MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by throwaway3060 | 2025-08-10 00:47:26+00:00
If a kid in the Soviet Union was interested in art and used that to express national memory, then there would be consequences. As an adult, they'd probably be sent to a gulag and never seen again. This is how the Soviet Union crushed national memories beyond just the name (never the name itself, making sure they knew they were "different" somehow).

They didn't succeed in completely crushing all national memories, but a few more decades and who knows what might have happened.
by hexage1814 | 2025-08-10 00:47:52+00:00
Gary Marcus would have wrote this article in all possible scenarios, unless ChatGPT 5 was literally AGI (maybe even it were, he would still have found something to attack). There is valid criticism, and there is just being a contrarian for the sake of being a contrarian.

The whole thing feels less like “Hey, this is why I think the model is bad” and more like the kind of sensationalist headline you’d read in a really trashy tabloid, something like: “ChatGPT 5 is Hot Garbage, Totally Fails, Sam Altman Crushed Beneath His Own Failure.”

Also, I have no idea why people give so much attention to what this guy has to say.
by A_D_E_P_T | 2025-08-10 00:48:37+00:00
I don't think that GPT-5 Pro is much better (if better at all) than o3-pro. It's markedly slower. Output quality is comparable. It's still quite gullible and misses the point sometimes. It does seem better, however slightly, at suggesting novel approaches to problem solving. My initial impressions are that 5-pro is maybe 0-2% more knowledgeable and 5-10% more inventive/original than o3-pro. The "tone" and character of the models feel exactly the same.

I'll agree that it's superhuman and state-of-the-art at certain tasks: Formal logic, data analysis, and basically short analytical tasks in general. It's better than any version of Grok or Gemini.

When it comes to writing prose, and generally functioning as a writing bot, it's a poor model, obviously and transparently worse than Kimi K2 and Deepseek R1. (It never ceases to amaze me that the best English prose stylists are the Chinese models. It's not just that they don't write in GPT's famous "AI style," it's to the point where Kimi is actually on par with most published poets.)
by SerCe | 2025-08-10 00:49:30+00:00
Here are my reasons why this "upgrade" is, in experience, a huge downgrade for Plus users:

* The quality of responses from GPT-5 compared to O3 is lacking. It does very few rounds of thinking and doesn't use web search as O3 used to. I've tried selecting "thinking", instructing explicitly, nothing helps. For now, I have to use Gemini to get similar quality of outputs.

* Somehow, custom GPTs [1] are now broken as well. My custom grammar-checking GPT is ignoring all instructions, regardless of the selected model.

* Deep research (I'm well within the limit still) is broken. Selecting it as an option doesn't help, the model just keeps responding as usual, even if it's explicitly instructed to use deep research.

[1]: https://openai.com/index/introducing-gpts/
by Analemma_ | 2025-08-10 00:49:34+00:00
I expect them not to lie? If it's worth hyping hard, hype it hard. If it's an incremental improvement, don't.

It makes me crazy that this kind of institutionalized lying is so normal in the Valley that we get comments like yours shaming people for not understanding that lies are the default baseline. Can't we expect better? This culture is what gives us shit like Theranos, where we all pretend to be shocked even though any outside analysis could see it was an inevitable outcome.
by TheAceOfHearts | 2025-08-10 00:49:50+00:00
I've come around to the opinion that he's a bad faith actor riding the anti-AI attention train. Everything that he has said has also been said by other, more reasonable people. To give a concrete example: for years Yann LeCun has been banging the drum that LLMs by themselves are insufficient to build general intelligence and that just scaling up will not be enough.

At some point I entertained a few discussions where Gary Marcus was participating but from what I remember, it would never go anywhere other than a focus on playing around with definitions. Even if he's not wrong about some of his claims, I think there are better people worth engaging with. The amount of insight to be gained from listening to Gary Marcus is akin to that of a small puddle.
by tomhow | 2025-08-10 00:49:51+00:00
Those comments seem to me to be a combination of Dad jokes and “home truths” from someone who has lived long enough, witnessed enough, and whose career achievements are objectively impressive enough, that their perspective should be at least a little food for thought.

Of the “home truths”, of course people can disagree and debate them, but we should ask ourselves what we know that they don't know before dismissing them out of hand.

All that aside, we still don't call people we disagree with trolls on HN; that's a term reserved for consistently-bad actors who should be banned.
by computegabe | 2025-08-10 00:51:34+00:00
OpenAI could create the best model ever made, call it GPT-5, and it still would've failed to meet the expectations of the people for "GPT-5" after the meme community hyped it up and OpenAI embraced the memes and hype. If anything, OpenAI should have rejected the memes and embraced gradual improvements, but that wouldn't hold up well for their investors, the narrative, or even perhaps the AI ecosystem. We are at the peak.
by garciansmith | 2025-08-10 00:51:37+00:00
In the United States something simply being old in no way makes it historic in any legal sense (e.g., contributing to a local historic district): integrity[1] matters if you are trying to legally deem a resource historic and worthy of some sort of preservation effort. Generally speaking buildings, structures, or objects need to be at least 50 years old, integrity aside (but there are exceptions if they are particularly noteworthy).

I tend to disagree with the need to tear stuff down just because it's old: it's so terribly wasteful. We need to get better at adapting, reusing, and adding on to older buildings. Granted, when developers just want to use the cheapest materials possible and build something that will start to have serious problems in 20 years, it's a problem, to say nothing of the loss of serious knowledge in various skilled trades.

[1] In most cases the National Register of Historic Places aspects of integrity are used for evaluation: integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feeling, and association.
by jpetso | 2025-08-10 00:52:21+00:00
Bookworm stayed on Plasma 5.27.5 when Plasma shipped bugfix releases up to 5.27.12. Debian may have cherry-picked a handful of patches from there, but that's a lot of bugfixes missed on a release that was already super old.

Even at this point, Plasma 6.4 has been out for almost two months and 6.3 will not get any more updates ever. While everyone else is upgrading, Debian is going to be stuck on an already unsupported version for another two years or however much.

Debian is great for what it is, but you better hope you don't run into issues with your desktop environment because they will not be addressed.
by awesome_dude | 2025-08-10 00:53:13+00:00
One of the things that I have realised is, at this moment in time, it's absolutely a bad idea to buy a subscription for any of the models right now.

The offerings are evolving and upgrading at quite a rapid pace, so locking into one company's offering, or another's, is really wasted money (Why pay 200/year upfront for something that looks like it will be outdated within the next month (or quarter))

> The real story is running these models at true performance max likely could go into the thousands per month per user.

A loss leader model like that failed for Uber, because there really wasn't any other constraints on competition doing the same, including under pricing to capture market share - meaning it's a race to the bottom plus a test on whose pockets were the deepest.
by storus | 2025-08-10 00:53:35+00:00
The worst thing is when LLMs introduce subtle bugs into code and one just can't spot them quickly. I was recently doing some Langfuse integration and used Cursor to generate skeleton code for pushing some traces/scores quickly. The generated code included one parameter "score_id" that was undocumented in Langfuse but somehow was accepted and messed the whole tracking up. Even after multiple passes of debugging I couldn't figure out what the issue with tracking was, until I asked another LLM to find any possible issues with the code, that promptly marked those score_id lines.
by nchmy | 2025-08-10 00:54:30+00:00
I wonder if there could be something between None and Weak...

Don't check if it's the leader, but rather check (ideally locally, via some sort of flag that is updated on writes - when it's going to be communicating with the cluster anyway) if it's still part of the cluster/quorum. If so, then read locally. If not... reject the request since it might be stale?

The idea is that it is stronger than None, but weaker than doing reads (or any communication at all at read-time) from the Leader.
by rasz | 2025-08-10 00:55:19+00:00
>386 has eight pins labeled "NC" (No Connect)

and Cyrix 486DLC hijacks 7 of those :)

A20M# (F13) - when supported by motherboard you can L1 cache whole ram instead of leaving first 64KB uncached

FLUSH# (E13) - when supported by motherboard you dont have to use hacks and flush L1 on every DMA access. Hacks (BARB mode) seemed clever at the time until everyone had a Sound Blaster DMAing audio constantly invalidating cache while gaming.

RPLSET (C6) RPLVAl (C7)- L1 cache status debug outputs

SUSP# (A4) SUSPA# (B4)- suspend support, wakes on INT and NMI. Good for laptops.

>The surprising thing is that one of the No Connect pads does have the bond wire in place

Somehow Cyrix picked this particular pin (B12) for KEN# input (enable L1 cache) :O

>From the circuitry on the die, this pin appears to be an output

Meaning the _one_ NC pin Intel CPU actually wires, an output no less, Cyrix demands driven low to enable cache.
by mdp2021 | 2025-08-10 00:56:00+00:00
> they don't see individual letters

Yet they seem to be from many other tests (characters corrections or manipulation in texts, for example).

> The fact that reasoning models can count letters, even though they can't see individual letters

To a mind, every idea is a representation. But we want the processor to work reliably on them representations.

> If we don't allow a [mind] to base its reasoning on the training data it's seen, what should it base it on

On its reasoning and judgement over what it was told. You do not repeat what you heard, or you state that's what you heard (and provide sources).

> uses randomness

That is in a way a problem, a non-final fix - satisficing (Herb Simon) after random germs instead of constructing through a full optimality plan.

In the way I used the expression «chancey guesses» though I meant that guessing by chance when the right answer falls in a limited set ("how many letters in 'but'") is a weaker corroboration than when the right answer falls in a richer set ("how many letters in this sentence").
by BearOso | 2025-08-10 00:56:09+00:00
I've tried making snap packages, but I discovered they're very tightly tied to Ubuntu's base packages. They're not portable at all. In essence they're effectively just a secondary Ubuntu-specific package format for user-level applications.

For example, with flatpak you select a base runtime for your package that contains mostly system-agnostic libraries. With snap, you specify an Ubuntu version as a base runtime and additional dependencies that are Ubuntu packages.
by starchild3001 | 2025-08-10 00:56:10+00:00
I asked GPT-5 and Gemini 2.5 Pro what they think about Gary Marcus's article. I believe Gemini won by this paragraph:

It seems Sam Altman's Death Star had a critical design flaw after all, and Gary Marcus is taking a well-earned victory lap around the wreckage. This piece masterfully skewers the colossal hype balloon surrounding GPT-5, reframing its underwhelming debut not as a simple fumble, but as a predictable, principled failure of the entire "scaling is all you need" philosophy. By weaving together viral dunks on bike-drawing AIs, damning new research on generalization failures, and the schadenfreude of "Gary Marcus Day," the article makes a compelling case that the industry's half-a-trillion-dollar bet on bigger models has hit a gilded, hallucinatory wall. Beyond the delicious takedown of one company's hubris, the post serves as a crucial call to action, urging the field to stop chasing the mirage of AGI through brute force and instead invest in the harder, less glamorous work of building systems that can actually reason, understand, and generalize—perhaps finally giving neurosymbolic AI the chance Altman's cocky tweet so perfectly, and accidentally, foreshadowed for the Rebel Alliance.

My take on GPT-5? Latency is a huge part of the LLM experience. Smart model routing can be a big leap forward in reducing wait times and improving usability. For example, I love Gemini 2.5 Pro, but it’s painfully slow (sorry, GDM!). I also love the snappy response-time of 4o. The most ideal? Combine them in a single prompt with great model routing. Is GPT-5’s router up to the task? We soon shall see.
by chmod775 | 2025-08-10 00:56:43+00:00
At this point the single biggest improvement that could be made to GPTs is making them able to say "I don't know" when they honestly don't.

Just today I was playing around with modding Cyberpunk 2077 and was looking for a way to programmatically spawn NPCs in redscript. It was hard to figure out, but I managed. ChatGPT 5 just hallucinated some APIs even after doing "research" and repeatedly being called out.

After 30 minutes of ChatGPT wasting my time I accepted that I'm on my own. It could've been 1 minute.
by mikert89 | 2025-08-10 00:56:45+00:00
I think it is, I've been using these models for 6 hours a day for almost a year. At any given time I have 2 of the max subscriptions (right now grok and openai).

I have a bug that was a complex interaction between backend and front end over websockets. The day before I was banging my head against the wall with o3 pro and grok heavy, gpt5 solved it first try.

I think its also true that most people arent pushing the limits on the models, and dont even really know how to correctly push the limits. Which is also why openai is not focussed on the best models
by kfarr | 2025-08-10 00:57:34+00:00
For 89 that's screamin! I remember early 90's getting a 50 mhz 8mb Gateway and it was amazing. Even just MS Paint and MS Word kept my sister and I plenty entertained making up stories and pictures to go along with them. Then I found MS DOS and QBasic and here I am posting on hacker news on a Saturday afternoon.
by wbharding | 2025-08-10 00:58:42+00:00
Show me a Gary Marcus essay, I’ll show you a few new LLM “gotchas” that will be fixed by the next version. Season to taste with self-assured confidence that all these tech goobers really don’t understand how totally overrated AI progress is.

So it has been for 10+ years, so it will be at least 5 more.
by zdragnar | 2025-08-10 00:58:46+00:00
Depersonalizing a fetus is necessary to maintain the legality of abortion.

There are already plenty of conflicts in western laws- killing a pregnant woman in some jurisdictions will get you two counts of murder. Stillbirths can qualify for bereavement leave. Despite things like this, legalizing abortion means what would have gotten one person a murder charge is perfectly fine for another person to do.
by skeledrew | 2025-08-10 00:59:12+00:00
We're still on that's just how it works. The LLM isn't aware of any consequence, etc. All it does is complete patterns as trained. And the data contains many instances of articulate question answering.

It is for those using the LLM to be aware of its capabilities, or not - be allowed to - use it. Like a child unaware that running their finger on a sharp knife blade will lead to a bad slice; you don't dull the blade to keep the child safe, but keep the child from the knife until they can understand and respect its capabilities.
by joshuamoyers | 2025-08-10 00:59:42+00:00
> For all that, GPT-5 is not a terrible model. I played with it for about an hour, and it actually got several of my initial queries right (some initial problems with counting “r’s in blueberries had already been corrected, for example). It only fell apart altogether when I experimented with images.

Spatial reasoning and world model is one aspect. Posting bicycle part memes does not a bad model make. The reality is its cheaper than Sonnet and maybe around as good at Opus at a decent number of tasks.

> And, crucially, the failure to generalize adequately outside distribution tells us why all the dozens of shots on goal at building “GPT-5 level models” keep missing their target. It’s not an accident. That failing is principled.

This keeps happening recently. So many people want to take a biblically black and white take on whether LLMs can get to human level intelligence. See recent interview with Yann LeCun (Meta Chief AI Scientist): https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4__gg83s_Do

Nobody has any fucking idea. It might be a hybrid or a different architecture than current transformers, but with the rate of progress just within this field, there is absolutely no way you can make a prediction that scaling laws won't just let LLMs outpace the negative hot takes.
by CompoundEyes | 2025-08-10 01:00:16+00:00
Yes o3 was an inflection point. Both modes of 5 are performing poorly on the IQ test compared to o3 https://www.trackingai.org/home That test best reflects my experience and results from practical use cases with the reasoning models when planning specs, bug finding, ideation, and deep research. It’s great at tool use as well in scripts. What I like least about the release is no transparency about the “routing” taking place. Give me all the options on the system card to pick from https://openai.com/index/gpt-5-system-card/ and I don’t want to have to start telling it “ultrathink” or other magic words to affect routing. To be fair though I haven’t tried 5 in reasoning mode beyond Cursor. But now I see o3 is only part of the Pro plan. If 5 reasoning is supposed to be better why would o3 and o3-pro still be a specialized models for Pro customers? I’d like to see some side by side prompts I might go back and test that.
by __david__ | 2025-08-10 01:00:29+00:00
> apt modernize-sources

Oh nifty, I hand converted all mine a couple years back. It would have been nice to have that then (or know about it?). I do really like the new deb822 format, having the gpg key inline is nice. I do hope that once this is out there the folks with custom public apt repos will start giving out .sources files directly. Should be more straightforward than all the apt-key junk one used to have to do (especially when a key rotated).
by radio879 | 2025-08-10 01:00:54+00:00
I am the person that wrote that. Sorry about the font. This is a bit outdated, AI stuff goes at high speed. More models so I will try to update that.

Every month so many new models come out. My new fav is GLM-4.5... Kimi K2 is also good, and Qwen3-Coder 480b, or 2507 instruct.. very good as well. All of those work really well in any agentic environment/in agent tools.

I made a context helper app ( https://wuu73.org/aicp ) which is linked to from there which helps jump back and forth from all the different AI chat tabs i have open (which is almost always totally free, and I get the best output from those) to my IDE. The app tries to remove all friction, and annoyances, when you are working with the native web chat interfaces for all the AIs. Its free and has been getting great feedback, criticism welcome.

It helps the going from IDE <----> web chat tabs. Made it for myself to save time and I prefer the UI (PySide6 UI so much lighter than a webview)

Its got Preset buttons to add text that you find yourself typing very often, per-project state saves of window size of app and which files were used for context. So next time, it opens at same state.

Auto scans for code files, guesses likely ones needed, prompt box that can put the text above and below the code context (seems to help make the output better). One of my buttons is set to: "Write a prompt for Cline, the AI coding agent, enclose the whole prompt in a single code tag for easy copy and pasting. Break the tasks into some smaller tasks with enough detail and explanations to guide Cline. Use search and replace blocks with plain language to help it find where to edit"

What i do for problem solving, figuring out bugs: I'm usually in VS Code and i type aicp in terminal to open the app. Fine tune any files already checked, type what i am trying to do or what problem i have to fix, click Cline button, click Generate Context!. Paste into GLM-4.5, sometimes o3 or o4-mini, GPT-5, Gemini 2.5 Pro.. if its a super hard thing i'll try 2 or 3 models. I'll look and see which one makes the most sense and just copy and paste into Cline in VS Code - set to GPT 4.1 which is unlimited/free.. 4.1 isn't super crazy smart or anything but it follows orders... it will do whatever you ask, reliably. AND, it will correct minor mistakes from the bigger model's output. The bigger smarter models can figure out the details, and they'll write a prompt that is a task list with how-to's and why's perfect for 4.1 to go and do in agent mode....

You can code for free this way unlimited, and its the smartest the models will be. Anytime you throw some tools or MCPs at a model it dumbs them down.... AND you waste money on all the API costs having to use Claude 4 for everything
by resters | 2025-08-10 01:02:04+00:00
GPT-5 was able to fix a variety of bugs in some code that I'd been working on with Claude 4.1 (which Claude 4.1 had made and was not able to fix), and GPT-5-pro was able to offer some high quality critiques of some research I've been working on -- better and more insightful feedback than previous frontier models.

GPT-5 is a welcome addition to the lineup, it won't completely replace other models but it will play a big role in my work moving forward.
by msgodel | 2025-08-10 01:03:15+00:00
The missing piece might be thinking of these mesh networks as a new "tier 4" network and routing to the larger internet as quickly as possible.

One huge advantage of this (beyond better networking) would be that apps could use existing IP APIs which would help abstract away vendor/implementation specific problems and improve adoption.

Note that this doesn't necessarily depend on a tier 3 network so you could still accomplish your goals. The internet already has enough features to support partitions and local discovery.

You of course still have to have fixed administrative domains but in reality you always do. Someone takes initiative and sets up the group chat/gets their friends into it. I think if you're willing to mentally separate the network topology from the administrative topology this could be solved.

Of course that's really boring. It's just MDNS and ad-hoc Wifi plus some routing. Everything is pretty much already there (although iOS probably won't let you do it, as usual.)
by skydhash | 2025-08-10 01:03:29+00:00
If you have a big rock (a software project), there's quite a difference between pushing it uphill (LLM usage) and hauling it up with a winch (traditional tooling and methods).

People are claiming that it takes time to build the muscles and train the correct footing to push, while I'm here learning mechanical theory and drawing up levers. If one managed to push the rock for one meter, he comes clamoring, ignoring the many who was injured by doing so, saying that one day he will be able to pick the rock up and throw it at the moon.