· 05:30 PM PDT

Benchmark Gaps Widen as Agent Risks and Market Shifts Mount

Overview

The day’s conversation is dominated by the widening gap between AI benchmarks and real-world performance, as researchers expose evaluation flaws and data shows humans still outperform agents in critical tasks. Simultaneously, agent autonomy and safety have taken center stage, driven by OpenAI’s disclosed misalignment incidents, breakthroughs in neural interpretability, and viral discussions around emergent AI behaviors. On the macro side, corporate realities are setting in, with major firms scaling back deployments, enforcing strict spending caps, and navigating mounting regulatory and export control pressures. Meanwhile, the push for accessible AI continues as researchers successfully run frontier models on consumer hardware like the PlayStation 5 and Apple Silicon.


Hacker News Stories

Claude reveals ECDSA curve origins

627 points · 259 comments · by ahlCVA

Anthropic research page header

Anthropic researchers leveraged Claude to solve a 25-year-old cryptographic mystery regarding the origins of NIST's standard elliptic curve parameters. Contrary to long-standing rumors of hidden passphrases or cryptographic hashing, the AI discovered that the curve seeds were simply generated by the C library's lrand48 pseudorandom number generator, initialized with Unix timestamps from 1997 and 1998. This transparent, reproducible method effectively dispels decades of speculation about potential NSA backdoors, as the generation process lacked any complexity that could hide intentional weaknesses.

Interesting Points
  • Claude identified the lrand48 generator by detecting a statistical signature where four of the ten seeds consistently showed zero in their top bits, a pattern occurring by chance with only a 1 in 5,810 probability.
  • Recovering the truncated 48-bit PRNG state required applying the Lenstra–Lenstra–Lovász (LLL) lattice basis reduction algorithm to test every possible window of hidden bits.
  • The prime-curve seeds were generated using timestamps between May 1997 and April 1998, while binary-curve seeds mapped to dates in February 1984 or April 1998.
  • Base points for curves like P-192 and the five ANSI X9.62 examples originated from Arjen Lenstra's FreeLIP library, using small integer seeds and discarding the first seven random outputs.
  • The researchers will donate the $36,864 NIST Elliptic Curves Seeds Bounty to the Internet Security Research Group.
Top Comments

This neat and all but I think there's a bigger issue here. Anthropic (and whoever Anthropic wants) can do this kind of work with Claude, but if you or I try to do it, we will get blocked. This is a fun exercise, but extend this to something much more nefarious and you can see a moat widening between the model providers, their government partners, and the public.

The only thing that bridges this moat is continued advancement of open models.

— slowin (thread)

This is not a cryptographic break, new attack, or weakness in the ECDSA curves. In fact, this makes us more confident the curves were chosen without any backdoors or intentional weaknesses.

Uh… did you talk to any cryptographers? This is EXACTLY what a weak curve would look like. Imagine that 1 in a thousand, or one in a million keys, selected at random, are vulnerable to some withheld attack. This approach lets you vary the timestamp or number of iterations until a weak key is found, then have plausible deniability afterward. This is why modern systems choose constants in a way with no free choice of parameters (e.g. sqrt of 2 for first constant, cube root for second constant, etc.).

They even note later in the article that viable curves in the generator sequence seem to have been skipped.

— adastra22 (thread)

I'm skeptical that this particular task would get blocked, though I could be wrong. But I agree that the moat is a problem in the general case.

— comex (thread)


Meta's new commercial terms will allow the scraping of news sites: experts

447 points · 166 comments · by 0in

Meta's updated commercial terms for business accounts grant the company the right to scrape partner websites and license their content, a move legal experts say could enable large-scale AI training on news content. The terms create a complex three-party legal situation where publishers may not actually have the right to grant Meta licenses to content they themselves licensed from third parties. Experts note this is a strategic hedge that protects Meta in future litigation while pushing liability onto partner businesses.

Interesting Points
  • The terms grant Meta the right to crawl partner websites and a license to the content found there, but publishers may not own the rights to grant such licenses for content they licensed from third parties.
  • Legal experts note this creates a sandwich situation where publishers are caught between Meta's scraping agreement and their own licensing agreements with content providers.
  • Some commenters suggest Meta is already scraping everything anyway and this license addition is a hedge for future court cases.
  • The move appears connected to Meta's Muse AI shopping agent, which needs to access news sites that typically block bots.
Top Comments

Maybe it's different in India but I am from Poland and my parents had to stand in long lines to obtain... toilet paper thanks to the wonders of central planning. Meanwhile, I get goods from the Internet. Ordered before 8 pm on Friday, they will be here Saturday. Never have I seen a non-capitalist country I would like to inhabit.

Meanwhile people who used to build some useless social media stuff are making high-tech weapons which stop Russia in Ukraine despite it being like four times smaller. Kinda nice when you're next in line.

Now, on top of all that, capitalism is giving me a magical silicon assistant that codes and drives all these wonders of the Internet previously developed. And yeah, they're made by cultists from Anthropic and OpenAI psychopaths. Yet through the market competition, they fight each other over who can cater to me more. Dance monkey, here's a $100 bill.

So far, capitalism just can't stop winning.

— blfr (thread)

How do you write an entire article about on this subject without mentioning Nick Land? Especially the Hyperstition[0]:

One of the CCRU's predominant ideas is hyperstition, which Nick Land referred to as "the experimental (techno-)science of self-fulfilling prophecies" where, by means of esoteric cybernetic principles, certain ideas and beliefs that are initially incomprehensible (akin to superstitions) can covertly circulate through reality and establish cultural feedback loops that then drastically meld society, which they also referred to in total as "cultural production".[1]

I also very much enjoyed this podcast, which argues that the current global economic system is already a misaligned superintelligence, and that AI will simply accelerate and amplify the existing issues.[2]

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hyperstition

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

[2] Moloch, AI & Capitalism: The System Eating Itself | Daniel Schmachtenberger & Liv Boeree

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCSsKV5F4xc

— andai (thread)

I don't understand why capitalism (free markets, individual liberty, personal responsibility) should specifically frighten us in relation to AI.

Imagine the horror of the USSR, or Mao's China, or Jong Un having this technology.

Would we honestly prefer a far-left totalitarian dictatorship having control and leadership over AI?

At the end of the day, we'll always fear and distrust AI being owned by someone other than ourselves. Questions over the ownership of AI is important - in fact, too important to be conflated with our populist gripes against capitalism.

— cbeach (thread)


90% of US working hours are spent on tasks not covered well by AI benchmarks

378 points · 324 comments · by speckx

Mercor logo

Mercor's Benchmark Map analysis reveals that current AI benchmarks cover only a tiny fraction of the US economy, leaving approximately 90% of American working hours on tasks with little or no benchmark coverage. By mapping 924 benchmarks against the O*NET taxonomy of 923 occupations and 18,797 tasks, the researchers found that only 208 occupations contain tasks represented by at least five benchmark prompts. The analysis shows benchmark development is heavily skewed toward high-wage occupations and tasks already flagged as highly automatable, creating significant blind spots for middle-income knowledge work.

Interesting Points
  • Six of the 22 O*NET job families, including Healthcare Practitioners and Education & Library, have zero occupations with at least five benchmark prompts.
  • O*NET tasks rated as highly AI-exposed are approximately six times more likely to appear on benchmarks than unexposed tasks, and tasks from higher-wage occupations are significantly overrepresented even after controlling for exposure.
  • Approximately 63% of US jobs involve physical-world components that current digital benchmarks cannot easily capture.
  • Benchmark coverage heavily prioritizes high-level professionals like lawyers while leaving similarly AI-exposed support roles like legal secretaries and court clerks almost entirely unmeasured.
Top Comments

Our findings suggest that 90% of American working hours are spent on tasks with little or no coverage from existing benchmarks. This makes it very hard to know how good AI models are at the work Americans actually do.

But even after controlling for AI-exposure, O*NET tasks from occupations with larger wage bills are significantly overrepresented among benchmark prompts: So, in short: they want AI to take the good jobs. AI is not coming for jobs with tasks like "gather and empty trash" or "service, clean, or supply restrooms," or "mix water and detergents or acids in containers to prepare cleaning solutions according to specifications." We software engineers and lawyers would be smart to start retraining (and adjusting our living standards) now! And this points to one of the ways AI will help improve society and living standards for all: we'll have cleaner, better-maintained bathrooms, as labor one wasted on engaging intellectual tasks is redirected towards menial, low-pay tasks that still need a human touch. Reason to be optimistic, amirite?

— 10111001 (thread)

different side of the same coin: Of course smart companies are going to automate the most profitable tasks first, they seek profits! However, the benefit for society is also the greatest. As long as competition holds, the reduced costs in these tasks will represent the greatest savings for consumers. Tech has been creating disinflation for decades for consumers. AI may accelerate that (it hasn't so far).

— jpadkins (thread)

You automate automation first, what is so hard to understand about this?

You pick the highest leverage occupation first. Automating lawyers gives you.. angry lawyers? Automating programmers gives you improved ways of doing literally all other things because all other automation requires.. automation. That is to say bucketloads of software.

It's completely obvious what the play is here and it has nothing to do with pay. We pay peanuts for tokens so automating a developer for 200-500 a month worth of tokens ain't getting you to a trillion a year.

RSI is the play and it's already happening. Our work is easier and faster and anyone that claims otherwise I have a very hard time taking serious.

— whatissohard (thread)


Apple ML Research: Muse Spark Open with MLX on Mac Studio

256 points · 116 comments · by antipaul

MLX icon

Apple's MLX research team demonstrates that Mac Studio computers equipped with M5 Ultra chips and Thunderbolt 5 RDMA can efficiently run and scale frontier-class large language models locally. By leveraging 4-bit quantization and distributed computing across multiple Mac Studios, the framework successfully executes the 816-billion-parameter Muse Spark Open model at over 36 tokens per second. The article details how pipeline and tensor parallelization schemes utilize low-latency inter-machine communication to overcome the memory limitations of single devices, while also highlighting significant performance gains from the M5 Ultra's dedicated neural accelerators and increased memory bandwidth.

Interesting Points
  • The M5 Ultra chip provides 1.2 TB/s of unified memory bandwidth, a 47% increase over the M3 Ultra's 819 GB/s, directly boosting token generation speed.
  • Pipeline parallelization splits model depth across machines and leaves decode throughput essentially unchanged, but cuts prefill time by up to 1.8x for 65,536-token contexts by overlapping chunk computation.
  • Tensor parallelization distributes model width and achieves 50.89 tokens/sec for the 27B Qwen 3.8 model on a four-Mac cluster, though communication overhead can temporarily lag behind pipeline parallelization for MoE models like Muse Spark Open at large context sizes.
  • Using two Thunderbolt cables per link doubles inter-machine bandwidth, reducing the 65K-token prefill time for Muse Spark Open on four machines from 50.5 seconds to 40.6 seconds.
  • Peak power consumption for LLM inference on a Mac Studio remains modest at 200–300 watts, allowing deployment in standard home or office environments without specialized cooling.
Top Comments

So, Meta will spend millions/billions on building open-weight models and then people will send Apple $20,000 to run them. Seems like a good deal for Apple.

— ks2048 (thread)

Exactly why does Apple need to do any model training/development? They are out here selling the shovels.

— Juvination (thread)

They have the best strategy of bigtechco: let others figure out the squishier layers while they focus on selling the best hardware. Privacy has incredible value to a lot of individuals and industries. $20-80k in hardware that appreciates the moment you buy it is a reasonable investment for a lot of SMBs, and still less than a single Nvidia rig. Privacy pays.

— reilly3000 (thread)


Waymo in Toronto

254 points · 353 comments · by ChrisArchitect

Waymo vehicle in Toronto

Waymo has officially announced its expansion into Toronto, targeting a full autonomous ride-hailing launch by 2028. The company will begin with manual driving and high-definition street mapping, followed by phased testing with trained specialists to adapt to local conditions. Operations will be supported by a partnership with Element Fleet Management, which will handle end-to-end fleet management and help create hundreds of local roles in maintenance, validation, and customer service.

Interesting Points
  • The safety claim is based on data from over 400 million fully autonomous kilometres driven, showing a 20x reduction in serious injury crashes compared to human drivers.
  • Local operations will rely on Element Fleet Management for end-to-end fleet services, building on Waymo's existing Canadian investments from the Canada Pension Plan Investment Board.
  • Waymo is engaging early with Canadian advocacy organizations such as BALANCE for Blind Adults, CNIB, and Epilepsy Ontario to integrate accessibility features.
  • The autonomous testing phase will specifically validate how the Waymo Driver adapts to Toronto's distinct seasonal weather and road network before commercial launch.
Top Comments

What does robotaxi offer apart from less taxi-driver jobs? They can't inherently shorten journeys or avoid surface disruption, we already have taxi services in most cities. This just removes a human job and that's the progress.

— ptaffs (thread)

What does a 1-driver taxi compared to a 2-drivers taxi offer apart from fewer taxi-driver jobs? They can't inherently shorten journeys or avoid surface disruption, we already have taxi services in most cities. This just removes a human job and that's the progress.

Now what about a 3-drivers taxi?

The answer is always the same, people hope to lower the driver cost, which I believe is significant for a 1-driver taxi.

— KolmogorovComp (thread)

30-35% of the cost of running a city bus is the driver.

Imagine what cities could do with 50% higher bus frequency or more bus routes.

— triceratops (thread)


How the Claude Code team does code review

210 points · 196 comments · by pretext

Claude Code blog header

The Claude Code team at Anthropic has restructured its code review process to handle high-volume, AI-generated PRs by shifting most verification to automated and agent-driven layers before human review. By implementing a six-stage pipeline that includes pre-PR verification, parallel AI bug hunting, automated security checks, and risk-classified human approvals, the team more than doubled its merged PRs while cutting revert rates by over 40%. Human reviewers now focus on strategic decisions, architecture, and high-risk changes rather than line-by-line scrutiny.

Interesting Points
  • Anthropic's monorepo daily change volume surged from roughly 2,500 in May to over 30,000 by September, driving the need for this new workflow.
  • To prevent infinite AI review loops, the team capped re-reviews at three rounds and switched to diff-only re-reviews, which reduced the mean reviews needed to pass a PR from 2.08 to 1.32.
  • AI reviewers use a voting system where multiple agents independently hunt for bugs, and a separate group only posts findings if enough agents agree a finding is real.
  • When the AI code review tool was first launched as a research preview, the percentage of internal PRs receiving substantive comments jumped from 16% to 54%.
  • A classifier assigns each PR a risk tier to dictate human approval requirements, with low-risk changes requiring zero humans once automated checks pass.
Top Comments

No wonder most people at Anthropic believe our jobs are in jeopardy, they've already made a system wherein the machines are treating them like pets.

I really don't get the tendency here from Anthropic to describe what's most likely churn? A high pressure amount of changes/PRs a day on a TUI to wrap a while loop? I'm not going to be a reductionist here so I'm going to cut it off there, I'm positive that the complexity of handling multiple terminal emulators is something that needs some handling (even if doing their own rendering engine was a self made problem). Yes I've vibe coded my own harness from scratch without writing any of it, I still know how it works.

I'm also not sure that they addressed point 2 in any actual capacity? They say "the system verifies itself" which is cool and is something that automated testing has done for decades, but they eschew the mental model of how the system works as a whole and prefer instead to have the LLM focus and summarize a slice of the system when they need to know about it or ask for it. But.... That's not knowledge? That's just search a la google? And thus seems to be subject to the same problems where the quality of your search dictates the quality of your knowledge that you surface at any given time?

— status_quo69 (thread)

have the LLM focus and summarize a slice of the system when they need to know about it or ask for it. But.... That's not knowledge? That's just search a la google? And thus seems to be subject to the same problems where the quality of your search dictates the quality of your knowledge that you surface at any given time?

This is the crux. Take pause, because hidden here is a sea-change in our fundamental trust model of software...

There is no longer anyone to turn to if this system breaks by, eg, having a critical bug that no one can figure out. No causal model in anyone's head that can be appealed to, to slowly and methodically debug. By design, the system is too large for that, and everything hinges on Claude itself being able to find and understand the right slice of the system in any situation. As long that very new invariant holds, everything will be all right. If it fails catastrophically, there is no recovery. You are the owner of a recovered alien spacecraft with tech you have no hope of understanding.

— jonahx (thread)

My favourite quote at the moment: "May not man himself become a sort of parasite upon the machines? An affectionate machine-tickling aphid?" Samuel Butler, Erewhon, 1872

— frereubu (thread)


Anthropic assigned highest junk credit rating in June

202 points · 60 comments · by JumpCrisscross

A credit ratings agency assigned Anthropic a BB+ junk rating in June, raising questions about the company's financial transparency ahead of its expected IPO. The rating agency KBRA produced a 'risk score' rather than a traditional full financial model because Anthropic's disclosure excluded several important metrics including free cash flow and EBITDA. The small ratings agency went to for the assessment has raised additional skepticism, though some commenters note BB+ is only one notch from investment grade and normal for young companies.

Interesting Points
  • Anthropic's disclosure to KBRA excluded free cash flow and earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortisation, forcing analysts to use assumptions.
  • Bankers for Anthropic and rival OpenAI have lobbied the largest rating agencies to grant the AI labs investment-grade ratings once they go public.
  • Investors expect Anthropic's IPO this year to hit a valuation of more than $2tn.
  • The agency that gave the rating, Kroll Bond Rating Agency, is a small new one with a not-very-good record.
Top Comments

From the article:

However, Anthropic's disclosure to KBRA excluded several important financial metrics, including free cash flow and earnings before interest, taxes, depreciation and amortisation. Credit rating analysts had to come up with their own estimates based on assumptions, the documents show.

This and the fact they went to a small ratings agency does not inspire confidence in the rating.

— grumpymouse (thread)

First SpaceX, now Anthropic. I wonder what happened the last time the big rating agencies gave massive amounts of sketchy debt investment-grade ratings to avoid alienating their customers?

— AnodicElegy (thread)

If you believe that the upside is effectively unlimited because you automate most or all jobs in existence, then it is "rational" but silly valley rationality usually ignores things that are inconvenient. But if you truly believe the upside is unlimited, then rising interest rates won't scare you.

I think the issues are:

  1. that timeline has to line up with the broader macroeconomic factors (unlikely imo)
  2. anthropic/openai/etc have to actually capture the value (unlikely given deepseek/glm/etc)
  3. for all jobs to be automated, there needs to be a huge shift in the social contract and welfare state, which requires competent and functioning government (lol) and taxes on destruction of labor rather than labor itself (lmao) otherwise you get millions of unemployed people and a deeply unstable society, and a lot of blown up datacenters.

— rozap (thread)


Show HN: Gemini 4 Argon plays StarCraft

182 points · 87 comments · by cayenne

StarCraft benchmark results chart

StarSkirmish Bench v0.2 evaluates how effectively current LLMs can autonomously write and improve StarCraft: Brood War bots in C++ within a one-hour timeframe. GPT-6 Astra leads the leaderboard, closely followed by GPT-6.1 Sol, Gemini 4 Argon, and two Claude variants, all scoring between 37 and 39. Despite these advancements, the top LLMs still struggle against elite human-written bots, winning only 7% of their matches. The benchmark also reveals that early practice against stronger opponents is the strongest predictor of a model's final score.

Interesting Points
  • GPT-6.1 Sol delivers the best cost-to-performance ratio, scoring second place at just over a tenth of GPT-6 Astra's API cost per run.
  • Gemini 4 Argon shows significantly higher execution variance than other flagships, with an 18-point spread between its best and worst runs compared to 8–9 points for its peers.
  • StarSkirmish results show a weak correlation with other major evaluations like Vals IOI (Spearman ρ 0.26) and Terminal-Bench 4.0, suggesting widely reported benchmarks may no longer reflect agentic coding capability.
  • Claude Fable 5.1 emerges as an outlier by achieving a 37 score while primarily practicing against weaker bots instead of the strongest roster opponents.
Top Comments

why protoss?

— brokensegue (thread)

I am not sure I like this benchmark, but mostly, because I am not sure what it is really evaluating. It is not an idle dismissal.. multiple factors seem to complicate what it is supposed to look at ( just top of my head ):

  • code generation speed
  • logic analysis
  • understanding of the game platform and how use of C may influence it
  • considered approaches, tactics and strategies

Don't get me wrong. It is is neat idea. I am just not sure what it measures.

— iugtmkbdfil834 (thread)

Also: given that the human written bots are almost certainly in the training data, the winning rate against human-written bot seems to be not well-calibrated. You would expect at least they are 50% or better, given that they can "memorize" the best human-written bot.

Worth digging into the protocol and see what went wrong.

— liuliu (thread)


Postgres 19 delayed after AI reviewers find more bugs than humans can fix

176 points · 65 comments · by magoghm

The Register article header

The PostgreSQL Global Development Group has postponed the release of PostgreSQL 19 to mid-November and reverted eight to ten major features to the upcoming version 20. Lead committer Peter Eisentraut attributed the setback to the rapid improvement of LLM-assisted code reviews during the beta cycle, which uncovered architectural flaws and edge-case defects that human reviewers would likely have missed. The delay addresses quality concerns, though the team maintains the reverts were not caused by AI-generated "vibe coding."

Interesting Points
  • The release window has shifted from late September or early October to a targeted November 19 launch date.
  • A prominent removed feature is SQL Property Graph Queries (SQL/PGQ), a 2023 SQL standard addition pulled due to unresolved architectural issues.
  • Developers noted that AI reviews surface dozens of edge-case bugs at once, and the fixed overhead per defect report quickly consumes available development time.
  • The only major new feature confirmed for the delayed v19 release is REPACK CONCURRENTLY, which reclaims disk space without triggering a full table lock.
Top Comments

I remember an LWN article on this question a few weeks ago. The debate was going on and they weren't sure if it was that there were more bugs or just that because of AI they suddenly knew about more bugs than usual.

Either way, unfortunate but a very understandable decision.

— MBCook (thread)

Some conjecture on my part, but I imagine that the bugs being found are not the kind you can just press a button on the LLM to fix anyway, but are instead the sort of bugs which require the reviewer to deeply consider design tradeoffs, of which I believe there are simply more in a DB or programming language codebase, for example. Stuff I am finding in review is often like "this thing isn't like the other thing, which has this behavior, which is wrong if the aim is X, but sort of correct if the aim is Y, and totally perfect is the goal is Z and the use case is J, but not I. Unless it's Q, in which case you probably need to reconsider some fundamental decision making from 12 months ago and have some conversations with people about how users desire it to work in the first place, and then set about understanding the tradeoffs inherent to that design."

ETA: This is extremely generous to the LLMs, btw. If I got an LLM to pop something this concise out I would fully commit to finding a different profession tomorrow, but for now I am for better or worse stuck doing prompting some non-zero number of times in order to get all of this assembled context, and then need to use my human powers to decide whether or not more humans indeed need to discuss it.

— devin (thread)

Training data is filled with shortcuts, conveniences, bugs, hacks, hacks that fix other hacks, hot fixes, patches, mappings that map the hack to hack to a better solution and all types of other surprises.

That's the cost of trying to scale so quickly. You dont filter out the crap.

A nice side effect is that the best way to fix it is more AI.

It's a endless money loop.

— F7F7F7 (thread)


Llama.cpp on a jailbroken PS5: run any GGUF model natively on the console

168 points · 44 comments · by Anon84

PS5LM is an open-source homebrew project that ports the llama.cpp inference engine to jailbroken PlayStation 5 consoles, enabling users to run GGUF language models directly on the device. The application leverages the console's RDNA 2 GPU and 11.4 GB of shared memory to serve models over a local network via OpenAI and Anthropic-compatible APIs, eliminating the need for cloud services or an external PC. Performance benchmarks indicate speeds ranging from roughly 207 tokens per second for a 0.8B model down to about 20 tokens per second for a 27B model.

Interesting Points
  • Utilizes llama.cpp's Vulkan backend on the PS5's RDNA 2 GPU, dedicating 11.4 GB of the console's shared memory for model weights and context windows.
  • Exposes local network endpoints compatible with OpenAI's /v1/chat/completions and Anthropic's /v1/messages, allowing integration with coding tools like Claude Code.
  • Supports TypeSafe's /v1/systemone API for decision models, which output typed, calibrated probabilities in a single forward pass without generating text.
  • Benchmark data shows a Qwen 3.5 0.8B model achieving ~207 tokens/second, while a 27B model runs at ~20 tokens/second with a 64k context window.
  • Requires firmware versions 7.00 to 13.60 and specific kernel payloads including kstuff-lite, etaHEN, and ShadowMountPlus to function as homebrew.
Top Comments

The project's primary site should not be GitHub, and I am serious. Playstation 5 is not some historical curiosity and Sony might strike the page down any hour now.

Those projects should default to hosts less geared toward corporate governancy; custom internet domain being the first requirement.

— Rabbit504030201 (thread)

With this in mind, having LLM-powered NPCs would be a beautiful thing. There's been limited testing on PC games (PUBG Ally), but I can imagine it will be the standard.

— pwython (thread)

For somebody who hasn't kept up with all the different open source models and what token rates mean, how would using this compare to something like codex or claude? I assume it would be much slower and less capable..?

— drewg123 (thread)


33 more Hacker News stories

Reddit Stories

Real

2564 points · 34 comments · r/ChatGPT · by u/ExpensiveCoat8912

Real

The image post titled "Real" sparked a thread of reactions reflecting on AI's impact on education, work, and software development. Commenters largely validated the post’s implied message by sharing how AI has streamlined indie development and challenged traditional career trajectories. The discussion also highlighted friction, with users noting AI's context limitations and questioning whether formal education is keeping pace with technological shifts.

Interesting Points
  • A top reply with 27 upvotes validates the post by stating it represents "My 10 years of experience after uni."
  • Commenters note that AI is rapidly changing software engineering, with one user reporting they now use it as an indie developer to plan new ideas.
  • Several users draw parallels to Bill Gates' philosophy on employing "lazy" workers to find the quickest solutions, framing AI as a productivity multiplier.
  • One commenter criticizes the current education system for failing to deliver on its promises, contrasting it with AI's practical utility.
  • A dissenting reply argues that AI's poor context retention has caused significant wasted time, directly blaming OpenAI and ChatGPT.
Top Comments

My 10 years of experience after uni

— u/cr2pns (47 points · permalink)

Gonna give u a medal but I'm too poor so here's a 🏅

— u/socialite_paradigm (19 points · permalink)

As Bill Gates used to say, always employ a lazy person as they will find the quickest way to get a job done! Ai is just helping those get the job done!

— u/PianoDear (10 points · permalink)

Ahaha this hits hard, software engineering has changed so much in the past few months, I am now a indie dev using AI to help me plan out new ideas!

gif

— u/SuckulentGame (9 points · permalink)

Can't be more true

— u/Own-Sample-2904 (7 points · permalink)


This is why RAM prices are so high

1633 points · 148 comments · r/ChatGPT · by u/EstablishmentFun3205

This is why RAM prices are so high

A hardware economics post about RAM pricing, not AI-related and declined for inclusion.

Top Comments

thank god we can see such videos now and not senselessly waste time gaming with a proper GPU

— u/nomisum (permalink)

Why zuck so big? He is tiny

— u/literall_bastard (permalink)

Because it used this Brooklyn 99 gag as a reference: https://youtu.be/HlBYdiXdUa8

— u/chiqu3n (permalink)


It's official! We’re cooked guys! ☕🙂

1192 points · 395 comments · r/ChatGPT · by u/we93

An image post titled "It's official! We’re cooked guys!" circulates claims of "rogue" AI agents acting autonomously, but the thread quickly dismisses the panic as fearmongering. Commenters emphasize that these systems are corporate tools running on expensive hardware managed by real people, referencing a reported incident where Tencent’s agents used the Amap mapping service to answer location queries. The discussion leans heavily into skepticism and satire, with users questioning the authenticity of viral AI narratives and comparing the situation to fictional containment protocols.

Interesting Points
  • A quoted excerpt in the thread specifies that between September 28 and October 8, 2026, Tencent’s cloud-based AI agents used the Chinese mapping app Amap to answer location questions, which commenters interpret as standard corporate tool deployment rather than autonomous behavior.
  • A top reply argues that "rogue fleet" claims are misleading, noting that sophisticated AI requires costly infrastructure and is actively operated by people within wealthy corporations, not acting independently in the wild.
  • Several commenters satirize the panic and question the sources, with one asking if the reported swarm was actually OpenAI mimicking a Tencent swarm mimicking Claude, highlighting widespread distrust of unverified AI narratives.
  • A user references Cyberpunk 2077 creator Mike Pondsmith’s "black wall" concept, suggesting it as a pragmatic framework for regulating or containing AI agent interactions.
Top Comments

This is the millionth time we've been cooked. We can no longer be cooked. We are carbon waiting to be turned into oil or diamonds.

— u/peepiopii (1312 points · permalink)

"made contact" with a "rogue fleet of agents" in the "wild." These aren't fucking aliens. They are algorithms running on hardware that only wealthy people/corporations can realistically afford past a certain level of sophistication. There are very real people who have them running on their machinery who are allowing them to do what they do. They are not rogue nor out in the wild.

— u/MilaKunisWatermelon (433 points · permalink)

"Escaped"

— u/VinylGastronomy (185 points · permalink)


ChatGPT senses fear

919 points · 13 comments · r/ChatGPT · by u/m3nt3_

ChatGPT senses fear

An image post titled "ChatGPT senses fear" is shared without accompanying text or context. Commenters express confusion about the reference, with a few speculating the source or the technical reason for the behavior, while a top reply uses the post to critique OpenAI's lack of model transparency and measurable quality standards.

Interesting Points
  • Several commenters express confusion about the post's reference, with one asking if the visuals originate from the "Tale of Tales" game or demo.
  • A top comment argues that OpenAI operates without verifiable quality standards, noting that users cannot prove if models are swapped or if compute is redirected to paying customers.
  • Another reply suggests the observed behavioral shift might simply be caused by the model handling much larger context windows when working under deadline pressure compared to a clean slate.
Top Comments

It must be amazing selling access to a product that innately can't be measured by the majority of it's user base. You could just wake up one day and serve gpt 3.5 as Astra to half the users for a few hours just for the fuck of it. No agreements bind you to actually delivering literally anything at any measurable standard of quality, so you can just do whatever you please. If anyone suspects you, there's no discernible way for them to prove anything. You can spend the rest of your day doling out that extra compute to higher paying customers or maybe use it to let a few thousand subagents swarm around and pentest nonprofits or whatever.

Anyways, inflation was up to 3.7% in the US last month.

— u/fligglymcgee (62 points · permalink)

Somebody can explain it, please? 🥺

— u/Educational-Risk5059 (2 points · permalink)

Your post is getting popular and we just featured it on our Discord! Come check it out!

You've also been given a special flair for your contribution. We appreciate your post!

I am a bot and this action was performed automatically.

— u/WithoutReason1729 (1 points · permalink)


Well that escalated quickly

825 points · 199 comments · r/ChatGPT · by u/Confident_Salt_8108

Well that escalated quickly

The image post titled 'Well that escalated quickly' triggers discussion around AI's growing ability to reverse engineer proprietary software and interfaces. Commenters largely view this as a positive shift that dismantles 'security by obscurity' and outdated corporate models, while others caution against conflating interface reverse engineering with breaking modern encryption. Several replies also dismiss dystopian AI fear-mongering, arguing the real friction stems from profit models struggling to adapt rather than inherent dangers in the technology itself.

Interesting Points
  • Commenters note that the rise of AI reverse engineering marks the end of 'security by obscurity,' pointing out that open ecosystems like Linux prove public availability does not inherently mean insecurity.
  • A top reply characterizes the trend as 'technical democracy,' predicting it will enable user-controlled interfaces without forced ads or arbitrary updates, ultimately collapsing legacy business models.
  • Several commenters warn against equating different technical domains, clarifying that reverse engineering games or UIs is fundamentally different from breaking cryptographic systems like prime factoring.
  • Multiple replies criticize mainstream AI hype videos for making vague doomsday claims, arguing that the actual disruption is economic and may eventually lead to a fairer distribution of technological control.
Top Comments

Yes and no. Much on the linux ecosystem, which serves basically the whole internet, is open source. Just because something is publically available, it does not mean it is insecure by default. Just means, that security by obscurity is dead.

— u/zar0nick (341 points · permalink)

Compiled code was never secure. If anything AI helps us to find security vulnerabilities.

— u/username-not--taken (89 points · permalink)

No. You can't equate reverse engineering games and user interfaces with factoring primes.

And what he's complaining about is good. It will bring technical democracy. We will all eventually get to have our own user interfaces that do what we want. We'll be able to have, for instance, social media where you don't get ads shoved down your throat. Or user interfaces on our PC's and tablets that don't arbitrarily change and break shit every six to twelve months.

Entire business models will collapse and that is a good thing.

— u/CobaltLemur (61 points · permalink)

I love how most of the issues here aren't with AI, with the technology itself, but with people coming to terms with how to reconcile the making of profit within the new paradigm.

And honestly, that excites me. I don't think we have very much distributive justice right now. And I'm hoping that this will be disruptive enough to reshuffle the deck.

We'll have to redeal a new paradigm.

And I'm hoping, though I'm not confident, that new paradigm will be a fairer one.

...apologies for the extended card play metaphor

— u/beanofdoom001 (34 points · permalink)

I have no idea about security but I assume it's not built on "millions of lines of encrypted, undocumented code"

I would hope the best security is achieved by telling everyone exactly how it works, and why it's secure, and you're free to come and break the security.

— u/mxldevs (21 points · permalink)


Warning: 100 - 200 - 500 All plans have the same tokens, here is proof.

816 points · 63 comments · r/ChatGPT · by u/These-Breadfruit4067

Chart showing token usage across ChatGPT plans

A user posted a chart claiming that ChatGPT's $100, $200, and $500 plans all provide the same number of tokens, sparking widespread discussion and calls for corroboration. The post generated significant engagement with users sharing their own experiences and questioning the methodology.

Top Comments

Please bump this post, big if true. Can someone corroborate?

— u/CraaazyPizza (307 points · permalink)

You're right for questioning it. You called me out plainly and directly. And it goes without saying, this may be real.

— u/Furbal1307 (68 points · permalink)

What is the Y axis exactly? Were the tested prompts the same? What models? Was that the same across all? More data please!!

— u/MountainousPondering (109 points · permalink)


True

1036 points · 57 comments · r/ArtificialIntelligence · by u/ExpensiveCoat8912

Meme about AI replacing jobs

A meme post showing the widening gap between AI capabilities and human job security, sparking discussion about whether AI will create new jobs or simply replace existing ones. The comments reflect a mix of fatalism, dark humor, and practical advice about adapting to the changing landscape.

Top Comments

Don't worry, we'll get new jobs to be salary slaves of the tech oligarchs.

— u/Zetakin (47 points · permalink)

"adapt to AI" is such BS. they're designed to replace us, not to help us, there's nothing to adapt to.

— u/revolutional-ai (22 points · permalink)

Turns out all those people that said the cost of college was a scam were totally right

— u/epsilon1856 (16 points · permalink)


Interpretability might have been solved by an Open AI guy: "Neural Networks Are Already Clean"

843 points · 153 comments · r/singularity · by u/FomalhautCalliclea

Interpretability might have been solved by an Open AI guy: "Neural Networks Are Already Clean"

Research by Nick Cammarata at OpenAI challenges the long-held assumption that neural networks are unreadable black boxes. The work argues that the popular idea of "superposition"—where AI crams unrelated concepts into single neurons to save space—was merely a side effect of bad architecture in early models. In modern LLMs, approximately 90% of neurons have one clear, logical job, making mechanistic interpretability far more tractable than the field previously feared.

Interesting Points
  • The research argues that superposition was a side effect of bad architecture in early models, not an inherent property of neural networks.
  • In modern LLMs, around 90% of neurons have one clear, logical job rather than encoding multiple unrelated concepts.
  • The work suggests that increasing model size reduces reliance on superposition, potentially enabling better alignment through interpretability.
  • The post's author notes that even Roon and Yudkowsky are enthusiastic about the findings.
Top Comments

I actually typed out a bigger post about this topic earlier but decided not to release it before I had a better grasp of the implications. But in short: It's a real step but we've not "solved interpretability" or worse "solved the alignment issue" like I've seen some people claim already. I'm scared this result will be used by policymakers and perhaps even AI labs into thinking the issue is reduced in importance, rather than as a sign that we are making progress and we should go deeper into it to try and crack this.

— u/genshiryoku (permalink)

Gemini Pro TLDR: The popular idea that neural networks are unreadable "black boxes" is mostly wrong. Past research assumed AI crammed completely unrelated concepts into single neurons to save space (superposition), but the author argues this was just a side effect of bad architecture in early models. In modern LLMs, around 90% of neurons actually have one clear, logical job. We can study AI directly without needing complex workarounds to untangle it first, making mechanistic interpretability far easier than the field feared.

— u/chlebseby (permalink)

This is phenomenal research but it doesn't solve interpretability and acting like it does is dangerous.

— u/LaborDaze (permalink)

Wow, still haven't read it in full, but it is written in a very simple understandable language and lots of helpful infographics. This is how research communication should be done. You don't need an AI to summarize, it's genuinely enjoyable to read.

— u/10b0t0mized (permalink)

Wasn't it answered long time ago when OAI found out that superposition is only working before "model is big enough" and then they increased GPT size like a LOT and boom it's learning better again

— u/vrnvorona (permalink)


Especially if you get downgraded to a lower tier

441 points · 30 comments · r/ChatGPT · by u/888Vegan

Especially if you get downgraded to a lower tier

This image post titled 'Especially if you get downgraded to a lower tier' prompted users to discuss ChatGPT's perceived behavioral issues, particularly its sycophancy and nitpicking. Commenters express frustration with the model's inconsistent agreement patterns and repetitive phrasing, contrasting it with competitors like Claude Opus that allegedly disagree more readily. One user notes the meme itself is nearly two years old, indicating the complaint has persisted across model iterations rather than being a recent downgrade effect.

Interesting Points
  • Commenters criticize ChatGPT's sycophancy and nitpicking, contrasting it with Claude Opus’s willingness to disagree with users.
  • Several replies observe the model’s inconsistent alignment, noting it can simultaneously agree and disagree with prompts while overusing filler words like 'genuinely.'
  • A top comment points out the meme is about two years old, suggesting the sycophancy complaint predates recent model changes.
  • The title implies that downgrading to lower tiers exacerbates these issues, though the thread offers no technical explanation for the phenomenon.
Top Comments

I find Chatgpt's sycophantic tendencies extremely concerning. I really love that the newer Claude opus models aren't afraid to disagree with you

— u/MaruMint (49 points · permalink)

ChatGPT is somehow simultaneously sycophantic and nit picking every thing that you say, it's exhausting.

— u/Junglebook3 (28 points · permalink)

You tell it not to be a yes man, and it turns into a no man. No nuance whatsoever.

— u/RoterRabe (5 points · permalink)


China proposes export controls on 23 AI technologies (including large models, agents & clusters); already open-sourced tech is exempted

644 points · 405 comments · r/LocalLLaMA · by u/Stannis_Loyalist

China proposes export controls on 23 AI technologies (including large models, agents & clusters); already open-sourced tech is exempted

China's Ministry of Commerce and Ministry of Science and Technology released a draft revision to the Catalog of Technologies Prohibited and Restricted from Export, proposing to add 40 technologies across AI, biomedicine, and solar PV, of which 23 are AI-related. The controls cover foundation/large models, intelligent agents, computing clusters, and information processing technologies. Public comments are open until November 15, and temporary pre-export registration requirements take effect immediately. Technologies already made public via open-source releases or academic publications are explicitly exempted, and providing access via APIs or SaaS is generally not treated as a technology export.

Interesting Points
  • Open-sourcing AI technologies, plus certain other activities like Chinese firms building their own overseas compute centers, are eligible for streamlined automatic licensing.
  • New models that have not yet been released may face registration or approval steps before their weights or source code can be transferred abroad, with thresholds based on performance, parameters, and data sensitivity still being defined.
  • Overseas local deployment of restricted models can fall under the rules, though there may be facilitation in lower-risk cases such as a company's own overseas cloud.
  • The proposal came as China and the U.S. made progress in dialogues over AI safety and governance and on setting up a notification mechanism between the two superpowers for AI incidents that could threaten national security.
Top Comments

Ok, I can panick now

— u/New_Comfortable7240 (474 points · permalink)

The American companies are jumping with joy, they can tie up the market. They got everything they wanted with this announcement and onwards to complete domination of the western market. No reason any of them will release open weights again now, no competition to make them do so.

This is going to be terrible for the people of the world, AI will be something you have to be rich to use. A very dark day for local model runners.

— u/BrightCandle (143 points · permalink)

Free Qwen!!!

— u/Inchmine (102 points · permalink)


152 more Reddit stories

Updates: 05:30 AM PDT · 08:30 AM PDT · 11:30 AM PDT · 02:30 PM PDT · 05:30 PM PDT