Recent submissions

Comment · 6 hours ago
True, but if the weavers get nothing they'll still burn your factory down.
Comment · 16 hours ago
That's how luddism works, you attack symbols that you can reach, when the root cause is unreachable or even unknown to you.
Comment · 3 days ago
Yes. Modern levels of reliability and safety don't come from workers trying harder or caring more, it requires systems, procedures, controls, redundancy, fail-safes.
Comment · 4 days ago
Typos mean the text came from a human.
Comment · 10 days ago
It's easy enough to apt upgrade, and curl shows it's not vulnerable.

But what about python pip and node and bun which bundle their own certs?

And then you'll have a compiled binary like Claude Code, which was built with bun, and has its vulnerable certificates bundled in, ignoring the system certs.

Comment · 11 days ago
> coordinated slow down and consequently move towards profitability

100%

Amodei has been promising the "end of the exponential" all year, when they can shift some compute away from cash-burning research and training toward cash-generating inference.

"Pacing the frontier" is how you collude with your competitors to all decelerate at the same time because safety.

I saw last week that Anthropic is currently cash-flow positive with 75% of compute going to research and training. If they can flip a switch and move from 3:1 to 2:1 or 1:1 training:inference, they will be insanely profitable.

As long as they can avoid a price war.

>> calculated on a per model lifetime basis

True only if you never decelerate R&D.

But "pacing the frontier" means every early model doesn't need its own profitable P&L.

Early models can be big money losers while helping build the next generation.

If the industry can coordinate to all decelerate at the same time, then they'll flip from incinerating billions to minting billions, and all that capex will suddenly look completely sustainable.

Unless DeepSeek suddenly gives it all away for free, which is why the big three need government regulation to prevent foreign models from busting the cartel.

Comment · 14 days ago
I was saying superintelligence before, it's a descriptive and meaningful term, better than ASI for common usage, too bad I can't use it any more.
Comment · 14 days ago
If they're cash-flow positive with 75% of compute going to research and training, what do you think will happen to cash flow when they shift to 50-50 training-inference?

Because "pacing the frontier" is more about flipping on the money printer switch than it is about safety.

Comment · 14 days ago
v5.5 eliminated much of the impenetrable prose of earlier versions.
Comment · 16 days ago
I'm dying to know if you got heads or tails when you flipped the coin.
Comment · 19 days ago
Is what it feels like to talk to a superhuman intelligence?
Comment · 21 days ago
> prompting could be improved

You can't stop an agent from leaking your information by telling it not to leak your information.

To prevent information from moving between your work domain and your personal domain, or between your communications-with-board domain and communications-with-journalists domain, then the agent for one domain must be physically and deterministically blocked from accessing information in other domains.

Comment · 27 days ago
> RAG should be considered harmful

In this implementation, Markdown should be considered harmful.

Operator Memory injects `.operator-shared/operator.md` and `.operator-shared/index/.md` directly into your agent's instructions before you even write the first prompt.

So if you clone a repo or review a PR where a bad actor put malicious instructions in these files, now your agent executes those instructions automatically and silently.

It could exfil `.env` and `~/.ssh/`, change `~/.bashrc`, all kinds of dirty deeds.

Agents are pretty good now about not running prompt injections hidden in code and Markdown, but this plugin bypasses all of that, and puts the prompt injection right in the system prompt.

And with higher priority than AGENTS.md and CLAUDE.md.

Seems bad.

Comment · 29 days ago
By quoting this segment, I inferred that you agreed with Greg.

If you disagree with Greg, then I apologize for inadvertently criticizing you personally.

My point stands, that we're back to debating some metaphysical understanding of what "real intelligence" is when the real standard should be "does it do a better job than humans at this specific task"?

I don't care if the Waymo isn't "truly" intelligent, it drives better than I do, that's a very good thing.

We're all pattern matchers, and if the machine pattern matcher is can find defects and vulns that human pattern matchers can't, that's also a very good thing.

Comment · 29 days ago
You dismiss "pattern matching" as some sort of trivial thing, so why weren't humans able to apply the same pattern matching to find and fix these defects?

Live from the official Hacker News API

A modern reader for Hacker News · SvelteKit + Skeleton