hyperpape

I'm a human, and that's not a foot, it's a smokestack.

But as you pointed out, while that absolves ChatGPT, it makes Opus look worse.

It mentions toil and postmortems, which are pretty relevant to the teams you work with.

If that were true, they’d have axed their margins.

> was a legal immigrant

Technically true, extremely misleading. The law placed vastly fewer restrictions on who was a legal immigrant for much of that period. Of course, it is true starting in 1921, and 1924, legislation was put in place to limit immigration by "undesirables" such as Asians, Italians and Slavs.

Curious...which one of those regimes do you want to bring back?

Completely wrong, except possibly if you're defining Social Security as welfare, in which case honesty would compel you to note that no one draws Social Security except based on having previously made contributions via dedicated taxation for social security.

> “That is to say that if you reduce air conditioning throughout your life … when you get to 30 degrees in the office, you won’t be hot. In La Réunion, people are used to 30 degrees.”

Your mileage may vary. I live without air conditioning, but when it’s 30, I’m pretty tempted to defect. But I also tend to run hot.

What kind of AI is this? ChatGPT says a square is a rectangle. Google search says it.

Not defending Meta, they suck.

I realize the idea that rules exist even if you dislike the people they (momentarily) protect, even if those people have violated them, is a tough pill to swallow.

I am just an American, but I live in Portugal and it is legally not allowed to film people in public without their consent (you also can't have a street facing surveillance camera like in the US). Moreover, people take this rule very seriously. If it appears that you are doing so, they will be visibly bothered (I know some kids who have had uncomfortable interactions because they weren't aware).

I don't think blurring faces fully addresses that (though I'm not commenting on legality in Amsterdam).

I can see the argument that this video is in the public interest (hey, I'm Americanese), but it does seem plausible some people would find it a violation of a norm.

You're half right, half not.

This is evidence, but it would be a mistake to think that high profile online contests would have the same dynamics as low profile online polling. 4chan is characterized by an insane level of effort on the specific jokes that they care about. But they don't care about a random poll nearly as much as they care about big stunts like this.

There are also bug-fixes and performance improvements that are not going to show on the page I linked.

I do think it’s plausible this is a smaller release. Not that this was the real point of the discussion, but I think it’s still just a good idea to have more than one release a year. It keeps things moving smoothly, and lowers the cost of missing a release, which has beneficial effects.

You’re only counting JEPs, which are only for more involved features. There are lots of changes to the JDK apis that are used by other runtimes. See, for instance: https://javaalmanac.io/jdk/27/apidiff/26/.

Admittedly, the terminology here is almost designed to be maximally confusing, and I’ve never read a good post that laid out how everything relates.

That would absolutely be a dick move on the part of the website and would confuse users.

Also, in this case, the game name is not “Game A” but something like “Deep Seek v4 Pro”, which they have previously chosen to use to describe Deep Seek v4 Pro, not Deep Seek v4.1 Flash.

Crossing the street and Russian roulette both have non-deterministic risks of injury. And yet I would be bothered to find out that that on my way to work, I was playing Russian roulette by surprise.

I’ve seen several false (or apparently false) accusations of LLM authorship on HN/Lobsters.

However, we have to distinguish a few hypotheses:

1. No careful readers will notice when a piece is AI written.

2. Careful readers will generally not notice AI writing.

3. Everyone who writes comments on HN will reliably classify writing as AI or not.

Yes, 3 is not true, but Bryan’s point depends on something in the area of 2.

The ability to distinguish AI writing depends on having a good ear. For people who lack it, they either don’t notice and don’t care, or they make paranoid accusations against anything that is remotely non-standard (“you used an em-dash, you must be AI!”).

I’ve thought about this before and come to very similar conclusions. The ELO range between the best and worst players is meaningful, but you can’t just read off the depth of the game from it in the senses we most care about.

I will admit I shouldn’t have said “garbage”, because it is too emotional.

But I absolutely think it is bad for the reader, and deserves to be called out. Authors should know that it’s not good enough.

I don’t really care that it’s AI, the problem is that it’s bad AI writing.

The summary I shared is much more straightforward. It’s mediocre, but just barely good enough to extract the message without making me super annoyed.

> This article is the story of chasing that number down to a single machine instruction, and then finding out that the instruction was only half of the answer.

> So the difference has to be in what the JIT generated, and the profiler gives us exactly that.

> That is the whole vocabulary. Let’s read some code.

> Decoding the x86 version instruction by instruction is out of scope here.

> What is not architecture specific is the logic.

Here’s a segment flagged by Pangram: https://www.pangram.com/history/87e25169-30a4-4030-a65a-dba8...

I'm genuinely curious about the effect, but I simply don't have patience for the AI writing. Can anyone give an actual non-garbage explanation with some respect for the reader?

Slightly less annoying summary from ChatGPT free: https://chatgpt.com/share/6a9ac7a3-15a0-83eb-8c2a-6f72cd9beb....

Caveat emptor: it makes high level sense, but I haven’t thought about it in detail.

This is within the realm of reasonable opinion, but I'd tentatively say it's an uncommon one--I thought it's generally agreed that the very best players of that era didn't lag contemporary players in terms of skill, only theory. I may be wrong, though.

> You can't compare Elo ratings over long stretches of time, period.

I agree that you cannot do it reliably, in principle.

However, Bobby Fischer peaked at 2785, and Gary Kasparov peaked at 2851. These are not far from what informed observers suggest--maybe 50 or 100 points off. They are well into super-grandmaster territory. Kasparov would be 1st today, Fischer would be 4th.

But on goratings.org, the top player of the 90s would be roughly 30th today.

My point is that the go ratings are much more unstable than the chess ratings. With chess ratings, you'll be wrong in the details. With go ratings, you'll be catastrophically wrong.

It's not obvious to me, but I lean towards saying this is false. The 2026 player would play a better AI inspired opening, but I'm not sure that would be enough to overcome the skill difference.

(This is especially true if they don't get briefed "this is time-traveling Lee Changho, he doesn't know contemporary joseki, play a trap variation").

Don't think everything is just "who can produce the biggest/smallest number": https://mathstodon.xyz/@tao/117208619314517025.

You're right that Shin Jinseo is a generational talent, and more dominant than anyone since Lee Changho (peaked in the 90s and was strong into the early-mid 2000s).

However, you can't compare goratings over time, the top ranks are not nearly stable enough. https://www.goratings.org/en/history/ (I think it's believable Shin Jinseo is better than Lee Changho, but not that there has been steady progress since the days of Lee Changho, so that there are now 20 players stronger than him).

It significantly predates Claude, and has been one of, if not the best engine in the world for many years.

If you scaled Shin Jinseo to 2800, you would have players with extremely negative ratings. This page shows ratings of European players on a roughly aligned scale: https://europeangodatabase.eu/EGD/createalleuro3.php?country.... It still has negative numbers on it, and this only contains players who have attended a tournament (though it's more common for beginners to play tournaments in the west, since it's hard to find times to play).

It's not a comparison of the worth of the games (I play both, though I'm better at Go, and prefer it), but the dynamic range of Go is larger.

That said, any cross-game/sport comparisons of this kind are pretty tough to do properly.

Maybe, but that's sort of begging the question that those open weight models aren't significantly trained using "distillation"[0]

[0] not technically distillation. https://thomasdullien.github.io/posts/2026-06-15-rl-economic...

This is based on a 108 page prose paper that the repository links to. Of course, that's a very difficult paper as well, I don't know how many people would be qualified to read and digest it, but they do exist.

A lot of people say this is a reasonable feature, and I agree (I would strongly consider having it on), but that's not the defense they think it is.

- Having the feature available seems good.

- Having the feature default on is debatable, but not outside the realm of possibility.

- Having the feature default on, without any kind of release notes that say that it happens and link to the option to disable it is clownshoes "bring back the ghost of Steve Jobs to yell at the product team" type behavior.