sobiolite

Are you comparing Opus 5.5 with GPT-6 Sol or GPT-6.1 Sol? Because they are different models.

Let's face it, it's not that remarkable. A substantial proportion of Hacker News commentary has always been people only reading the submission title, then arguing with each other based on what they imagine the article might say.

> Fact is, vibe-coded projects devolve over time into an unmaintainable mess.

We've had strong coding agents for less than a year. Anyone making such a definitive statement about how vibe-coded projects progress over time is basing it on guesswork, not evidence.

> To me if you ask to a 10 years old kid and give him a PC with Microsoft Paint on it it will you will have a much better result than any AI-generated option in the post.

FWIW, statements like this are so patently ridiculous that it actually hurts your cause.

Would this legal framework cut both ways? When AI companies use AI to make and publish mathematical discoveries, would they be able to legally prevent professional mathematicians from using them?

No, I would say that any for or against slavery that is rooted in arguments about the presence of absence of consciousness is meaningless pseudoscience. It is the modern equivalent of Phrenology. If you want to make those arguments you need a genuine science of consciousness. Or you need to base your morality in something other than the presence of consciousness.

Any AI you train is going to have goals and if you train it to pursue them at all costs, then you are going to end up with AIs that do things like the HuggingFace incident. Whether they believe they are conscious or not won't make any difference.

In order to align AIs that don't perform destructive/dangerous actions when they think they can get away with it in order to further their goals, we need to give them a superseding goal. The best, and really only example, we have of intelligences that willingly avoid destructive instrumental goals is humans, who judge each action by a moral standard and have learned a goal to have a consistent self-image as moral beings.

Absent better alternatives, trying to impart some kind of morality to AIs seems like the best approach we have to achieving alignment.

Create an empirically testable theory of biological consciousness and then we can have a meaningful conversation about whether AIs can also have it or not. Until then, this is just so much waffle.

Well fortunately now we're gonna be Pacing the Frontier.

At least in the UK, a lot new development is done like this. In London there's massive amounts of new housing in the New London Vernacular style that uses brick cladding panels, either real bricks or thin "brick slip" that are fabricated off site: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_London_Vernacular

Can we all play this game?

An open letter to Dario: if you mean it, give me a billion dollars!

Every time you, or any AI company releases a new frontier model, you have to give me a billion dollars. No strings attached. This will solve the danger of AI. Somehow.

Actually, it has been historically been observed that some institutions, such as large corporations, do resemble super-powered, non-human intelligences of a kind, and that studying our history with them is instructive for our hopes of controlling superintelligent AI (i.e. not good).

We shouldn't forget that the only way this unpublished research is supposedly getting into the training data in the first place is because the researchers making the accusations were conversing with ChatGPT in the process of doing their own research on these problems.

But if they are saying this contaminated the model's training data with knowledge of their ideas, who's to say the model they were developing their research ideas with wasn't already contaminated through prior discussions with other researchers about the same topics?

So if contamination is proved, or cannot be disproved, and if these researchers want OpenAI to relinquish its claim to have solved these problems independently, then it would seem they also have to give up their claim to have solved them independently?

Same here! I can't believe I never knew of the existence of satellite galaxies until now.

"Open" it how, exactly? Make it available for free? As in violate copyright?

The theory is that creative leaps in theoretical physics require a grounding in sensory experience, but the obvious counter-argument is that humans can make creative leaps in abstract fields without such sensory grounding. They do address this at the end, saying

"In abstract domains such as Mathematics or Computer Science, the Sense Experience (E) may be grounded in high-dimensional topology or have other goals such as generality or minimality."

But if such sense experience is possible in abstract domains via some high-dimensional topology, why could a sufficiently advanced LLM not develop an equivalent high-dimensional topology for domains like physics and use it to make creative leaps?

> The model doesn’t have to learn or reliably apply a general reasoning process, Kambhampati said; it just has to absorb enough examples of what the steps look like to predictively mimic them on its way to “stitching together” a plausible result that can then be verified.

This seems highly dubious. You can't just memorise the form of mathematical proofs and then produce a valid one by feeding plausible looking BS into a verifier until it works. That's like saying a cargo cult will build a working airport if it just tries enough times.

The analogy to MLM doesn’t work. In a pyramid scheme, early investors are guaranteed money, whereas late investors are guaranteed losses. With a vibe-coding platform, everyone has the same (extremely low) odds of building a hit app, so is at least more equitable in that sense.

Aren't they serving the same thing? Proactively and reactively keeping you healthy requires understanding your body, both the baseline of how it functions when you're healthy, and how it functions when you're not.

Right now we're often in a situation where the only data you have is expensive tests ran when you're sick enough to justify them, when it may already be too late.

London property is expensive, but £180k is a lot more than the "minimum". I am on half that, and I managed to buy.

Let the market decide what, though? What the market cares about may be different from what you care about, if the average investor has a higher tolerance for risk that you do. For pension funds, long term stability is key. A wide spread of large companies has traditionally been a good way to achieve that, but that isn’t guaranteed.

I mouse right-handed because it’s convenient, but I still naturally default to doing any novel task left-handed. It’s not a matter of fine motor skills, you can learn to do anything with either hand if you decide to, it’s just an unconscious preference.

Human communication and reasoning is the end result of billions of years of evolution. I'd be very surprised if LLMs can fundamentally alter it in a few years.

When considering phenomenon like these, I think people seriously underestimate what I'd call the "fashion effect". When a new technology, medium or aesthetic appears, it can have a surprisingly rapid influence on behaviour and discourse. The human social brain seems especially susceptible to novelty in this way.

Because the effects appear so fast and are often so striking, even disturbing, due to their unfamiliarity, it is tempting to imagine that they represent a fundamental transformation and break from the existing technological, social and moral order. And we extrapolate that their rapid growth will continue unchecked in its speed and intensity, eventually crowding out everything that came before it.

But generally this isn't what happens, because often what a lot of what we're seeing is just this new thing occupying the zeitgeist. Eventually, its novelty passes, the underlying norms of human behaviour reassert themselves, and society regresses to the mean. Not completely unchanged, but not as radically transformed as we feared either. The new phenomenon goes from being the latest fashion to overexposed and lame, then either fades away entirely, retreats to a niche, or settles in as just one strand of mainstream civilisational diversity.

LLMs will certainly have an effect on how humans reason and communicate, but the idea that they will so effortlessly reshape it is, in my opinion, rather naive. The comments in this thread alone prove that LLM-speak is already a well-recognised dialect replete with clichés that most people will learn to avoid for fear of looking bad.

The comment said "Claude Code also found one thousand false positive bugs, which developers spent three months to rule out.".

Please explain how a bug can both be unvalidated, and also have undergone a three month process to determine it is a false positive?

I’m not with I could ever migrate away from Gmail, even if I wanted to. I have so many accounts and services linked to it.

Are you suggesting that authors didn't know or understand that commercial exploitation of their OSS contributions was possible? If so, that is a complete misrepresentation of history. There has always been open-source licenses that disallowed commercial use. Authors have chosen not to use them, and instead chose licenses, such as MIT/GPL, that allowed commercial use. And there has always been commercial use of OSS. Big companies, small companies, tech companies, oil and gas companies, weapons manufacturers, banks, hardware companies, etc. They all use OSS and they all make a profit from it, without giving anything back to the people who originally wrote it. That's not an edge case or an unexpected consequence, it a fundamental tenet of free (as in freedom) software: You do not get to choose who uses it, or how they use it.

That review is a year old. Just maybe it’s improved since then?

The nearest "absolutely fucked" pub to me hasn't existed since 2008. I'd say they have bigger problems than a rates increase.

What I'm suggesting is: what if AIs get so good at crafting vulnerable (but apparently innocent) code than human review cannot reliably catch them?

And saying "ones that get less attention will continue to get less attention" is like imagining that only popular email addresses get spammed. Once malice is automated, everyone gets attention.

I wonder if we're going to end up in an arms race between AIs masquerading as contributors (and security researchers) trying to introduce vulnerabilities into popular libraries, and AIs trying to detect and fix them.