gpt5

That’s not true. US citizens maintain their constitutional rights at the border. That has been tested in court. This is not the case for non-US person.

To be fair, it doesn't seem like the post here is attracting high quality and thoughtful comments either.

I'm sorry, but the Fourth Amendment does not protect against the intentional destruction of evidence.

He could have refused search without a warrant, intentionally destroying evidence is a different legal matter.

I don’t get the sentiment of classifying it as a felony.

OpenAI’s model found security breaches in HugginFace’s system (it wasn’t even OpenAI running it, as it was a 3rd party evaluation company that didn’t secure it well).

OpenAI collaborated with HuggingFace to resolve the issues when they found out about it, and publicly disclosed everything to raise awareness. This is how things should work. These models are very powerful and fully controllable. The community here at the same time cheers for fully releasing the open weight models without any hacking limits and at the same time criticizes a proper response.

Kinda shows how we have moved as a community into moralization and vibes instead of nuance and productive discussion.

A little meta - I want to point out demagogic/populist comments like these that try to clear all nuance and brush a topic in black and white tend to come from a really small portion of the users here, but the same user (whose account is only 4 months old), dominates posts like this by posting many many bait-like comments in the same post that deviate the discussion away from meaning and insight.

This is just one example, but it has become unfortunately common across all social media platforms.

I don’t think it’s 90%, but also - fake content doesn’t apply just to LLM generated content.

When you go the places which are clearly at the target of bots such as commercial products, geopolitical issues, and politics - the ratio becomes bad.

This is also true in hacker news, but the moderation team here is good enough in burying these topics away from the front page for the most part.

You are mixing supporting AI (which HN is mostly against, but more supportive than other places), and thinking AI is dumb, which HN has been pretty persistent on for years.

I mean - just looked at this downvoted comment essentially saying the same thing - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49119464. And also the intensity of the replies.

I mean, the AI skepticism is still so prevalent today in HN, despite it solving decades old math problems, hacking into companies, making software engineer no longer code, etc. (all this just in the last year).

So nothing really has changed in this community's vibes.

Data centers don't really cost less in China. Perhaps even more due to trade restrictions and the difficulty of smuggling the chips in.

Electricity is a small part of the bill.

It actually is showing in public benchmark if you know how to look for it. For example, in Terminal-Bench 2.1, GLM 5.2 received 78%, while GPT 5.6 Sol received 88%.

Then Terminal-Bench 3.0 came out (where the questions are new), and GPT 5.6 Sol received 34.6%, while GLM 5.2 dropped to a whopping 4.6%.

I noticed it myself. It's not just that the models are faster, but that by becoming more capable, they can take on larger tasks, which require larger compute.

That's not true. An agent in a loop can test itself, review, verify and iterate as much as needed. That's one of the primary reasons more capable models tend to have a higher success rate.

I don't disagree that multiple tests increase confidence, but it's not correct to argue that an agent in a loop harness is equivalent to oneshotting

A smarter model would know how to communicate with you correctly, and not just throw jargon it has just invented at you without explaining it.

What was the change?

You can see the Pareto Frontier well in DeepSWE's chart here - https://deepswe.datacurve.ai/

ChatGPT 5.6 Luna on the right (cheaper) cover most of the frontier, with a point for Deepseek flash, and higher performance overlapping heavily between 5.6 Sol and Fable.

That DeepSeek point will probably move back towards Luna as deepseek announced a "significant" price increase coming to their API [1], which kind of demonstrates that beating the Pareto frontier is where the difficulty actually is).

[1] https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-08-06/deepseek-...

It's private companies making a bet on the AI boom.

What governments do (which is the actual content of the article) is betting on economic growth to exceed the growing debt.

Poor countries have a significantly higher rate of corruption, which means that the government itself is part of the crime syndications.

It is true that we see correlation between richer countries and lower level of crimes - across all layers of society.

Funny how you said "it turns out" when the whole point is that we don't understand LLMs - we just empirically see what they are good at.

Claiming that you understand LLMs is similar to saying that you understand how our biology work because you understand evolution. No - you understand the mechanism behind evolution, but not the complexity it produces.

They definitely are - the OP claimed that we are reaching "the end of the road for LLMs", based on absolutely no data and some handwaving on pareto distribution.

We absolutely don't know enough about LLMs and intelligence to make such a bold (and ridiculous) claim. If anything, all evidence point to the contrary, with new scientific breakthrough achieved across a variety of fields via LLMs.

I've been really struggling to understand how the HN community can so boldly claim that LLMs are going to stop improving or not really smart. I just read it as the "denial" stage of the stages of grief that a good portion of this community is in right now (which is understandable).

iPhone are in practice more reliant on central servers than ever before. Except for some games, if you take a random person's iPhone it becomes almost useless without internet connection. Which is exactly my point, it's not about compute, it's about people's expecations and priorities. The main driver of the need for higher performance chips on iPhones is its camera and smooth 120fps UI animations, not local processing for apps for almost all people.

However, the compute situation just skew it even further when it comes to LLMs.

Most people are already used to rely on the internet on basically everything. At best, they download a tiny chunk of entertainment from it when they go on a plane, and as soon as they land they immediately abandon that offline chunk.

In addition, LLMs, small or large, are highly parallelizable. This means that running on the same machine/GPUs many requests in parallel is significantly more efficient, and the sum of tok/s will far outweight any single user use case.

Those two combined means that unless LLMs reach the state of 'good enough' (TBD), I fully expect the economics and people's interest to align with 99%+ of LLM usage would be in centralized servers. (not dismissing the fact that there are use cases for local LLMs, and that the progress matters).

You need to be signed in to a paid account + change the default thinking effort.

I imagine that OpenAI will eventually roll out smarter models to the free unsigned version, but it's just a delay that also causes public perception delay

I'll just note that the ChatGPT version you used is 5.5 instant (with no thinking budget).

Unfortunately, this is the experience of most people with ChatGPT, which is why the broad population is so unaware of how intelligent and nuanced an AI response can be.

Let's not act like China doesn't use export controls for their geopolitical desires.

"China halts rare-earth exports to Japan after Japan detains a Chinese fishing-boat captain near disputed islands" [1].

"China suspends natural-sand exports to Taiwan following Nancy Pelosi’s 2022 visit to Taipei" [2].

"China bans exports of gallium, germanium, antimony, and superhard materials to the United States in retaliation for new U.S. semiconductor restrictions" [3].

"China restricts exports of dual-use goods to U.S. defense companies in response to U.S. sanctions on Chinese firms" [4].

"China bans exports of dual-use goods that could strengthen Japan’s military following tensions over Taiwan" [5].

[1] [https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/revisiting-china-japan-rare-e...](https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/revisiting-china-japan-rare-e...) [2] [https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/economic-sanction...](https://www.reuters.com/world/asia-pacific/economic-sanction...) [3] [https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/china-bans-expor...](https://www.reuters.com/markets/commodities/china-bans-expor...) [4] [https://apnews.com/article/1aebe98718e127365859b0fb0b63d07b](https://apnews.com/article/1aebe98718e127365859b0fb0b63d07b) [5] [https://apnews.com/article/0ea90fa798771c9fb650422ca3e21e09](https://apnews.com/article/0ea90fa798771c9fb650422ca3e21e09)

It's a common problem in math. The famous proof for Fermat's last theorem took 2 years to validate.

How can people in Hacker News still doubt AI's benefit when they are seeing in front of their eyes every technical profession getting disrupted to oblivion in the last year. Just ask basically any software engineer how much their profession has changed over the last 12 months

Obviously there is risk, but can't we really extrapolate the AI gains forward and just see how big it's ahead to become?

Most of these countries have been participating in bombing or getting bombed on and off for the last decade (and longer).

You are reading too much into the current media hype cycle, and not really reading the geopolitics in place, which puts a lot of pressure internally on these countries to not escalate further. This includes both Ukraine / Russia and the middle east which you are so eager to tie together on the slightest connection.

Not true. The US has been negotiating with Iran for over a year about a nuclear deal before the war started. This has all been public.

I don't know if you realize - but the Americans have offered IRGC a pretty generous deal that essentially removes almost all sanctions in return to stop developing nukes, and the IRGC itself is escalating the situation, which could force America to bomb Iran again.

Israel is much farther away and has an advanced missile defense system.

Israel also has a lot more options for retaliations against Iran then nukes.