daveguy

So is a random number generator. That doesn't mean it can play Pokemon.

> A pre-trained universal classifier that can replace specifically-trained ones would have been considered just as much science fiction in the 2010's as the capabilities of modern LLMs. I'm not sure Jev is actually there yet, but at least it sounds theoretically doable today.

That's the point. It can't. And it's not even close.

Doesn't matter if it was a partial stolen solution instead of a complete stolen solution. It's the stealing part that matters.

I'm going to guess part of the influence campaign is getting stories like this removed from the front page of HN as quickly as possible:

https://www.technologyreview.com/2026/09/22/1144867/dont-be-...

eg:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49814211

Not even flagged, just disappeared.

Well, this one got disappeared from the front page fast.

Spoiler: openai could neither confirm nor deny that the model that "solved" navier stokes was trained on the chat logs of the mathematicians who did solve it using a similar technique.

1) Those problems did not go away. They only "went away" if you assume no one will ever need to read code again. And if you believe that, you clearly aren't reading the code already. Which I guess is why you think naming and architecture problems went away. AI is the absolute worst at architecture decisions.

2) not even sure what you mean by this

3) probably shouldn't admit that. It implies the reviewer has a less than average understanding of the code they're reviewing.

4) preventing and managing vibe code devolving into a pile of slop requires programmers not use AI. 80% accuracy repeated in more and more layers === more and more failures. In other words, the skill required is exactly the skill of being a good programmer without AI.

5) e) no AI all the time or only use AI as search. You're almost there with a and b. With c, it just doesn't understand well enough to "quiz you". With d, how are you going to know if the docs are correct if you aren't reading the slop?

Hahaha. I remember when musk and his merry band of sycophants were bragging about grok producing the only physically accurate bicycle. What happened?

Maybe a better approach would be to stop trying to get a product out of a slot machine?

LLM chatbots are software designed to manipulate, addict, and mine data. Just like social media before it. But anyone who bothers to read the output in a domain they understand will discover they aren't all that no matter who OpenAI steals research from.

Please tell me they are going to have independent computer scientists and security experts to ask questions that expose the doomerism/"rationalist" LessWrong bullshit. Please don't just let him spew talking points designed to make a deflating bubble look like a good thing.

You'd think that believing they are going to destroy humanity would motivate them.

Seems these things about genAI are fairly well established at this point. Hence the vast majority disapproval of genAI being forced on users and broad rejection of AI data centers. Did you have a substantive response for any of the three major negatives, or just your own low-effort, low-care dismissal?

It's all of the above. The unreliable empty garbage they barf out, threats to destroy jobs for oligarch asshat profit, and the resource hungry pillaging of neighborhoods. Oh, yeah, and also the crappy mush up of stolen art.

We have been able to stage reckless experiments with janky tools the entire time. Used to be it got you thrown in jail or at least a visit by the FBI. Says more about the tech bro dipshits than the tech, if you ask me.

Thank you to the author for disclosing slop writing up front. I appreciate you respecting your readers time.

And yet, curiously, they fall flat on their silicone asses until they have a copy of the test to "train on".

75 years and counting and considering we don't have any plan to get to a single one of those things, I'm going to say 75 years. Computation alone is at least 30 years. You may not appreciate the complexity of biological systems, but single cell organisms have more capability to adapt than LLMs.

Isn't that primarily what they offer anyway? So "subscription required" would check that box.

Maybe they'll ask for a "slower pace of development" so it doesn't look as much like they're just asking for new regulatory barriers on their competition.

I am 100% certain the code you write by hand will be better quality, even with AI pointing out options, than letting the AI string together completely obtuse abstractions.

Yup. More hype mania from someone with a financial interest in people abdicating their thought to AI.

Rapid, empty, and poorly integrated code that appears to work but no one bothers to understand is much less valuable than everyone seems to believe.

It's something an LLM would never be able to come up with because it requires a depth of experience that LLMs just don't have. It's authentically human.

I'm not sure why you think I was assuming that. Or why either of those wouldn't be a valid reason their actions shouldn't result in punishment the most direct way possible to the parent. A loss for their own team. That's not a good outcome for someone who treats their kid as a lottery ticket no matter who they were harassing. Although I do understand the response in a sibling post that it still gives the asshat parent some degree of control over policy and outcome. It seems like you may have mistaken some of what I said as implying something about the recipient of the abuse. Nothing I said had anything to do with the recipient of abuse. Just the parent and the team they want to win for vicarious satisfaction.

This makes more sense. Automatic loss for the offending parent.

Result is a permanent cancellation? Does that mean the match is nullified or the winner at the time wins? Either way, one team could draw a strategic black card. Seems like cancellation of the match is not the correct outcome. What about penalizing the harassing team? A red card result for the team (down a player for the next game). This seems like an odd way to handle abusive behavior from parents. Abandoning the current game may be good if parents are behaving that way, but there needs to be a serious consequence for the parent's team too. Otherwise it will just be another tool.

But.... Money. (as if no one understands this is regulatory capture and/or failure to improve... aka Money)

Wait... Which of the 2 did Altman not do where Amodei did? I mean, maybe not quite 8 attempts at regulatory capture. But come on. And the only reason OpenAI didn't get blacklisted is they rolled over for the worst applications.

One question: did you jump straight from programming to depending on the AI without looking at the code? If so, I've got some bad news for you.