MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by nicetryguy | 2025-08-07 17:21:16+00:00
Yeah, they sure clicked away from it very fast and kept adjusting the scrollbars. It was confusing what it was trying to display. Furthermore, the prompt contained "Canvas" and "SVG" while as someone with webdev experience these are certainly familiar concepts, i wouldn't consider those in the "casual lexicon" for a random user trying to help a middle schooler with homework. I'm not impressed...

IMO Claude 3.7 could have done a similar / better job with that a year ago.
by diggan | 2025-08-07 17:22:01+00:00
Not even 10 seconds after I started watching the stream, someone said how much more human GPT-5 is, while the people sitting and talking about it don't seem human at all, and it's not an accent/language thing. Seems they're strictly following a dialogue script that is trying to make them seem "impromptu" but the acting isn't quite there for that :)
by cipherboy | 2025-08-07 17:22:05+00:00
I'll bite ;-) Appreciate your replies as always tptacek!

It is a fair criticism. But I think two things give us an advantage here:

1. IBM started this fork and later bought HashiCorp, with the acquisition having fully completed. I've broached the subject with both sides post-acquisition but got only a negative response from the HashiCorp side and no response from IBM. We are very much a known entity to the teams that matter inside IBM. And I'd posit within HashiCorp as well given I came out of their Vault Crypto team. ;-)

Whether IBM wishes to cooperate is a different matter. Mentioning again, publicly, doesn't hurt and hopefully raises awareness to researchers (such as yourself!).

2. The Linux Foundation's OpenSSF (our umbrella foundation) has a reputation which we try our best to uphold. Obviously they'd be rightfully upset if we shared pre-disclosure vulnerabilities widely. So we won't and don't. Certainly the broader Linux distribution security list is a positive model in this regard.

If this were J. Doe's pet fork of $CRITICAL_SOFTWARE, 100% agree. But the fork is neither new nor lacking in reputation of its component/parent entities, so I'd hope researchers give us the same consideration they would any other of LF's forks (Valkey, OpenSearch, OpenTofu, ...).

But that said, I've personally disclosed vulnerabilities post-fork to HashiCorp and have mentioned to them that I have stopped future disclosures without a further agreement. This just leads to a two-party zero-day vulnerability race, which is not in anyone's best interest.
by danaris | 2025-08-07 17:22:16+00:00
> You need to have resilience and redundancy to deal with variability, but those cost money.

Reiterating for truth, and also to expand upon the point:

These are things that cost money all the time, but only pay off visibly in a crisis. And it has to be a crisis of the right kind (if your headquarters burns down in a wildfire, it won't help you to have 225% coverage on every role). So this makes it very difficult to justify to people who think only numbers—and only specific kinds of numbers—matter.

But redundancy and resiliency, at least in most cases, also make the lives of everyone working there better. They mean, among other things, that if one person needs to get surgery, or take their child to the doctor, or just go on vacation, there's still enough people there to keep the work flowing smoothly. The people still there won't be hopelessly overloaded, the work will get done, and the one person who's out won't have a mountain of catch-up work to go when they get back.

The only drawback is that it means you're paying people to work at a rate that means they regularly have downtime and aren't "fully utilized" constantly. (By definition.)
by umanwizard | 2025-08-07 17:22:55+00:00
> But you also implied that it's a question of being and adult or not, as if it's a cut-off. It isn't.

No I didn't. I never said anywhere that it's a sharp cutoff rather than a sliding scale.

If I say Canada is further north than Brazil, it doesn't mean that latitude isn't a continuous spectrum.
by Klonoar | 2025-08-07 17:23:00+00:00
I mean, if the opposition is GitHub training on your stuff - or any AI, for that matter - self-hosting doesn't save you. This feels like a classic "tech thinking it can solve a politics battle". If you're making a self-determined ethical decision then I get it though.

I also don't get why you wouldn't go for something like Forgejo/Gitea, or if you're really dead set on the email pattern like the author seems to, Sourcehut.
by SketchySeaBeast | 2025-08-07 17:23:31+00:00
But how much time does that 0.3 watt hour query take to run? They imply that an individual ChatGPT query takes 0.3-3 watt hours, but most queries come back in seconds, so we need to scale that over a whole hour of processing.

Edit: Scrolling down: "one second of H100-time per query, 1500 watts per H100, and a 70% factor for power utilization gets us 1050 watt-seconds of energy", which is how they get down to 0.3 = 1050/60/60.

OK, so if they run if for a full hour it's 1050*60*60 = 3.8 MW? That can't be right.

Edit Edit: Wait, no, it's just 1050 Watt Hours, right (though let's be honest, the 70% power utilization is a bit goofy - the power is still used)? So it's 3x the power to solve the same question?
by caminante | 2025-08-07 17:23:41+00:00
Either you're acting in bad faith or have a language issue.

For the latter, isn't it odd how you cherrypick and dismiss?

1. Spuriously apply national averages (including a UK forum!!! LOL) to a way above average zip code

2. And conveniently dismiss another HNer's conclusion because they...didn't provide a fact needed for an argument that YOU are trying to make and could research yourself? This is unreal.

>"Yeah, even though I didn't ask, the defendent didn't tell me they were innocent or not, so I will dismiss further review and assume they're guilty."
by thewebguyd | 2025-08-07 17:23:59+00:00
Except one is recoverable from, just as we eventually recovered from dotcom. The other is permanent and requires either government intervention in the form of UBI(good luck with that), or a significant amount of the population retraining for other careers and starting over, if that's even possible.

But yeah, you are correct in that no matter what, we're going to be left holding the bag.
by benbayard | 2025-08-07 17:24:17+00:00
I would have loved to see that talked about more. I disagree that it's pretty clear. I just read it again and the "Why" (which again is in the title) is lacking for me. I didn't find this article particularly useful or informative. I'm glad you found it useful and informative and I think it's okay that we disagree on that.
by delta_p_delta_x | 2025-08-07 17:24:40+00:00
I was about to comment with my usual 'why not PowerShell', but it seems the author acknowledges this anyway at the end:

> I’ll quote Rich’s sh (POSIX shell) tricks to end this:

> I am a strong believer that Bourne-derived languages are extremely bad, on the same order of badness as Perl, for programming, and consider programming sh for any purpose other than as a super-portable, lowest-common-denominator platform for build or bootstrap scripts and the like, as an extremely misguided endeavor
by gnramires | 2025-08-07 17:25:23+00:00
That's a cute story, I certainly like its tone of mystery.

However, the premise seems a bit wrong (or at least the narrator is wrong). If your brain actually degenerates from usage of the ring (and is no longer used in daily life, acting only reflexively), the premise that you are the happiest from following the ring might be flat out wrong. I think happiness (I tend to think in terms of well-being, which let's say ranks every good thing you can feel, by definition -- and assume the "good" is something philosophically infinitely wise) is probably something like a whole-brain or at least a-lot-of-brain phenomenon. It's not just a result of what you see or what you have in life. In fact I'm sure two persons can have very similar external conditions and wildly different internal lives (for an obvious example compare the bed-ridden man who spends his day on beautiful dreams, and the other who is depressed or in despair).

What the ring seems to do is to put you in situations where you would be the happiest, if only you were not wearing the earring.

The earring that actually guides you toward a better inner life perhaps offers only very minimal and strategic advice. Perhaps that's what the 'Lotus octohedral earring' does :)
by jumploops | 2025-08-07 17:25:27+00:00
Pricing seems good, but the open question is still on tool calling reliability.

Input: $1.25 / 1M tokens Cached: $0.125 / 1M tokens Output: $10 / 1M tokens

With 74.9% on SWE-bench, this inches out Claude Opus 4.1 at 74.5%, but at a much cheaper cost.

For context, Claude Opus 4.1 is $15 / 1M input tokens and $75 / 1M output tokens.

> "GPT-5 will scaffold the app, write files, install dependencies as needed, and show a live preview. This is the go-to solution for developers who want to bootstrap apps or add features quickly." [0]

Since Claude Code launched, OpenAI has been behind. Maybe the RL on tool calling is good enough to be competitive now?

[0]https://github.com/openai/gpt-5-coding-examples
by reify | 2025-08-07 17:25:48+00:00
Its the rover from "The prisoner 1967".

Operation

In the first episode the rest of the villagers freeze when instructed as Rover appears and attacks an unidentified man who does not comply. The same scenario reappears at the start of "Checkmate", the ninth episode, except that this time the man who does not comply is not attacked by Rover, prompting Number 6 to follow him and discover the human chess game, a key event in the episode.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rover_(The_Prisoner)
by jeromej10 | 2025-08-07 17:25:59+00:00
If you believe in digital freedom, user rights, and transparent technology, there’s never been a more important time to stand with the Free Software Foundation (FSF). FSF is more than a nonprofit—it’s a global community defending the user's right to control their own computing, promote software freedom, and protect our digital future. Why join FSF? Fight against proprietary software and surveillance capitalism Support free software licenses and community education Gain access to exclusive events, resources, and advocacy tools Whether you're a developer, system admin, student, or privacy advocate—your voice matters. Join the movement today: https://my.fsf.org/join Let's build a world where users control their software—not the other way around. #FreeSoftware #GNU #FSF #OpenSource #FOSS #DigitalFreedom
by scosman | 2025-08-07 17:26:38+00:00
There's a bunch of benchmarks on the intro page including AIME 2025 without tools, SWE-bench Verified, Aider Polyglot, MMMU, and HealthBench Hard (not familiar with this one): https://openai.com/index/introducing-gpt-5/

Pretty par for course evals at launch setup.
by djrenren | 2025-08-07 17:27:00+00:00
All non-enterprise big tech uses of passkeys (Google, Apple & Microsoft Accounts), do not require an attestation statement (or in spec-parlance, use the `None` or `Self` Attestation Types).

The presence of other attestation types in the spec allows passkeys to replace the use of other classes of authentication that already exist (e.g. smartcard). For example, it's very reasonable for a company to want to ensure that all their employees are using hardware Yubikeys for authentication. Furthermore, sharing the bulk of implementation with the basic case is a huge win. Codepaths are better tested, the UIs are better supported on client computers, etc.

The presence of attestations in the spec, does not impinge on user freedom in any meaningful way.
by HardCodedBias | 2025-08-07 17:27:00+00:00
Bravo.

1) So impressed at their product focus 2) Great product launch video. Fearlessly demonstrating live. Impressive. 3) Real time humor by the presenters makes for a great "live" experience

Huge kudos to OAI. So many great features (better coding, routing, some parts of 4.5, etc) but the real strength is the product focus as opposed to the "research updates" from other labs.

Huge Kudos!!

Keep on shipping OAI!
by kazinator | 2025-08-07 17:27:11+00:00
I don't care if there are results for the letter "a", if they are instant.

Don't become unresponsive after one key to search for results. If the search impacts responsiveness, you need to have a hold-off time before kicking it off so that a longer prefix/infix can be gathered which will reduce the search space and improve its relevance.
by FredPret | 2025-08-07 17:27:19+00:00
The real estate market got borked by the fact that municipal authorities answer to incumbent owners, who ~universally acted to limit new building. This breaks the mechanism by which some speculators go out of business.

If you can build anywhere, and a speculator is blocking development of a prime piece of land, you'll simply build elsewhere, making that land less prime with each passing moment, and eventually driving the speculator out of business.
by pjerem | 2025-08-07 17:27:51+00:00
Actually this trick have been proven to be useless in a lot of cases.

LLMs don’t inherently know what they are because "they" are not themselves part of the training data.

However, maybe it’s working because the information is somewhere into their pre-prompt but if it wasn’t, it wouldn’t say « I don’t know » but rather hallucinate something.

So maybe that’s true but you cannot be sure.
by torginus | 2025-08-07 17:28:11+00:00
I genuinely believe you are a kickass person, but that text is full of LLM-isms. Listing things, contrasting or reinforcing prallel sentence structures, it even has the dreaded em-dash.

Here's a suprprisingly enlightening (at least to me) video on how to spot LLM writing:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Ch4a6ffPZY
by kybernetikos | 2025-08-07 17:28:18+00:00
ChatGPT5 in this demo:

> For an airplane wing (airfoil), the top surface is curved and the bottom is flatter. When the wing moves forward:

> * Air over the top has to travel farther in the same amount of time -> it moves faster -> pressure on the top decreases.

> * Air underneath moves slower -> pressure underneath is higher

> * The presure difference creates an upward force - lift

Isn't that explanation of why wings work completely wrong? There's nothing that forces the air to cover the top distance in the same time that it covers the bottom distance, and in fact it doesn't. https://www.cam.ac.uk/research/news/how-wings-really-work

Very strange to use a mistake as your first demo, especially while talking about how it's phd level.
by haffi112 | 2025-08-07 17:28:25+00:00
It makes it look like the presentation is rushed or made last minute. Really bad to see this as the first plot in the whole presentation. Also, I would have loved to see comparisons with Opus 4.1.

Edit: Opus 4.1 scores 74.5% (https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-opus-4-1). This makes it sound like Anthropic released the upgrade to still be the leader on this important benchmark.
by sugarpimpdorsey | 2025-08-07 17:28:34+00:00
Unless of course you say something that pisses off the BS mod cabal, or you are deliberately mass-reported by some clique of users, then your account will be immediately banned. Or even worse, your account made it onto some pre-shared blacklist so you'll be invisible before you say a word.

BS is an attempt to recreate an even more toxic environment than old Twitter ever was.

Which is all very high school cafeteria-drama.
by ozim | 2025-08-07 17:28:35+00:00
Problem is lots of SSO implementation will be dealing with some arrogant architects claiming you know nothing and their semi broken SAML is something you should implement for them for free - repeat for 100 times for each customer having their own way of breaking the spec or using something crooked.

It is getting better with Entra P2 or Okta as it is couple of minutes to configure if you use good framework in your projects.

But the tax was because of what I wrote about in first place.
by davepeck | 2025-08-07 17:28:42+00:00
Yeah.

It does feel like we're marching toward a day when "software on tap" is a practical or even mundane fact of life.

But, despite the utility of today's frontier models, it also feels to me like we're very far from that day. Put another way: my first computer was a C64; I don't expect I'll be alive to see the day.

Then again, maybe GPT-5 will make me a believer. My attitude toward AI marketing is that it's 100% hype until proven otherwise -- for instance, proven to be only 87% hype. :-)
by cnst | 2025-08-07 17:28:47+00:00
https://git-scm.com/book/en/v2/Git-on-the-Server-Setting-Up-...

It's literally far more trivial than you may think. (At least if you already own a VPS or a dedicated server.)

Basically, (1), add a git user, (2), configure .ssh/authorized_keys, and that's basically it!

To add a bit more security, you may also want to edit /etc/shells and add git-shell as a login shell, then change git user to use that shell, but that's entirely optional (and it'd actually make it less trivial to create add extra repos, so, for a single-user repos, you may want to delay doing that).

In all, the entire set of official instructions can be printed on like a single double-sided Letter / A4 piece of paper.

P.S. Actually, I guess it's 3 single-sided pages, but that's only because you'd be printing the example SSH key twice, which takes a quarter of an A4 each time, thus, the entire official instructions take almost 3 single-sided pages total.
by lapcat | 2025-08-07 17:28:57+00:00
> Your manager almost certainly does care about your productivity

Your middle manager likely cares less about your productivity than about sucking up to those above your middle manager in the hierarchy, and your productivity is at best only tenuously related to that.

In fact your middle manager is responsible for enforcing the C-suite's directives on you. Any deviation from that, even if it increases your productivity, is likely to result in punishment rather than reward for your manager.
by AtNightWeCode | 2025-08-07 17:29:26+00:00
They vibe coded the update.

"Your organization must be verified to use the model `gpt-5`. Please go to: https://platform.openai.com/settings/organization/general and click on Verify Organization. If you just verified, it can take up to 15 minutes for access to propagate."

And every way I click through this I end in an infinity loop on the site...
by _heimdall | 2025-08-07 17:29:27+00:00
> But they're not talking about idle time, they're talking about quality time with loved ones.

I totally agree there, I wasn't trying to imply that "idle time" is a bad thing, in this context I simply meant its time not filled by obligations allowing them to choose what they do.

> But spending for leisure is often a part of that quality time.

I expect that varies a lot by person and situation. Some of the most enjoyable experiences I've had involved little or no cost; having a camp fire with friends, going on a hike, working outside in the garden, etc.
by primaprashant | 2025-08-07 17:29:33+00:00
GPT-5 was supposed to make choosing models and reasoning efforts simpler. I think they made it more complex.

> GPT‑5’s reasoning_effort parameter can now take a minimal value to get answers back faster, without extensive reasoning first.

> While GPT‑5 in ChatGPT is a system of reasoning, non-reasoning, and router models, GPT‑5 in the API platform is the reasoning model that powers maximum performance in ChatGPT. Notably, GPT‑5 with minimal reasoning is a different model than the non-reasoning model in ChatGPT, and is better tuned for developers. The non-reasoning model used in ChatGPT is available as gpt-5-chat-latest.
by nine_k | 2025-08-07 17:29:36+00:00
> at least occasionally one should choose to do something one will regret.

Negative experience is crucial for learning, unfortunately. "If you never fail you don't try hard enough", etc. This is trivially understood in physical training: you have to get yourself exhausted to become stronger. It's much less of an accepted view in, so to say, mental training: doing thing that you later regret may teach you something valuable that always avoiding such decisions does not.

I do not necessarily support or reject this view, I'm just trying to clarify the point.
by PaulHoule | 2025-08-07 17:30:06+00:00
It becomes problematic for multiprocessor systems but you could probably build a communications fabric and memory model that works.

My fantasy CPU lets you write to the (say) 15 bits starting at the 43rd but of a 48 bit word which a real CPU would have to do a lot of work to implement but with the right kind of cache it is probably not so bad, it also has an instruction to read a UTF-8 character at a deep pointer and increment the pointer which a real system could satisfy out of the cache except when it can’t.
by lotsofpulp | 2025-08-07 17:30:15+00:00
3) company publishes their 10-Q and 10-K with terrible results and the gamblers try to rush out as they watch themselves be the greater fools.

Trustworthy, transparent financials mitigate the above 2 “problems”. Trustworthy and transparent being key requirements, which can only be satisfied if with a trustworthy and transparent auditor (i.e. government).

Edit: Also, the author's quote here

>This is what Deming meant when he said “nobody gives a hoot about profits”.

does not make sense to me, considering the large gains (to the tune of trillions of dollars) are to the shareholders that own shares in businesses with enormous profits. Obviously, someone (everyone?) gives a hoot about profits. Those obviously translate directly to money in one's pocket, especially those of managers and executives getting paid in equity.
by dijit | 2025-08-07 17:30:25+00:00
No, due to the way taxes work, I'd have to:

A) Find a way to work in OpenAI before I knew there'd be a $1.5M bonus for working there for a couple years

B) Find a way to avoid taxes

C) Do this twice before I'd get my 28 years back

D) Ensure I don't let my expenses grow

The first is mostly luck, as Jim Carey said about his dad: You can fail at what you don't want to do.

https://youtu.be/zjhouhElXAI?t=118
by vouwfietsman | 2025-08-07 17:30:30+00:00
Because rather than saying: "Maybe you should read all this AI code", or even: "maybe you shouldn't be generating all this AI code", its saying "You're right to generate so much AI code, and you don't have to read it, because you can now get it reviewed by AI!".

Its like making a product to reduce hangover for heroin addicts: yes, maybe it helps, but maybe you shouldn't be a heroin addict?
by Ezhik | 2025-08-07 17:30:45+00:00
Oh, looks like this might be happening: https://openai.com/index/introducing-gpt-5/

>GPT‑5 is starting to roll out today to all Plus, Pro, Team, and Free users, with access for Enterprise and Edu coming in one week.

>Pro, Plus, and Team users can also start coding with GPT‑5 in the Codex CLI (opens in a new window) by signing in with ChatGPT.
by dboreham | 2025-08-07 17:30:51+00:00
> Now, why the ion channels are the place to go

Personal theory: these things are like "global constants" for the brain's GPU. Somewhat similar to the temperature constant in an LLM. There is no real "explanation" for why they work, they just have an effect. Various chemicals have various effects, often depending on the patient (because other constants vary, training data varies...) and we pick the chemical we like the effect of most.
by Aurornis | 2025-08-07 17:30:53+00:00
I found a Hacker News thread via Google a few days ago. One of the top comments was from someone describing their RAG architecture and a certain technique (my search term). The comment boasted that their system was so good it that their team thought they created something close to AGI.

Then I noticed the date on the comment: 2023.

Technically, every advancement in the space is “the closest to AGI that we’ve ever been”. It’s technically correct, since we’re not moving backward. It’s just not a very meaningful statement.