sillyfluke

>People are so ready to praise China

Please quote people you appear to be patronizing. China can't do anything about previous released self-hosted Chinese models. If you can show that local Chinese models funnel vast amounts us data home I'm sure you can move a lot of people to your side.

Comments like this also always fail to address why there aren't Western AI companies doing the same thing. Is it because they might get sued into oblivion by Big AI in the US?

It might be better for all of us if you solve that first instead of repeating something the government has been repeating for the last decade or more. It does this, mind you, while sabotaging itself in countless high-tech fields and leaving it all to China for the taking.

It's may be scary, but it's something that normally would be obvious to everyone but is ignored due to the convenience of speed. Everyone knows that the longer something they have to review is, the more they stick to changing only things that are glaringly obvious and leave the rest in place. So everything ends up being 95% AI and 5% human, if that.

Well, that was fun while it lasted:)

So a dummy linear napkin calculation, knowing nothing about how this stuff works: given we've burned 30% of existing reserves from the beginning of the year, that's allowed us to get to $4.5 gas prices 7 months later. If things go linearly, the remaining 30 mil barrels before the non-emergency limit will get us 5.5 months. So will be at the reserve red line by March, and gas prices by then may be at $5.85?

How dumb is this calculation?

>people who regularly throw a party and people who never do it.

I have no doubt it might seem that way, but it doesn't seem like an interesting divide because the categorization doesn't really tell you anything about the people. But it's definitely a good rule of to thumb to remember the next time someone feels annoyed that "so and so never throws parties." It's also true when you visit friends in cities you never been. Some are natural and enthusiastic tour guides, some shun such a role.

But my guess is many the "never hosts" threw at least one party in the past and had a terrible experience and decided they suck at it.

I'm also assuming the never people you know are capable of throwing parties in terms of house size etc, and that you accounted for the ineligible in that respect.

I know people who are self-conscious about their messy houses and the idea of maintaining a presentable tidy house for parties would be enough for them to dismiss the idea outright even though they would like to do it in theory.

Hugging Face disclosed the attack. OpenAI owned up to it a week later. It's unclear when and if OpenAI would have disclosed it if HF hadn't already done so.

For a more recent example, OpenAI was chastised by Australia recently for notifying them three months after their agents attacked AUS government websites.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49825580

see [0]

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49889841

There were no US oil companies operating in Iraq after nationalization of the oil industry in the 1970s and Western sanctions and what not. That is, of course, when that changed in 2003.

There was certainly an argument to be made about the oil factor. [0]

Also look up the Halliburton controversy with respect to conflict of interest in the administration.

[0] https://fpif.org/war_in_iraq_the_oil_factor/

Thanks, it'd be interesting if there was an empirical testing study that reflected how much the labeling prevents the chemical contamination like the one observed in europe.

Not the parent, but I have heard of this as well.[0] The advice in the article is to try to drink wine that is 2010 or older.

But I do raise my eyebrow at the suggestion that US wine is somehow in a better situation and am not inclined to believe it unless someone provides sources.

[0] "Alarming’ increase in levels of forever chemical TFA found in European wines"

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/apr/23/alarming...

Not the parent, but I have heard of this as well.[0] The advice in the article is to try to drink wine that is 2010 or older.

But I do raise my eyebrow at the suggestion that US wine is somehow in a better situation and am not inclined to believe it unless someone provides sources.

[0] "Alarming’ increase in levels of forever chemical TFA found in European wines"

https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/apr/23/alarming...

>But also, what was the material damage to HuggingFace?

Just contemplating the idea that you're going to be the target of thousands of relentless brute-forcing AI agents till the end of time and that you're too dependent on Big AI to do anything about it would be enough for many people to throw in the towel.

Jensen seems to be whining in order to deflect criticism of the purchase price. I'm more inclined to believe HF warmed to selling after the incident because of the damn-if-you-do-damned-if-you-don't legal quagmire. Nvidia is one of the only entities that would be positioned to able to sue OAI in the future, or compel them to take more preventative measures.

Can someone give me more examples? I didn't realize this was a thing and am kind of facinated.

Thank you for taking the time to write this. Unfortunately, there are still people on this forum who argue that a turtles-all-the-way-down approach will somehow work out in the end and that the best way to verify LLM work is to add another layer of AI agents, whereas the only way to stop it is to ensure that the entire thing is built on some human verified last line of defense. Unfortunately, the higher up you go the more insecure people get when you ask for their supporting sources. They'll try to hand wave it saying they researched it or got others to research it for them instead of owning up to deferring the decision to AI. You know whats even scarier? When a C-suite doesn't try to hide the fact that they had the AI make the decision. Then it's just time to leave, or alternatively time to turn your brain off and collect your pay check until the music stops.

>Perhaps reflecting on the state of the market, I thought, could indicate who was actually in control. Where do investor and customer expectations come from in 2026?

This looks like ill-fated Gartner driven development on crack. Where does customer expectations come from in 2026? How about from your customers?

If you're doing enterprise software and talk to your users, you'll end up learning that the actual users of your software don't use 80% of your features. You might even learn they don't use your software at all, and that the software was mandated top-down from the C-suites or that the execs in charge forgot what purpose your software served but are too insecure to question it, unless and until there is a sudden pressure to cut costs.

>the difference here is that they’re calling for someone to stop them

Jesus Christ, that's my entire point. it's not remotely the same thing since the Sackler family wasn't going around telling people opoids were extremely dangerous while pushing them on everyone.

The point is if they know something to be extremely dangerous and keep doing it people would expect them to get prosecuted.

I find it best to first consider the software sector since this is where Big AI seems to make a lot of their money from.

There been many a capable dev who have come out and said they haven't been coding for 6 months or more in their jobs. So if there were no alternatives then Big AI would clearly be too big to fail at its current state because the collective reaction from software devs would be akin to having a bad drug withdrawl and they wouldn't know what to with themselves. They have been pushed to be more dependent on AI by the companies they work for. The more time passes, the less people there will be who will be proficient at coding.

At the moment Big AI is operating at a loss, if they are actually too big to fail and they've destroyed all the alternatives, then there is no stopping them from colluding with each other and jacking up the prices to whatever number they want. They can even eventually jack up the prices to exceed human salaries, because humans will have suffered skill degradation in that same time period. Hence the software dev companies will shrink and shrink since all the work can be done by Big AI.

I don't think brand strength is as much as a thing on the tech side. The criteria is, "How close is this to the capability of the model my competitors use, is it good enough for the works I do, and is it the cheapest." As long as the capability is there people jump to the cheapest model. There are people that have claimed that they have created workflows that have allowed them to do most of their work with open models. As long as this threat to Big AI exists it will prevent them from exceeding a certain threshold with respect to pricing, and restricting their ability to build datacenters en masse will prevent them from outpricing smaller models.

Any fallout from not being able to train on customer data is a secondary issue and can be addressed once open models start taking over and Big AI's strength diminishes. People can train their models on their own code at least. It can also go back it how it was, where people buy each others source code or open source it in a way to allow it to be trained by open models.

"Inference at scale" is less of a problem when people are self-hosting their small models.

>Because AI genuinely is an extremely powerful and extremely dangerous

I urge you to consider the elephant in the room you failed to mention if you earnestly believe this then.

In what world is anyone allowed to sell something they expressedly know to be "extremely dangerous" to the public?

Let's say I created a lethal pathogen that I know to be lethal in certain common environments but also know it acts as a "no side-effects" antidepressent for people in certain other environments and I release it knowing full well I can't control it.

When people start dying can I defend myself by saying, "Well I said and documented that it was extremely dangerous and no one came to stop me, so I don't see how you can blame me...If I didn't do it someone else would have."

They surely would if they could, but since they will inevitably use it themselves they would need to collude and make a deal with the AI companies to find some way to keep the public out and law firms in (one example being targeted knee-capping of the free and low price tiers with respect to legal matters).

The ridiculous overcharging thing was something I thought the entire public was well versed in, so the idea that someone could earnestly think that they would get a discount seems absurd to me. As I recall, even the Oscars gift bags given to nominees in one of the years contained a prenup template supposedly crafted by best-in-business (divorce?) lawyers where you just needed to fill in the blanks. If you weren't getting a discount before AI, you are not getting a discount with AI I would presume.

It is understandable to see the moat as the illiteracy of the public regarding the legal system because the concerted effort to keep that illiteracy in place is a disgrace. But when the stakes are high, the moat still is finding a lawyer who knows their shit and one you can hold accountable. Which is why I find the idea of lawyers being dependent on AI much more terrifying.

>It's a small tangent but I am constantly taken aback

I'm amused by your surprise.

>Its not even like its less techincal

I'd wager that, actually, it is less technical. We constantly see otherwise very techinical people here poking their heads up and admitting that they haven't been writing any code for 6 months or more, and the ones that brag about it are seemingly unaware that they've been reduced to being a technical PM (the ones that contest this probably havent worked with capable technical PMs). No one wants to engage with vibe-coded Show HN entries because the poster may not grasp the implementation. No one appears to be doing (or sharing) anything super novel with all this coding superpower they have suddenly attained so there's nothing technically interesting to talk about. The last time I found an AI application submission interesting was the one where the person was trying to turn their pet's random keyboard typing into a language (if I remember correctly).

If the guidelines banned any AI comments that didn't preface their comment with the model and version of AI they used, their application domain, and the programming language being used I'm sure there would be less contentious dorky debate and more technical/practical discussion.

And since many here don't see the endgame with AI resulting in anything good for their career or society, like the endless remote work debates, they comment because from a strategic point of view they do not want to cede the narrative to the other side on such an important topic. understandably. hence more dorky debates.

You should have just kept the last two sentences.

>The decision was indeed made by AI and humans failed in their duty to fucking verify it.

The decision to leave the decision to AI was made by humans. It's on the moronic humans for not understanding the limitations and flaws of the software they are using and believing the marketing material without constantly verifying their results.

How good or bad the software is an almost equally important but separate issue.

>All of them give you links to source material, in case you suspect they are just making it up.

You forgot to mention that when you click the links you will often fail to find the supossedly derived detailed text in that specific link (even though the title seems super related).

>so they made up a reason (hallucinate).

deterministically formulating a lie for public consumption is a lie, not a hallucination. Let's stop changing the meanings of words please.

Google didn't immediately create $20 and $200 per month paid tiers. The free thing lasted a long time (and you didn't need to sign in), and the initial monetization with ads, when it eventually came, was not immediately shoved in the user's face. the enshittification and bean counting came way later compared to the monetization blitz that occured with the AI companies.

My usual Chinese spots have pretty terrible food pictures, seemingly taken as an afterthought with no effort given to make the food look more appetizing at all. So kind of the opposite of false advertising.

I shouldn't be surprised, but it's still wild to me that people would trust robber barons rather than their elected officials to run their country. And this continues until you end up electing robber barrons as your elected officials, which is where we are at now.

The idea that anything of lasting good can come out such a preference doesn't seem conceivable. And if the educated think like this I guess we're passed blaming the poor and ignorant.

It's also a way to literally advertise to AI companies that you have some data worth plundering in an increasingly dead and sloppy internet that has diminishing returns for training.

>It’s just like the Hopper quote.

Not sure about Hopper, as I recall biographers of Lawrence of Arabia certainly made it seem like he was using the fog of war to do things he knew his superiors may object to.

Regardless, even if its misinterpreted it still has a kernal of truth and separate utility than your version, that is: the people in the field closest to the action have an operational awareness that may result in better decisions in times of urgency.

>No, it’s most certainly patently ridiculous

Is your argument supposed to be more convincing because you added the word "patently"?

>What does that mean though?

It means that when you find a way to bypass purely online identity verification checks executing fraud at scale is easier than the physical alternative. As you would say, this is patently obvious.

Yeah, when someone writes a vague prompt that simply says "Do what it takes to finish X" and the unleashed agents end up doing something lethal and illegal you would think its on the AI company to prevent any illegality and not the vague prompt writer.

>The implication that the solution to this is to somehow convince your direct competitors to do inferior in-person KYC for you is the most ridiculous thing.

People work with their competitors all the time (see Netfix vs Amazon). Whats ridiculuous is the claim that a scammer would prefer to show up physically at a bank and risk being exposed instead of operating remotely.

>leaking a selfie is pretty low down on the list of “bad stuff a bank could leak”.

don't some of them require a selfie while holding legible official documentation?