MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by owenversteeg | 2025-08-07 18:37:48+00:00
I'm not sure why the relevant portion of the monograph isn't appropriate simply because of the target audience. "Alters sodium transport in nerve and muscle cells and effects a shift toward intraneuronal metabolism of catecholamines, but the specific biochemical mechanism of lithium action in mania is unknown" is the general consensus on lithium whether you're reading it as you, me, or Donald Duck.

Here is where we can both agree: we know a few things about the mechanism, which allow us to make some useful judgments in a few limited cases. We can also both agree that we know so little that, if a new, similar drug were proposed, with only a small change to its chemical structure, neither of us would dare make any confident statements about its action. We also cannot accurately predict what would happen if given to a patient with a well-studied but different disorder. In other words: most of the useful judgments about lithium - those that would be economically or socially interesting, for example - cannot be made from the model, because our understanding of the mechanism of action is too crude.

All of that is also, however, true about my hypothetical Corolla from my first example: we can say a few things, but most of the useful judgments that could be made from a full understanding cannot be made. It would be obvious to anyone that we do not understand the Corolla. So why, then, would we claim to understand lithium?
by timr | 2025-08-07 18:37:54+00:00
> right, the other is that if you remove every incorrect statement from the AI "explanation", the answer it would have given is "airplane wings generate lift because they are shaped to generate lift".

...only if you omit the parts where it talks about pressure differentials, caused by airspeed differences, create lift?

Both of these points are true. You have to be motivated to ignore them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UqBmdZ-BNig
by jacquesm | 2025-08-07 18:38:10+00:00
Where did you get that particular idea? PID is one of the oldest concepts in control theory, it goes back to the days before steam and electricity.

For a very early example:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Centrifugal_governor

It's hard to separate out the P, I and D from a mechanical implementation but they're all there in some form.
by ratelimitsteve | 2025-08-07 18:38:12+00:00
I knew that dividends were small enough that I as an individual investor find them more or less meaningless, but I didn't realize that they were literally non-existent in so many cases. Thank you for that little nugget. What good do institutional investors derive from buying stock and holding it for a long time, then? Is it just the assumption that the value of the stock will appreciate at a predictable rate over the course of years?
by Fishkins | 2025-08-07 18:38:13+00:00
I'd say a large part of the country had the same sentiment about George W Bush. I'm not sure whether that was true or just an act, though. In politics, I think the opposite of Hanlon's razor has often been applicable. It's easy to feign ignorance to avoid responsibility.

That being said, I believe there has been an increase in genuinely dumb people in American politics in the past ~15 years.
by bsimpson | 2025-08-07 18:38:28+00:00
Ticketmaster did the same. They don't accept Google Voice numbers, yet my only number is Google Voice. The number tied to my SIM is an implementation detail that changes depending on where I am, but it's the only way I can get into that account now. My choices are to not go to events that are ticketed by them, or accept that I'll probably be locked out whenever I change SIMs.
by cco | 2025-08-07 18:38:41+00:00
Only a third cheaper than Sonnet 4? Incrementally better I suppose.

> and minimizing sycophancy

Now we're talking about a good feature! Actually one of my biggest annoyances with Cursor (that mostly uses Sonnet).

"You're absolutely right!"

I mean not really Cursor, but ok. I'll be super excited if we can get rid of these sycophancy tokens.
by Henchman21 | 2025-08-07 18:38:45+00:00
"AI Ethics" is the same as "Business Ethics", ie words without meaning. Presuming that at this point in time Capitalism will deliver anything but more inequality, more despair, more bad things in general? Literal insanity.

Enjoy the Billy Madison reference:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtlJjkI34V4
by commandersaki | 2025-08-07 18:39:19+00:00
My shipment was for the mainboard only, so I used a different mini-ITX case to fit the hardware inside. First warning here, the way things are arranged in the Framework Desktop’s own case may different from what you expect from a regular PC. For example, The Framework Desktop case expects the PSU to be very close to the top of the mainboard, while my Mini-ITX case expects it below. So… the PSU did not fit where it should. I have fixed this with extension cables, but this may be one of the few surprises you run into if you are not careful with the case you choose.

I know this is standard course for building a PC, but I'm just sick of dealing with this kind of crap. I'm sure it's a nice way to get things cheaper, but I don't really want the headache.
by ascagnel_ | 2025-08-07 18:39:34+00:00
> These days I use VSCode and IntelliJ (depending on language) because they do so many things out of the box.

While I don't appreciate the weight of an IDE, the time commitment to create (and maintain!) a config for vim/nvim with LSP, agents, etc., loses out to the relative ease of adding vim-style modal editing to the IDE.
by bdcdo | 2025-08-07 18:39:43+00:00
"GPT-5 in the API is simpler: it’s available as three models—regular, mini and nano—which can each be run at one of four reasoning levels: minimal (a new level not previously available for other OpenAI reasoning models), low, medium or high."

Is it actually simpler? For those who are currently using GPT 4.1, we're going from 3 options (4.1, 4.1 mini and 4.1 nano) to at least 8, if we don't consider gpt 5 regular - we now will have to choose between gpt 5 mini minimal, gpt 5 mini low, gpt 5 mini medium, gpt 5 mini high, gpt 5 nano minimal, gpt 5 nano low, gpt 5 nano medium and gpt 5 nano high.

And, while choosing between all these options, we'll always have to wonder: should I try adjusting the prompt that I'm using, or simply change the gpt 5 version or its reasoning level?
by belter | 2025-08-07 18:40:11+00:00
Nobody seems to be on the path to AGI as long as the model of today is as good as the model of tomorrow. And as long as there are "releases". You don't release a new human every few months...LLMs are currently frozen sequence predictors whose static weights stop learning after training.

They lack writable long-term memory beyond a context window. They operate without any grounded perception-action loop to test hypotheses. And they possess no executive layer for goal directed planning or self reflection...

Achieving AGI demands continuous online learning with consolidation.
by ProfessorLayton | 2025-08-07 18:40:54+00:00
Additionally, some of us give up foods for reasons other than weight loss. I have no weight issues today, nor have I personally struggled with it in the past, yet I also gave up stuff like drinking soda because diabetes runs in my family.

While I do miss it sometimes, I'm perfectly fine with sparkling water. Sure I'll have soda once in a while, but it's now officially a "treat", and not all that sad about it.

If I ever struggle with weight gain in the future, I see no reason to skip a tool that makes that much easier.
by henriquegodoy | 2025-08-07 18:41:00+00:00
That SWE-bench chart with the mismatched bars (52.8% somehow appearing larger than 69.1%) was emblematic of the entire presentation - rushed and underwhelming. It's the kind of error that would get flagged in any internal review, yet here it is in a billion-dollar product launch. Combined with the Bernoulli effect demo confidently explaining how airplane wings work incorrectly (the equal transit time fallacy that NASA explicitly debunks), it doesn't inspire confidence in either the model's capabilities or OpenAI's quality control.

The actual benchmark improvements are marginal at best - we're talking single-digit percentage gains over o3 on most metrics, which hardly justifies a major version bump. What we're seeing looks more like the plateau of an S-curve than a breakthrough. The pricing is competitive ($1.25/1M input tokens vs Claude's $15), but that's about optimization and economics, not the fundamental leap forward that "GPT-5" implies. Even their "unified system" turns out to be multiple models with a router, essentially admitting that the end-to-end training approach has hit diminishing returns.

The irony is that while OpenAI maintains their secretive culture (remember when they claimed o1 used tree search instead of RL?), their competitors are catching up or surpassing them. Claude has been consistently better for coding tasks, Gemini 2.5 Pro has more recent training data, and everyone seems to be converging on similar performance levels. This launch feels less like a victory lap and more like OpenAI trying to maintain relevance while the rest of the field has caught up. Looking forward to seeing what Gemini 3.0 brings to the table.
by stouset | 2025-08-07 18:41:03+00:00
It is not assuming that steady exponential curves will continue. The argument is that exponential growth cannot and so will not continue.

But then you run into other problems. Can an economy like ours—which is wholly predicated upon unbounded exponential growth—continue indefinitely when energy use is effectively capped? Yes, there are efficiency gains and productivity gains to be made. Yes, our population growth is slowing and fill eventually flatline or even decline. Those will extend the length of time before we fully exhaust Earth's energy budget. Growth will end, and likely on a significantly shorter timescale than recorded history.

https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2011/07/can-economic-growth-last/

https://dothemath.ucsd.edu/2012/04/economist-meets-physicist...
by GolDDranks | 2025-08-07 18:41:07+00:00
I think it's very fortunate, because I used to be an AI doomer. I still kinda am, but at least I'm now about 70% convinced that the current technological paradigm is not going to lead us to a short-term AI apocalypse.

The fortunate thing is that we managed to invent an AI that is good at _copying us_ instead of being a truly maveric agent, which kinda limits it to the "average human" output.

However, I still think that all the doomer arguments are valid, in principle. We very well may be doomed in our lifetimes, so we should take the threat very seriously.
by Mali- | 2025-08-07 18:41:41+00:00
The last part of GPT's answer does say: "Bernoulli's effect works alongside Newton's Third Law - the wing pushes air downward [...] - so the lift isn't only Bernoulli..."

According to this answer on physics stackexchange, Bernoulli accounts for 20% of the lift, so GPT's answer seems about right: https://physics.stackexchange.com/a/77977

I hope any future AI overlords see my charity
by jaccola | 2025-08-07 18:42:32+00:00
Out of interest, how much does the model change (if at all) over those 2 weeks? Does OpenAI guarantee that if you do testing from date X, that is the model (and accompaniments) that will actually be released?

I know these companies do "shadow" updates continuously anyway so maybe it is meaningless but would be super interesting to know, nonetheless!
by woodruffw | 2025-08-07 18:42:48+00:00
This parable reminds me a bit of Nozick's "tale of the slave"[1] in its rhetorical sleight of hand: the reader is meant to be mesmerized by the slow transition to an "obvious" conclusion, which obscures the larger inconsistency.

In both cases, the outcome is only convincing if the story makes you forget your grounding: democracy isn't slavery (contra Nozick) and the earring is clearly not always right unless you're the most basic kind of utility monster.

[1]: https://rintintin.colorado.edu/~vancecd/phil215/Nozick.pdf
by 9rx | 2025-08-07 18:42:49+00:00
> or what is the argument?

What argument are you talking about? As I said before, I am trying to understand you. For some reason you continually speak in weird logically fallacies and made up stories that don't make any sense, even though you seem to have genuine intent and are trying to add positive contributions. In the interest of good faith, it is worth trying to figure out what you actually mean.

Yes, you eventually delivered the necessary clarification that allows us to better understand what you were trying to say, but what the hell was that in between?
by semi-extrinsic | 2025-08-07 18:43:24+00:00
What is just plain wrong is the equal transit time thing, people saying that air on both sides of the wing have to take the same time to pass it.

The Bernoulli effect as a separate entity is really a result of (over)simplification, but it's not wrong. You need to solve the Navier-Stokes equations for the flow around the wing, but there are many ways to simplify this - from CFD at different resolutions, via panel methods and potential theory, to just conservation of energy (which is the Bernoulli equation). So it gets popularized because it's the most simplified model.

To give an analogy, you can think of all CPUs as a von Neumann architecture. But the reality is that you have a hugely complicated thing with stacks, multiple cache levels, branch predictors, specex, yada yada.

On the very fundamental level, wings make air go down, and then airplane goes up. Just like you say. By using a curved airfoil instead of a flat plate, you can create more circulation in the flow, and then because of the way fluids flow you can get more lift and less drag.
by jjani | 2025-08-07 18:43:46+00:00
They first introduced it 4 months ago. Back then I saw several people saying "soon it will be all of the providers".

We're 4 months later, a century in LLM land, and it's the opposite. Not a single other model provider asks for this, yet OpenAI has only ramped it up, now broadening it to the entirety of GPT-5 API usage.
by daveguy | 2025-08-07 18:43:47+00:00
Hah, that was fast! Thank you. They must have had preview access. It didn't bode well that SimonW [0] had to explicitly tell GPT-5 to use python to get a table sorted correctly (but awesome that in can use python as a tool without any plumbing). It appears we are not quite to AGI yet.

[0] https://simonwillison.net/2025/Aug/7/gpt-5/
by serial_dev | 2025-08-07 18:43:48+00:00
> a company is not open to hearing ideas about how to be more successful from individual workers

I got happier when I realized this and accepted I’m just a cog.

Before realizing this, I’d want to make sure people understand my viewpoint, argued and reasoned, then got frustrated when I got ignored.

The realization came when I worked for a very small startup where, while being 33% of the company (first employee to the two founders), my ideas and warnings were continuously ignored.

So more I’m close to your level 0. Focus on making enough money to support my family and humble financial goals, try to work on interesting projects, build my resume, and make sure I can leave when things inevitably turn to sht.

Sure, if I strongly disagree with something and I believe there is a chance my feedback will make a difference, I’ll give it once, if I get ignored I just move on.
by OneDeuxTriSeiGo | 2025-08-07 18:44:45+00:00
> Only the default bluesky moderation list is global

And of course it's also opt in as well. Just the default bluesky client does that by default. Any third party client (ex: https://deer.social or https://zeppelin.social) can opt-out of "default moderation". And technically you could use a userscript or even potentially a ublock rule/filter to disable default moderation (just like you can to disable regional moderation or age verification).
by jjk166 | 2025-08-07 18:44:53+00:00
At the depth of the titanic to see a 1% variation in pressure between the top most and bottom most points of a sphere, the sphere would need to be 40 meters in diameter. For context, the pressure vessels of the largest submarine in the world have a diameter of 10.9 meters. Note that pressure at a given depth varies due to things like temperature fluctuations, ocean currents, and even variation in Earth's gravity. Further, the walls of pressure vessels distribute the load - any variations of the pressure get averaged out. It's the same principle as a dome - every element of the sphere is pushing against the adjacent elements and resisting being pushed by those adjacent elements. At the size scale where this is no longer the case, you're not building a pressure vessel. If you're making a dam or a hollow column going down into water, or perhaps a massive dome on the ocean floor, you would need different equations. Even for a submarine you may be concerned with things besides pressure resistance, like collision or sea keeping, as previously stated. But from a pressure resistance standpoint the diameter to wall thickness requirement holds equally true for small exploratory subs and the largest military subs.
by diggan | 2025-08-07 18:44:54+00:00
> but for the moment here’s the pelican I got from GPT-5 running at its default “medium” reasoning effort:

Would been interesting to see a comparison between low, medium and high reasoning_effort pelicans :)

When I've played around with GPT-OSS-120b recently, seems the difference in the final answer is huge, where "low" is essentially "no reasoning" and with "high" it can spend seemingly endless amount of tokens. I'm guessing the difference with GPT-5 will be similar?
by toomuchtodo | 2025-08-07 18:45:03+00:00
Japanese Cities Are Rapidly Shrinking: What Should They Do? - https://scitechdaily.com/japanese-cities-are-rapidly-shrinki... - October 21st, 2024

Multidimensional factors correlated with population changes according to city size in Japan - https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/23998083241274381 | https://doi.org/10.1177/23998083241274381
by AtNightWeCode | 2025-08-07 18:45:04+00:00
This is the message you get when calling the same API endpoints as with 4.1. And in the vid they said that the older versions will be deprecated.

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 when you click that link the "service" they use is withpersona. So it is a complete shit show.
by mike_hearn | 2025-08-07 18:45:29+00:00
> There is no way that a single company could develop a state of the art compiler without using an existing one. Intel had a good independent compiler and gave up because open source had become superior.

Not only can they do it but some companies have done it several times. Look at Oracle: there's HotSpot's C2 compiler, and the Graal compiler. Both state of the art, both developed by one company.

Not unique. Microsoft and Apple have built many compilers alone over their lifespan.

This whole thing is insanely subjective, but that's why I'm making fun of the "unsubstantiated claim" bit. How exactly are you meant to objectively compare this?
by zdragnar | 2025-08-07 18:45:40+00:00
This is true only so long as employees are actually producing things. Case in point: I'm working for a tiny company building an internal tool for a very very large company because their internal team isn't getting the job done. Hard questions are being asked, but not of us.

Maybe things were different in the days of zero APR free money being thrown left and right at companies to keep growing, but I don't think we'll see a return to that any time soon.
by c-linkage | 2025-08-07 18:45:59+00:00
Process efficiency is about doing less to achieve an objective than you used to. This is the idea behind LEAN. If companies keep adding tasks then this is the exact opposite of LEAN. The only way doing more tasks makes sense is if said company is expanding into different markets, but that can be challenging and distracting from the core business (a reason why many non-core tasks are now outsourced.)

Software automates processes. Processes are currently designed with human decision makers in the loop. If you want software-enabled process to achieve maximum productivity then humans must be removed from the loop. This is the true objective of AI as it is being deployed and hyped today.
by mitthrowaway2 | 2025-08-07 18:46:07+00:00
Hmm, that's a very good distinction. But I think there's still a large overlap in which safety can include the prevention of intentional harm, not only accidents. For example, traffic bollards can stop a vehicle that has lost control, as well as stopping a deliberate ramming attack. There is no question that they are a safety feature but ethics doesn't really factor into it. People might debate cost-benefits but nobody really debates "shouldn't we allow trucks to ram their way into schools and hospital lobbies?"
by potatolicious | 2025-08-07 18:46:30+00:00
This feels like honestly the biggest gain/difference. I work on things that do a lot of tool calling, and the model hallucinating fake tools is a huge problem. Worse, sometimes the model will hallucinate a response directly without ever generating the tool call.

The new training rewards that suppress hallucinations and tool-skipping hopefully push us in the right direction.
by hodgehog11 | 2025-08-07 18:46:31+00:00
It's still not necessarily wrong, just unlikely. Once these developers start using the model to update itself, beyond an unknown threshold of capability, one model could start to skyrocket in performance above the rest. We're not in that phase yet, but judging from what the devs at the end were saying, we're getting uncomfortably (and irresponsibly) close.
by ToValueFunfetti | 2025-08-07 18:47:20+00:00
You surrender your self in exchange for your goals. With the right goals, that could be a worthy sacrifice. But of course it is a sacrifice.

Imagine doing a crossword while a voice whispers the correct letter to enter for each cell. You'd definitely finish it a lot faster and without making mistakes. Crossword answers are public knowledge, and people still work them out instead of looking them up. They don't just want to solve them; they want to solve them theirselves. That's what is lost here.
by esseph | 2025-08-07 18:47:37+00:00
I don't think they are, actually (using the same TTPs), nor would it make sense to.

Ukrainian drone doctrine is very different than Russian, and not just on paper, but how it is playing out.

This is for two main reasons: proximity to logistics for the defenders vs attackers, and existing military structures including vehicles and troop organizational structures (MTOE) that drone systems support or are supported by.

So I don't agree with your assessment there. It doesn't seem to match what's happening in the field with the type of drones used and the percentage of the classification of each type of drone system and purpose. These are quite different.

I also don't think it will be more bloody, but less over time. Much of the fight is in the electronic warfare arena and in air dominance across the vertical airspace. A colleague agrees:

https://warontherocks.com/2025/06/the-meaning-of-drone-enabl...

Infantry are expensive to train correctly, to outfit, and supply. I think the total number of frontline combat troops will continue to go down as a fraction of overall troops, while increasing supporting positions for drones, communications, electronic warfare, and general battlefield logistics.

Agree with your last paragraph 100% !
by JohnMakin | 2025-08-07 18:47:45+00:00
The fact you do not find the why convincing is not really relevant to the main content of this article. Some people read more than titles and a few sentences before dismissing it because it doesn't agree with their already-held views. Sorry you did not find it sufficiently interesting. Migrating off of github is an extremely common problem. If you see no need to migrate off of github, why would you be interested in reading this in the first place, let alone commenting on it? Why do you feel you need to be convinced to switch off of it?