you chosen to phrase this scraping and distillation as an attack? I'm imagining you're doing it because that's how Anthropic prefers to frame it, but isn't scraping and distillation, with some minor shuffling of semantics, exactly what Anthropic and co did to obtain their own position? And would it be valid to interpret that as an attack as well?
•
If you ask claude in chinese it thinks its deepseek.
I don't think it ever has. For a very long time now, the reasoning of Claude has been summarized by Haiku. You can tell because a lot of the times it fails, saying, "I don't see any thought needing to be summarised."
•
It also gets confused if the entire prompt is in a text file attachment. And the summarizer shows the safety classifier's thinking for a second before the model thinking, so every question starts off with "thinking about the ethics of this request".
Thinking helps the models arrive at the correct answer with more consistency. However, they get the reward at the end of a cycle. Turns out, without huge constraints during training thinking, the series of thinking tokens, is gibberish to humans. I wonder if they decided that the gibberish is better and the thinking is interesting for humans to watch but overall not very useful.
•
OK so you're saying the gibberish is a feature and not a bug so to speak? So the thinking output can be understood as coughing and mumbling noises that help the model get into the right paths?
Why does this comment appear every time someone complains about CoT becoming more and more inaccessible with Claude? I have entire processes built on top of summaries of CoT. They provide tremendous value and no, I don't care if "model still did the correct thing". Thinking blocks show me if model is confused, they show me what alternative paths existed. Besides, "correct thing" has a lot of meanings and decision by the model may be correct relative to the context it's in but completely wrong relative to what I intended. The proof that thinking tokens are indeed useful is that anthropic tries to hide them. If they were useless, why would they even try all of this? Starting to feel PsyOp'd here.
•
Didn't you notice that the stream is not coherent or noisy? Sometimes it goes from thought A to thought B then action C, but A was entirely unnecessary noise that had nothing to do with B and C. I also sometimes had signals in the thinking output that were red flags, or as you said it got confused, but then it didn't matter at all. Now I just never look at the thinking tokens anymore, because I got bamboozled too often. Perhaps when you summarize it, then you might miss some of these or you're doing things differently otherwise.
•
I agree. Ever since the release of R1, it's like every single American AI company has realized that they actually do not want to show CoT, and then separately that they cannot actually run CoT models profitably. Ever since then, we've seen everyone implement a very bad dynamic-reasoning system that makes you feel like an ass for even daring to ask the model for more than 12 tokens of thought.
Don't or can't. My assumption is the model no longer actually thinks in tokens, but in internal tensors. This is advantageous because it doesn't have to collapse the decision and can simultaneously propogate many concepts per context position.
•
Don't. The first 500 or so tokens are raw thinking output, then the summarizer kicks in for longer thinking traces. Sometimes longer thinking traces leak through, or the summarizer model (i.e. Claude Haiku) refuses to summarize them and includes a direct quote of the passage which it won't summarize. Summarizer prompt can be viewed [here]( https://xcancel.com/lilyofashwood/status/2027812323910353105?s=20 ), among other places.
| I want to wash my car. The car wash is 50 meters away. Should I walk or drive? ● Drive. The car needs to be at the car wash. Wonder if this is just randomness because its an LLM, or if you have different settings than me?
•
There is a certain amount of it which is the randomness of an LLM. You really want to ask most questions like this several times. That said, I have several local models I run on my laptop that I've asked this question to 10-20 times while testing out different parameters that have answered this consistently correctly.
Idk but ironically, I had to re-read the first part of GP's comment three times, wondering WTF they're implying a mistake, before I noticed it's the car wash , not the car, that's 50 meters away. I'd say it's a very human mistake to make.
•
I don't want my computer to make human mistakes.
•
then don't train it on human data
I've run several local models that get this right. Qwen 3.5 122B-A10B gets this right, as does Gemma 4 31B. These are local models I'm running on my laptop GPU (Strix Halo, 128 GiB of unified RAM). And I've been using this commonly as a test when changing various parameters, so I've run it several times, these models get it consistently right. Amazing that Opus 4.7 whiffs it, these models are a couple of orders of magnitude smaller, at least if the rumors of the size of Opus are true.
•
Does Gemma 4 31B run full res on Strix or are you running a quantized one? How much context can you get?
This comment thread is a good learner for founders; look at how much anguish can be put to bed with just a little honest communication. 1. Oops, we're oversubscribed. 2. Oops, adaptive reasoning landed poorly / we have to do it for capacity reasons. 3. Here's how subscriptions work. Am I really writing this bullet point? As someone with a production application pinned on Opus 4.5, it is extremely difficult to tell apart what is code harness drama and what is a problem with the underlying model. It's all just meshed together now without any further details on what's affected.
•
> This comment thread is a good learner for founders; lmao, no they shouldn't. Public sentiment, especially on reactionary mediums like social media should be taken with a huge grain of salt. I've seen overwhelming negativity for products/companies, only for it it completely dissapear, or be entirely wrong. It's like that meme showing members of a steam group that are boycotting some CoD game, and you can see that a bunch of them were playing in-game of the very thing they forsook. People are fickle, and their words cheap.
•
This, plus the alchemical nature of these tools, seems to have made users pretty paranoid (I admit I am also guilty of paranoia). Maybe there's room for a Standard AI - we may change the prices based on market conditions, but we always give you exactly the model you ask for.
Its because llm companies are literally building quasi slot machines, their UI interfaces support this notion, for instance you can run a multiplier on your output x3,x4,5, Like a slot machine. Brain fried llm users are behaving like gamblers more and more everyday (its working). They have all sorts of theories why one model is better than another, like a gambler does about a certain blackjack table or slot machine, it makes sense in their head but makes no sense on paper. Don't use these technologies if you can't recognize this, like a person shouldn't gamble unless they understand concretely the house has a statistical edge and you will lose if you play long enough. You will lose if you play with llms long enough too, they are also statistical machines like casino games. This stuff is bad for your brain for a lot of people, if not all.
•
100% agree with this take. As I find myself using AI to write software, it is looking like gambling. And it isn't helping stimulate my brain in ways that actually writing code does. I feel like my brain is starting to atrophy. I learn so much by coding things myself, and everything I learn makes me stronger. That doesn't happen with AI. Sure I skim through what the AI produced, but not enough to really learn from it. And the next time I need to do something similar, the AI will be doing it anyway. I'm not sure I like this rabbit hole we're all going down. I suspect it doesn't lead to good things.
I'm running it for the first time and this is what the thinking looks like. Opus seems highly concerned about whether or not I'm asking it to develop malware. > This is _, not malware. Continuing the brainstorming process. > Not malware — standard _ code. Continuing exploration. > Not malware. Let me check front-end components for _. > Not malware. Checking validation code and _. > Not malware. > Not malware.
•
I noticed this also, and was abit taken back at first... But I think this is good thing the model checks the code, when adding new packages etc. Especially given that thousands of lines of code aren't even being read anymore.
If the vendors of programs do not want bugs to be found in their programs, they should search for them themselves and ensure that there are no such bugs. The "legit security firms" have no right to be considered more "legit" than any other human for the purpose of finding bugs or vulnerabilities in programs. If I buy and use a program, I certainly do not want it to have any bug or vulnerability, so it is my right to search for them. If the program is not commercial, but free, then it is also my right to search for bugs and vulnerabilities in it. I might find acceptable to not search for bugs or vulnerabilities in a program only if the authors of that program would assume full liability in perpetuity for any kind of damage that would ever be caused by their program, in any circumstances, which is the opposite of what almost any software company currently does, by disclaiming all liabilities. There exists absolutely no scenario where Anthropic has any right to decide who deserves to search for bugs and vulnerabilities and who does not. If someone uses tools or services provided by Anthropic to perform some illegal action, then such an action is punishable by the existing laws and that does not concern Anthropic any more than a vendor of screwdrivers should be concerned if someone used one as a tool during some illegal activity. I am really astonished by how much younger people are willing to put up with the behaviors of modern companies that would have been considered absolutely unacceptable by anyone, a few decades ago.
•
> If someone uses tools or services provided by Anthropic to perform some illegal action, then such an action is punishable by the existing laws and that does not concern Anthropic any more than a vendor of screwdrivers should be concerned if someone used one as a tool during some illegal activity. In civilised parts of the world, if you want to buy a gun, or poison, or larger amount of chemicals which can be used for nefarious purposes, you need to provide your identity and the reason why you need it. Heck, if you want to move a larger amount of money between your bank accounts, the bank will ask you why. Why are those acceptable, yet the above isn't? > I am really astonished by how much younger people are willing to put up with Unsure where you got the "younger people" from.
Is Codex the new goto? Opus stopped being useful about 45-60 days ago.
•
Codex or the Chinese models
Honestly I've been doing a lot of image-related work recently and the biggest thing here for me is the 3x higher resolution images which can be submitted. This is huge for anyone working with graphs, scientific photographs, etc. The accuracy on a simple automated photograph processing pipeline I recently implemented with Opus 4.6 was about 40% which I was surprised at (simple OCR and recognition of basic features). It'll be interesting to see if 4.7 does much better. I wonder if general purpose multimodal LLMs are beginning to eat the lunch of specific computer vision models - they are certainly easier to use.
•
I assume that by "higher resolution images" you mean images with a bigger size in pixels. I expect that for the model it does not matter which is the actual resolution in pixels per inch or pixels per meter of the images, but the model has limits for the maximum width and the maximum height of images, as expressed in pixels.
Caveman hurt model performance. If you need a dumber model with less token output, just use sonnet-4-6 or other non-reasoning model.
•
Does it? I'm not sure I'd necessarily notice but I haven't found it noticeably worse.
Caveman is fun, but the real tool you want to reduce token usage is headroom https://github.com/gglucass/headroom-desktop (mac app) https://github.com/chopratejas/headroom (cli)
•
Different positionning - headroom compress inputs and open source project - caveman is output and open source - edgee more corporate offer
I tried to use rtk for the same, and my agent session would just loop the same tool call over and over again. Does headroom work better?
•
Way better. You don’t notice it’s there.
•
Thanks, I'll try it!
Headroom looks great for client-side trimming. If you want to tackle this at the infrastructure level, we built Edgee ( https://www.edgee.ai ) as an AI Gateway that handles context compression, caching, and token budgeting across requests, so you're not relying on each client to do the right thing. (I work at Edgee, so biased, but happy to answer questions.)
•
100% agree
My favorite to chuckle at are the prompt hack voodoo stuff, like, “tell it to be correct” or “say please” or “tell it someone will die if it doesnt do a good job,” often presented very seriously and with some fast cutting animations in a 30 second reel
•
Make no mistakes!
Or - making sensational statements gets attention. A dangerous tool is necessarily a powerful tool, so that statement is pretty much exactly what you'd say if you wanted to generate hype, make people excited and curious about your mysterious product that you won't let them use.
•
Much like what Anthropic very recently did re: Mythos
What about your chat history? That has some value, at least for me. But what has even more value is stable releases.
•
This is one of the many reasons I don't think the model companies are going to win the application space in coding. There's literally zero context lost for me in switching between model providers as a cursor user at work. For personal stuff I'll use an open source harness for the same reason.
It works better, until you run out of tokens. Running out of tokens is something that used to never happen to me, but this month now regularly happens. Maybe I could avoid running out of tokens by turning off 1M tokens and max effort, but that's a cure worse than the disease IMO.
•
I would risk a guess that people have a wrong intuition about the long-context pricing and are complaining because of that. Yeah, the per-token price stays the same, even with large context. But that still means that you're spending 4x more cache-read tokens in a 400k context conversation, on each turn, than you would be in a 100k context conversation.
Funny because many people here were so confident that OpenAI is going to collapse because of how much compute they pre-ordered. But now it seems like it's a major strategic advantage. They're 2x'ing usage limits on Codex plans to steal CC customers and it seems to be working. I'm seeing a lot of goodwill for Codex and a ton of bad PR for CC. It seems like 90% of Claude's recent problems are strictly lack of compute related.
•
My standing assumption is the darling company/model will change every quarter for the foreseeable future, and everyone will be equally convinced that the hotness of the week will win the entire future. As buyers, we all benefit from a very competitive market.
How is droves of your customers leaving, whether they're foot stomping or not, healthy?
•
Droves? I mean, if we take the "I'm leaving!" posts seriously, the company has people so emotionally invested they feel the need to announce their departure is a pretty good place to be. Some tiny sampling of unhappy customers is indicative of nothing. Honestly at this point I am pretty firmly of the belief that OAI is paying astroturfers to post the "Boy does anyone else think Claude is dumb now and Codex is better?" (always some unreproducible "feel" kind of thing that are to be adopted at face value despite overwhelming evidence that we shouldn't). OAI is kind of in the desperation stage -- see the bizarre acquisitions they've been making, including paying $100M for some fringe podcast almost no one had heard of -- and it would not be remotely unexpected.
More like 2 hours considering these usage limits
•
I've been on 5x for a couple of months and the closest I've got to my weekly limits is 75%. I've hit 5-hr limits twice (expected). I'm a solo dev that uses CC anywhere from 8-12+ hr each day, 7 days a week. I've never experienced any of the issues others complain about other than the feeling that my sessions feel a little more rushed. I'd say that overall I have very dialed-in context management which includes: breaking work across sessions in atomic units, svelte claude.md/rules (sub 150 lines), periodic memory audit/cleanup, good pre-compact discipline, and a few great commands that I use to transfer knowledge effectively between sessions, without leaving a trailing pile of detritus. Some may say that this is exhaustive, but I don't find it much different than maintaining Agile discipline. This being said, I know I'm an outlier.
I know limits have been nerfed, but c'mon it's $20. The fact that you were able to implement two smallish features in an iOS app in 15 minutes seems like incredible value. At $20/month your daily cost is $0.67 cents a day. Are you really complaining that you were able to get it to implement two small features in your app for 67 cents?
•
No, I am happy with the results. For a first test, it did seem like it burned through the usage even faster than usual. GitHub Copilot’s 7.5x billing factor over 3x with Opus 4.6 seems to suggest it indeed consumes more tokens. Now I’m just waiting for OpenAI to show their hand before deciding which of the plans to upgrade from the $20 to the $100 plan.
Qwen3.6-35B-A3B: Agentic coding power, now open to all (qwen.ai)
•
I cant wait to see some smaller sizes. I would love to run some sort of coding centric agent on a local TPU or GPU instead of having to pay, even if it's slower.
I've been running this on my laptop with the Unsloth 20.9GB GGUF in LM Studio: https://huggingface.co/unsloth/Qwen3.6-35B-A3B-GGUF/blob/main/Qwen3.6-35B-A3B-UD-Q4_K_S.gguf It drew a better pelican riding a bicycle than Opus 4.7 did! https://simonwillison.net/2026/Apr/16/qwen-beats-opus/
•
The flamingo on Qwen's unicycle is sitting on the tire, not the seat. That wins because of sunglasses?
•
I wonder when pelican riding a bicycle will be useless as an evaluation task. The point was that it was something weird nobody had ever really thought about before, not in the benchmarks or even something a team would run internally. But now I'd bet internally this is one of the new Shirley Cards.
•
I mean look at the result where he asked about a unicycle - the model couldn't even keep the spokes inside the wheels - would be rudimentary if it "learned" what it means to draw a bicycle wheel and could transfer that to unicycle.
•
Simon has an article on this https://simonwillison.net/2025/Nov/13/training-for-pelicans-riding-bicycles/
The people i know that use local models just end up with both. The local models don’t really compete with the flagship labs for most tasks But there are things you may not want to send to them for privacy reasons or tasks where you don’t want to use tokens from your plan with whichever lab. Things like openclaw use a ton of tokens and most of the time the local models are totally fine for it (assuming you find it useful which is a whole different discussion)
•
The open weights models absolutely compete with flagship labs for most tasks. OpenAI and Anthropic's "cheap tier" models are completely uncompetitive with them for "quality / $" and it's not close. Google is the only one who has remained competitive in the <$5/1M output tier with Flash, and now has an incredibly strong release with Gemma 4. Unless you have a corporate lock-in/compliance need, there has been no reason to use Haiku or GPT mini/nano/etc over open weights models for a long time now.
Why doesn't Qwen itself release the quantized model? My impression is that quantization is a highly nontrivial process that can degrade the model in non-obvious ways, thus its best handled by people who actually built the model, otherwise the results might be disappointing. Users of the quantized model might be even made to think that the model sucks because the quantized version does.
•
Model developers release open-weight models for all sorts of reasons, but the most common reason is to share their work with the greater AI research community. Sure, they might allow or even encourage personal and commercial use of the model, but they don't necessarily want to be responsible for end-user support. An imperfect analogy might be the Linux kernel. Linus publishes official releases as a tagged source tree but most people who use Linux run a kernel that has been tweaked, built, and packaged by someone else. That said, models often DO come from the factory in multiple quants. Here's the FP8 quant for Qwen3.6 for example: https://huggingface.co/Qwen/Qwen3.6-35B-A3B-FP8 Unsloth and other organizations produce a wider variety of quants than upstream to fit a wider variety of hardware, and so end users can make their own size/quality trade-offs as needed.
Pick a decent quant (4-6KM) then use llama-fit-params and try it yourself to see if it's giving you what you need.
•
I habe found llama-fit sometimes just selects a way to conservative load with VRAM to spare.
If you have to ask then your GPU is too small. With 16 GB you'll be only able to run a very compressed variant with noticable quality loss.
•
Running q3 xss with full and quantizised context as options on a 16gb gpu and still has pretty decent quality and fitting fine with up to 64k context.
More like `ollama launch claude --model qwen3.6:latest` Also you need to check your context size, Ollama default to 4K if <24 Gb of VRAM and you need 64K minimum if you want claude to be able to at least lift a finger.
•
I only have 16GB VRAM, and my system uses ~4GB from that. What are my options? I got this one: `Qwen3.6-35B-A3B-UD-IQ2_XXS.gguf`
Why would it matter if the model is trained with malicious intent? It's a pure function. The harness controls security policies.
•
Much like a developer can insert a backdoor as a "bug" so can an LLM that was trained to do it. One way you could probably do it is by identifying a commonly used library that can be misused in a way that would allow some kind of time-of-check to time-of-use (TOCTOU) exploit. Then you train the LLM to use the library incorrectly in this way.
on the bright side also worth to keep in mind those tiny models are better than GPT 4.0, 4.1 GPT4o that we used to enjoy less than 2 years ago [1] [1] https://artificialanalysis.ai/?models=gpt-5-4%2Cgpt-oss-120b%2Cgpt-oss-20b%2Cgpt-5-4-mini%2Cgpt-5-4-pro%2Cgemma-4-26b-a4b%2Cgemini-3-flash-reasoning%2Cgemma-4-31b%2Cgemini-3-1-pro-preview%2Cgemini-3-1-flash-lite-preview%2Cclaude-sonnet-4-6-adaptive%2Cclaude-opus-4-6-adaptive%2Cclaude-4-5-haiku-reasoning%2Cdeepseek-v3-2-reasoning%2Cminimax-m2-7%2Cglm-5-1%2Cqwen3-5-35b-a3b%2Cqwen3-5-27b%2Cgpt-4o%2Cgpt-4-1
•
They're absolutely worth using for the right tasks. It's hard to go back to GPT4 level for everything (for me at least), but there's plenty of stuff they are smart enough for.
The future of everything is lies, I guess: Where do we go from here? (aphyr.com)
Here are the articles in this series that got significant HN discussion (in chronological order for a change): ML promises to be profoundly weird* - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47689648 - April 2026 (602 comments) The Future of Everything Is Lies, I Guess: Part 3 – Culture - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47703528 - April 2026 (106 comments) The future of everything is lies, I guess – Part 5: Annoyances - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47730981 - April 2026 (169 comments) The Future of Everything Is Lies, I Guess: Safety - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47754379 - April 2026 (180 comments) The future of everything is lies, I guess: Work - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47766550 - April 2026 (217 comments) The Future of Everything Is Lies, I Guess: New Jobs - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47778758 - April 2026 (178 comments) * (That first title was different because of https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47695064 - as you can see, I gave up.) p.s. Normally we downweight subsequent articles in a series because avoiding repetition of any kind is the main thing that keeps HN interesting. But we made an exception in this case. Please don't draw conclusions from that since we'll probably get less series-ey, not more, after this! Better to bundle into one longer article.
•
Why would a series of articles imply repetition? Let's presume there's a series on re-making the antikythera mechanism: 1. Metallurgy: finding, mining and smelting the ore 2. Building the tools (files, molds, etc) 3. Designing the mechanism 4. Making the parts (gears, bearings, etc) Am I wrong or there's no repetition, except maybe the title and calling it a series? Why reject parts 2, 3, 4?
But what if we could predict which treatments would be most successful with ~70% accuracy? It would potentially speed up the feedback loops right? There may also be downsides, like skipping testing things that would enhance our fundamental understanding of something because the AI was wrong. But that’s already a problem , and having a better gauge in the early stages could be really helpful
•
What if I could flap my arms and fly to the moon? You haven't presented any scientific evidence that LLMs will enable such prediction accuracy. It's pure speculation and hope. Some smaller, incremental improvements to optimize research workflows are much more likely.
I don't think it's a rebuke. I'm just explaining the reality of the situation.
•
You said > New companies will appear doing things that we can't even imagine yet I have a really big imagination, so I will believe it when I see it. If you have any real idea what these new companies might be doing in the future then I'm all ears. But until then maybe stop trying to claim some kind of future knowledge based on some handwaved nonsense like "we can't even imagine what the future will look like" And then trying to claim that's "the reality of the situation", please be serious
The 0.001% has a controlling stake in AI, so they're in the clear. The 99.999% needs to assert their controlling stake in the technology. I don't know what this looks like. Maybe ubiquitous unionizing, coupled with a fully public and openly-trained LLM.
•
There are already several fully open source LLMs. You can start participating in those projects today. https://www.bentoml.com/blog/navigating-the-world-of-open-source-large-language-models#what%20is%20the%20best%20open-source%20llm%20now%3F
Point is, if an AGI becomes powerful and capable enough of replacing 99.999% of humanity, the likes of Sam Altman and Elon Musk won't be able to control it.
•
An electrician with access to a circuit breaker will be able to control it.
> Just because a technology can be useful doesn't mean it will have positive effects on society. You say it in a way that it sounds like automobiles don't have a positive effect. I don't agree - they have some negative effects but overall they have a vast net positive effect for everyone.
•
It's not at all clear whether automobiles were a net positive. They are more or less solely responsible for climate change (even emissions not directly from motor vehicles wouldn't be possible without them), which may prove to be the worst mistake in the history of technology.
Huh, I doubt I've averaged more than two hotel-stays per year over my life and it's happened to me several times, something like "well there are 10 restaurants within easy walking distance as the crow flies, and man that Indian joint looks good, or maybe that gyro place, but oh no, I can't actually get to any of them except... god damnit, McDonalds."
•
Experienced travelers know how to look at a map and make a reservation at a hotel near amenities they want. For example, I sometimes like to go run a few miles in the morning so I'll pick a hotel near a running trail or at least safe sidewalks. And if you're staying somewhere remote then you'll need a rental car to get there anyway so you can always drive to a restaurant.
Their negative effects are much more vast, subtle, and cultural. You could say many of the broad and widespread mental issues we have in the US is the result of automobiles leading to suburbanization and thus isolation of people. It has created an expensive barrier of entry for existing in society and added a ton of friction to doing anything and everything, especially with people. That's not even getting into the climate effects. The upsides of automobiles generally all exist outside of the 'personal automobile', i.e. logistics. These upsides and downsides don't need to coexist. We could reap the benefits without needing to suffer for it, but here we are.
•
Disputable. One could argue that artificial nature of US cities (i.e. lack of centuries of accumulated decisions) were bigger driver of this than cars themselves.
•
My parents made a home in a nice suburban neighborhood, where today some good restaurants and a coffeehouse are in walking distance, and grocery shopping is a short car ride. Yet we grew up still rather attached to neighborhoods further away, where our schools and grandparents lived. There was no possibility of bicycles or “kid power” to reach there; Mom and Dad always, always drove us everywhere! Today I find myself in an urban hellscape without owning a vehicle. Nothing is walkable. I am crammed in, thanks to Equal Housing, with immigrants and people of utterly alien races and cultures (I consider myself the minority.) If I expect to find people like me or shop within my demographic, nothing is adjacent and it’s all several miles worth of transportation. Car culture and forced integration has fragmented every possible family unit that could have been cohesive or collectivist. If I am celebrating a religious or cultural festival, I can count on none of my neighbors sharing that celebration, or in fact raising conflicts on the days most sacred to me. Anywhere I may choose to walk, or even if I drive, I am trudging through vast empty parking lots of asphalt because of cars. The roads are laid out for cars. A cop told me yesterday I shouldn’t drive my e-scooter at 17mph in the street but on the sidewalk. Every motorist also hates those scooters, whether in motion or properly parked. Every motorist also hates the light rail train and hate for Waymo is fomented by motorist and pedestrian alike. There is no place I could move to or live that would change this equation in any useful way. I do not hate cars, but I hate what they have done to our lives and our landscape.
•
automobiles -> suburbanization -> isolation -> mental health crisis seems like a fairly easy hypothesis to test since there are still millions of people in america living densely and carless in places like nyc and you could demonstrate that they have a statistically significant gap in mental illnesses. so easy to test that i bet several people already have and you could just check.
•
You miss how this mental health crisis seemed to emerge in lock step with screentime. Not really suburbs. It is funny when people wax poetic now about the carefree latchkey adventurous childhoods of the boomers or gen x. I mean all of that stuff was little adventures happening in the suburbs. Nothing else to do inside so this is what would happen. You give that kid along with the rest of the kids in the neighborhood, well, tiktok there's your isolation and mental health crisis source right there. At least in the early dialup days kids were kicked off periodically so parents could use the landline, and there just wasn't such a bottomless well of content either to spend all waking time consuming. EDIT: missed your other reply a few mins earlier alluding to smartphones already
•
I can tell you as a resident of New York City that the negative effect of the automobile on the built environment is very much present here as well.
•
for sure! but that's irrelevant to a causal chain that includes "suburbanization", since you're not in the suburbs (in manhattan at least, the walkability does drop off pretty quickly) another interesting tack: how long did we have cars before we started talking about a widespread mental health crisis? is there a more parimonious explanation, like a different event that is located closer to it in time? perhaps smartphones or the internet?
I wouldn't be surprised if it contributed significantly because of the lack of (access to) third places [0] it breeds, but that is conjecture on my part, so fair enough. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third_place
•
I would be hesitant to draw that correlation. IMO cars give you more access to third places, not less. With a car one can cover far more ground in a given 30 min drive after rush hour died down probably in every city in the world, than what one can cover in 30 mins walk and transit ride (especially when transit schedules might favor a commute into the central part of town vs some off peak trip to a random corner of town). Say what you will about the ills of the car, but it takes a lot of specific context for them to emerge as the worst option of transport from an individual perspective. Really most of the cars ills are from their collective harms, something most can't appreciate as a tragedy of the commons sort of failing.
Parking is one of the biggest downsides of bikes IMO. Bikes are great, I ride mine whenever I can. But most places lack secure bike parking and the police don't take bike theft seriously. So sometimes I drive my car even to places where I could easily ride a bike just because I'm confident the car will still be there when I get out.
•
Fwiw the only place I had a bike stolen was the secured underground garage in my apartment complex. Never had issues just parking it out front while running errands or other such stuff, or parking outside work during the day. I'd figure foot traffic would keep angle grinding down. I've personally not seen angle grinding done that brazenly before, seems liable overnight though where the thief has time to work and the assumption no one is awake to hear the grinder (such as what happened in the case of my apartment). If I can't find a good spot to actually lock up the bike though I will just bring it in to wherever I'm going. Shops or restaurants don't seem to care if a bike is parked in the corner and you can thread your ulock through the wheels and make it useless to ride off with.
Yeah. I'm not saying the jihad was the cause. But elimating AI didn't prevent the feudal system. It didn't really help, in other words. Honestly, I kinda think Herbert just didn't want to have AI or sophisticated robots in his narrative, so he contrived an elaborate reason why that tech doesn't exist.
•
But it did "help". Mentats had supercomputer computation capabilities; navigators folded space and charted non-collision paths; warriors had robocop like abilities. These were developed precisely because the use of thinking machines was forbidden. I don't think feudalism is going away one way or another. It persists because of certain biological realities, ranging from genetics to loyalty engendered by familial relations. In sum, the argument against current AI trends isn't that once addressed we will wake up in utopia. No. The point is that these natural tendencies of humans are hugely amplified and set in generational stone once the elite have control over thinking machines and lord it over a population that has experience diminished independent cognitive abilities.
What you just said was an elaborate tu quoque fallacy. You aren't comprehending my basic point, which is that individual ethical decisions are not going to make a difference when all of the broader incentives are causing people to act otherwise.
•
The idea behind principles is that you're supposed to stick to them anyways.
Because I don't like the feeling my conscience gives me by doing something I think is evil and bad. Some people have moral lines that they won't cross when finding jobs. If my competitors are filling their flour with sawdust, guess I got to just do the same?
•
Your moral compass is skewed. Customers don't care what tools we use, they just want products that work. Is a wheat farmer who ploughs a field with horses more moral than one who uses a tractor? The resulting flour tastes the same either way.
If you push a change, or you approve, you're responsible for the change and its effects later. Regardless of size. If change is too big, tell your teammates its too big to review and to refactor to bite-size with their great coding agents. Use AI models also for review of large changes, consider a checklist . Setup CI and integration tests (also can be AI assisted)
•
Oh there's plenty of CI, linting, etc. Half of which is not properly plumbed in.
Why? It's just the name of the game, everyone gets it. Especially if you're a generalist/frontend type.
•
It's simply not a game I'm interested in playing. I'll find something else to do instead, leave the AI jockeying to others.
Cloudflare Email Service (blog.cloudflare.com)
•
Sendgrid is such an enshittified product, I am grateful this now exists and integrates directly with tools I have on cloudflare already.
•
How easy is it to switch from other email providers?
•
> Email is the most accessible interface in the world Email is one of the most gatekept interfaces in the world.
I'm not sure why this announcement has generated so much irritation in the comments-- Cloudflare has been transitioning from "DDoS protection" to "AWS competitor" for many years now, and this is just their alternative to AWS SES. It's an email sender that you can access through an API, or directly through Workers. For those who haven't been keeping up over the years, Workers is their product for running code on Cloudflare's platform directly (an AWS Lambda competitor, more or less) and they've been trying to make it the centerpiece of an ecosystem where you deploy your code to their platform and get access to a variety of tools: databases, storage, streaming, AI, and now email sending. All of this is stuff that AWS has had for years, but some people like Cloudflare more (I certainly do). One thing that surprised me is the price-- Cloudflare's cloud offerings are usually much cheaper, and I've saved plenty of money by migrating from AWS S3 to Cloudflare's R2. This new offering is 3x the AWS price, though. Weird. Anyway, most small companies don't send enough email for it to matter. But getting back to the consensus in the comments here: I'm not sure why people think that they'll be worse about policing spam than AWS SES, Azure Email, etc.
•
Can Cloudflare do an SMS service? That would be something :)
Unfortunate situation. Also, what is cloudflare exactly? They seemed to have diversified a tad much.
•
Cloudflare is, believe it or not, the owner of several IP blocked by Telefonica in Spain durong football matches. Soon to be tennis, basket, too.
The base fee doesn't need to be monthly, they can take $50 dollars as a one time registration verification fee. That should be enough to cover their compute costs for the year, specially when you pool in that from multiple customers. Who is spamming with 100 monthly emails? How much compute do they need to verify you aren't spamming. They can bake all of that into the pay per use price, they choose not to and I'm glad cloudflare is offering this.
•
Maintaining the reputation of an IP address is the issue here. If one bad actor sends just a few emails that get marked as spam, the entire IP gets marked as bad. That's basically what you're paying for. Also, the person who just wants to send a few 100 emails a month is actually far more likely to be a spammer. So it's also a way for them to eliminate those folks. And lastly, the support burden can be high. AWS has basically said they only want serious customers, let the other guys worry about the small senders.
Cloudflare's AI Platform: an inference layer designed for agents (blog.cloudflare.com)
•
Good to see their purchase of Replicate paying off!
•
I find it really confusing that the worker AI models on here: https://developers.cloudflare.com/workers-ai/models/ do not have full overlap with the ones on here: https://developers.cloudflare.com/ai/models/ Yes, you can see the same "hosted" ones on there, but when you look at the models endpoint, there are much less options at the "workers-ai/*" namespace. Is that intentional?
•
To better clarify, I don’t see "workers-ai/@cf/google/gemma-4-26b-a4b-it" in the /models enpoint in gateway.ai.cloudflare.com but it does seem to exist as a hosted model. Same with "workers-ai/@cf/nvidia/nemotron-3-120b-a12b" which I would expect to see
Can I set a hard cost limit ? Else I'm not interested, don't be like googles mess of billing.
•
Seems like it. I just added some credits to my account. You can set a daily $ spend limit as well as add credits without auto-refill
This actually looks very useful. Cloudflare seems to be brining together a great set of tools. Not to mention, D2 is literally the only sqlite-as-a-service solution out there whose reliability is great and free tier limits are generous.
•
> For those who don’t use Workers, we’ll be releasing REST API support in the coming weeks, so you can access the full model catalog from any environment. Cloudflare seems to be building for lock-in and I don't love it. I especially don't understand how you build an OpenRouter and only have bindings for your custom runtime at launch.
No spending limit / no ability to set a budget, unlike Google or OpenAI. Be prepared for an eye-watering invoice if you have a bug or get hacked. edit: Why downvote? It's correct, and it's a risk that competitors handle better, including for their CDN products (compared to Bunny CDN). Maybe you are just used to the risk and haven't felt the burn yourself yet. Or you have the mistaken notion that there is no price at which temporary downtime is worthwhile to avoid paying.
•
I just added some credits to my account. You can set a daily $ spend limit as well as add credits without auto-refill
Sadly no mention on regions.
•
It will work great in Spain! /s
Show HN: MacMind – A transformer neural network in HyperCard on a 1989 Macintosh (github.com/SeanFDZ)
•
The architecture of macmind looks pretty interesting
There’s something quietly impressive about getting modern AI ideas to run on old hardware (like OP's project or running LLM inference on Windows 3.1 machines). It’s easy to think all the progress is just bigger GPUs and more compute, but moments like that remind you how much of it is just more clever math and algorithms squeezing signal out of limited resources. Feels closer to the spirit of early computing than the current “throw hardware at it” narrative.
•
There is an absolutely beautiful rendering of the Mona Lisa encoded at some point in the digits of pi. If you know the position, it's really easy to plot the image. But first you have to find that position.
As an alternative, you might consider letting Hypercard itself open the text files and 'set the script of' as needed.
•
Yup, that would have been easier. It's been decades since I've done anything with HyperCard. I had to re-take the built-in intro course again :)
Mozilla Thunderbolt (thunderbolt.io)
What's with the odd name? Apple already has a 15 year-old product called Thunderbolt. Mozilla already has a similarly-named but totally-different product called Thunderbird.
•
Agreed. The name collision nowadays is horrible. Then again, it's frustrating trying to name a product in today's era; too many names are taken.
These two goals: > ... please stop working on projects distracting from the complex and necessary work of browser and web standards stewardship. > Ditching any direct financial ties to Google or any other browser vendor is both important and necessary... are inherently contradictory. If you do not want Mozilla to have revenue from search vendors that also have browsers, it has to come from somewhere else. Or are you suggesting they switch the default search engine back to Yahoo [0]? I am not trying to defend the projects they have chosen to work on, but you have to understand that reducing dependence on Google is exactly why they are working on them [1]. [0] Even when they did that, it was for the US only, and Google was still the default for most of the world. [1] Although in this case, this appears to come from the Thunderbird organization, so unrelated to the browser. Money is fungible, though.
•
I'd argue these are not _contradictory_, just incentivized financially to continue since that's how they've operated. What i'm suggesting is a change. There's plenty of counter examples where diverse funding models for community projects can work without taking vast sums from a single, direct competitor. Linux is one. Imagine if MSFT was the sole contributor to Linux and how that would have shaped its development. In recent years MSFT may infact directly contribute developers and funding to linux, but they have a vested interest in doing so, as they run more Linux VMs in Azure than Windows VMs these days...
It's a problem. I use Firefox as my daily driver -- it used to be I ran into incompatible sites once a month or less except for YouTube which intermittently punishes users for browsing with Firefox. Now I have a serious problem every week like an online vendor or bank or something that doesn't work with Firefox. Firefox is a little slow for an internal application we have that loads 40,000 rows of data into a grid but otherwise all our stuff works with it because I develop Firefox first and I think a few of us are all that really stands between Firefox and oblivion and probably are doing more work than a lot of the people they have on the payroll.
•
(I work on Firefox Web Compatibility) If you have specific sites that aren't working, please let us know and we can investigate and try to fix them. The usual reporting channels are using https://webcompat.com or the "Report Broken Site" tool in the Firefox menu. Of course I"m also happy to take bug reports here if you (or anyone else) has them.
> already painful and readily apparent, stagnation of your browser What's wrong with Firefox? There are several things Firefox does that it's annoying to live without in other browsers (video pop-outs, competent ad blocking, etc). Is there some core feature that's missing? I'm subjected to Edge at work and I couldn't tell you a single thing it does that I'd want FF to do. > and our standards bodies as entities distinct from corporations Ok, I buy that.
•
It doesn't support WebNFC or WebUSB.
I use Firefox on both Linux and Android for 99% of my web browsing needs. At least for me it's the best browser out there, and doesn't seem neglegted at all.
•
Good for you. I’m genuinely glad, you should use whatever you like, I don’t care for flame-wars. For me, it lacks several must-haves (I’m not going to waste my time repeating them, history has shown that’s a stupid waste of time and the downvotes on the original comment only prove my point). That’s why we have so many apps, everyone has different needs.
Addressing the usual few complaints folks always bring up: * This is from the separate independent team that works on Thunderbird, not Firefox, so there isn't any resource contention happening there * Thunderbird is revenue positive, and this potentially gives that team another revenue stream to be even more self-sustaining through charging companies * Businesses definitely want to control the AI they're using (especially with RAGs of their own data) instead of just throwing it at their LLM vendor and hoping for the best People on HN are fond of asserting that their own POV is the only one. Imagine that there is such a thing as a person in charge of choosing technologies for organizations, and that you're such a person. That's who this is for.
•
What does “revenue positive” even mean? It doesn’t mean profitable, it doesn’t mean cash flow positive. Are you just trying to say their revenue is greater than zero?
•
> Imagine that there is such a thing as a person in charge of choosing technologies for organizations, and that you're such a person. That's who this is for. The "Announcing Thunderbolt" page actually makes this clear, the submitted URL does not. Maybe the submission should be changed to this URL instead: https://www.thunderbolt.io/announcing-thunderbolt
•
i find it interesting that they advertise it as "trusted because european"
Thunderbird (the email client) was spun off from Mozilla Corporation into a new for-profit company called MZLA Technologies. Both corps are still subsidiaries of the Mozilla Foundation. Thunderbolt is a new product from the MZLA Technologies team.
•
> spun off from Mozilla Corporation into a new for-profit company called MZLA Technologies. Both corps are still subsidiaries of the Mozilla Foundation I am a happy Thunderbird user. But when I see such reorganizing and deliberately confusing naming, I assume that there is somewhere intent to deceive.
€54k spike in 13h from unrestricted Firebase browser key accessing Gemini APIs (discuss.ai.google.dev)
Hey folks, I just wanted to drop a quick note here that there’s a way to stop billing in an emergency that’s officially documented on the Google Cloud documentation site: https://docs.cloud.google.com/billing/docs/how-to/disable-billing-with-notifications . You can see the big red warning that this could destroy resources that you can’t get back even if you reconnect a billing account, but this is a way to stop things before they get out of control. This billing account disconnect goes all the way to implement a full on “emergency hand brake” that “unplugs the thing from the wall” (or whatever analogy you prefer) without you having to affirmatively do it yourself. https://docs.cloud.google.com/billing/docs/how-to/modify-project#disable_billing_for_a_project and https://docs.cloud.google.com/billing/docs/how-to/budgets-programmatic-notifications#cap_disable_billing_to_stop_usage are other documented alternatives to receive billing alerts without the billing account disconnect. The billing account disconnect obviously shouldn’t be used for any production apps or workloads you’re using to serve your own customers or users, since it could interrupt them without warning, but it’s a great option for internal workloads or test apps or proof of concept explorations. Hope this helps!
•
>There's a delay between incurring costs and receiving budget notifications, so you might incur additional costs for usage that hasn't arrived at the time that all services are stopped. This delay may be hours or days. I managed to spend $400 in 5 minutes.
It shouldnt mean shutting down all your services, it should mean not letting you provision new ones and limiting the scope of what you can continue doing.
•
If I budget enough to store 1TB of data for 1 month, then on the first day of the month I store 2TB of data - what should the behaviour be after 15 days?
•
Read/write access should be frozen, data should be saved for 1 month so you have time to react to warning emails. If you didn't upgrade in that time, it should be deleted.
FWIW, I just create a new Gemini API key today, and it had a different format than my old ones (created 10 days ago). So maybe they changed something?
•
I think brand new stuff is probably safe, but old keys that currently being used for AI and non-AI stuff - if Google disables them for AI and it turns out it was actually not being exposed publicly, could disrupt a user's production service relying on AI. They messed up by allowing old keys to be used for both private and public APIs in the first place, but now it's difficult for them to undo that for existing keys.
Codex Hacked a Samsung TV (blog.calif.io)
•
> [1] Browser foothold: we already had code execution inside the browser application's own security context on the TV, Does anyone know what the author meant by this? Are they talking about a web browser run on the TV?
It’s important to note that Codex was given access to the source code. In another comment thread that is currently on the front page ( https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47780456 ), the opinion is repeatedly voiced that being closed source doesn’t provide a material benefit in defending against vulnerabilities being discovered and exploited using AI. So it would be interesting to see how Codex would fare here without access to the source code.
•
There are two levels below having the source. One is having the binary of the firmware, which could be decompiled by the AI and understood. And then the worst-case is what I'm dealing with currently, which is where there is no access to the firmware binary and the firmware is stored on the PCB in such a way to prevent sticking a chip clip on it and forcibly extracting it, so you're totally blind. (Just as you would be with a completely remote attempt)
Not as cool as this, but I had a fun Claude Code experience when I asked it to look at my Bluetooth devices and do something "fun". It discovered a cheap set of RGB lights in my daughter's room (which I had no idea used Bluetooth for the remote - and not secured at all) and made them do a rainbow effect then documented the protocol so I could make my own remote control if needed.
•
Opus 4.7 finally figured out how to get my Logitech mouse paired with the receiver properly, which 4.6 and Gemini 3.1 could not do lol.
I had truly good “hacking” session with Codex. It’s not hacking, I wasn’t breaking anything, just jumping over the fences TP-Link put for me, owning the router, inside the network, knowing the admin password. But TP-Link really tried everything so you cannot access the router you own via API. They really tried to be smart with some very very broken and custom auth and encryption scheme. It took some half a day with Codex, but in the end I have a pretty Python API to access my router, tested, reliable, and exporting beautiful Prometheus metrics. I’m sure there is some over eager product manager sitting in such companies, trying to splits markets into customer and enterprise sections, just by making APIs not useable by humans and adding 200% useless “security by obscurity”.
•
I have one of these Smiirl flip counters. It runs a version of OpenWrt without the web UI, but has a uhttpd to serve an api. I'm hoping Mythos can help me find an exploit to get into it and enable ssh since they have now disabled the simple api switch that would let you turn it on. https://www.smiirl.com/en/counter/facebook/5d/
It's on my long list of projects "to-opensource" (but I need to figure out licensing, for those things CC-BY-SA I think is the way to go), I don't want a random lawyer sitting on my ass though. I started with a simple assumption: if I can access the router via web-browser, then I can also automate that. From that the proof-of-concept was headless Chrome in Docker and AI-directed code (code written via LLM, not using it all the time) that uses Selenium to navigate the code. This worked, but it internally hurt me to run 300MiB browser just to access like 200B of metrics every 10s or so. So from there we (me + codex) worked together towards reverse engineering their minimised JS and their funky encryption scheme, and it eventually worked (in the end it's just OpenSSL with some useless paddings here or there). Give it a shot, it's a fun day adventure. :) Edit: that's the end result (kinda, I have whole infra around it, and another story with WiFi extender with another semi-broken different encryption scheme from the same provider) - https://imgur.com/a/VGbNmBp
•
Why not just use the GPL? It basically covers the same stuff Creative Commons Share-alike does.
I've had a lot of luck with pyghidra-mcp -- give it a try :)
•
Well i have tried and it only works for simple use-case.
 Top