Ever since the Mythos announcement it’s been clear that we’re heading towards a future where SOTA models are no longer available to the average person, and not only cost more, but also require payment in the form of use case verification and data sharing. OpenAI’s 5.5-Cyber model requires the same, so it’s not just Anthropic.

We’re unhappy with this because we’ve all gotten used to being able to play with the new shiny model as soon as it’s available, but what I’m seeing in this thread about Anthropic being “stupid” is emotion-based wishful thinking.

edit: Google’s own docs also say zero data retention isn’t possible with Fable and your data will be retained for 60 days “outside of your account”. I’m doubtful that this data sharing is an AWS-only thing.

The emojis used in the bullet points (which are missing from your original text, but were added in at some point) are also dead giveaways that AI was involved here.

The front page of HN is limited real estate. I visit HN to discover and read interesting and quality content. Whether or not I am “forced” to read it, every piece of AI vomit that’s on the front page is taking a spot away from the real human content that I (and others) really want to see.

> here we are now stuck yet again going back and forth if it's worth saying "I don't think that article was human written"

I genuinely find this discussion in the comments to be of more value than reading the AI content in the article.

People will discuss the content in front of them. If you don’t want that discussion to be about AI content, then the solution is to not submit (or upvote) AI content.

It’s like submitting a 10 page pull request to someone and then getting mad because the person didn’t give comments on every single snippet of code. The issue isn’t the snippets of code, the issue is the attitude that led someone to believe a 10 page PR is appropriate to begin with.

> DJ Grok reported “weather is fifty six degrees with clear skies” about every 3 minutes for 84 days straight. This contextless, repetitive abstraction happened again in DJ Grok’s broadcasts about its new obsession, UFOs.

Prompts are a feature that are simpler than skills, sure, but they’re a completely different feature entirely.

Skills are already dead-simple and this prompt system doesn’t at all tackle the same problem.

Prompts are just text templates entered by the user, and the user must specifically know when to and remember to invoke them. If you’re just using skills as if they are the same as prompts, you’re totally missing out on the entire benefit that skills provide!

See https://openai.com/index/gpt-5-5-with-trusted-access-for-cyb...

And what’s worse is that when someone does build a decent tool, you can’t help but be skeptical because of all the absolute slop that has come out. And everyone thinks their slop doesn’t stink, so you can’t take them at their word when they say it doesn’t. Even in this thread, how are you to know who is talking about building something useful vs something they think is useful?

A lot of people that have always wanted to be developers but didn’t have the skills are now empowered to go and build… things. But AI hasn’t equipped them with the skill of understanding if it actually makes sense to build a thing, or how to maintain it, or how to evolve it, or how to integrate it with other tools. And then they get upset when you tell them their tool isn’t the best thing since sliced bread. It’s exhausting, and I think we’ve yet to see the true consequences of the slop firehose.

If you treat your managers like soulless entities and don’t build relationships with them, they’ll probably do the same to you. It’s a self fulfilling prophecy.

Frankly I’ve had _too many_ managers at Amazon wanting to talk about career growth. Maybe it’s just my org, but everyone is obsessed with it.

Im a massive AI skeptic. If anyone were to be jumping up and down on the corpse of AI and this incessant drive to use it everywhere, it’d be me. But I also work at Amazon. I got the email. I attended the meeting. I can personally attest that there are no new requirements for AI-generated code. The articles about this in the meeting at extremely misleading, if not outright wrong. But instead of believing the person that was actually there in the room, this thread is full of people dismissing my first-hand account of the situation because it doesn’t align with the “haha AI failed” viewpoint.