Nevermind the fact that the examples in OpenAI’s blog post are examples of creating images that have no plausible purpose other than to fake stuff that didn’t happen.

But yea sure, it’s all just “for fun”. Sure.

What is the point of having a fake picture of your dog in a costume? What’s the point of having a fake picture about being at a party?

The only use case I can think of for this is for someone who likes to make up stories and lie about what they’ve done. Is that really the target market?

Also worth noting that a very loose definition of data center is used here that doesn’t fit the current colloquial usage of the term. One of the “data centers” listed in the middle of Austin, for example, is barely the size of a house and is actually just the switching infrastructure for a radio tower. Not every dot on this map is an energy-guzzling hyperscaler boogie man.

Read the room Anthropic. Maybe don’t use AI to reply to a thread complaining about how AI output is hard to read.

It’s funny how trends like this are a circle sometimes.

It is folly to assume that most companies don’t have similar weaknesses somewhere in their stacks. In the past, they were just sufficiently buried that they would get noticed and fixed before an attacker found them. With AI able to probe at thousands of these potential weaknesses per second… that’s not so true anymore.

This is just one of the popular ones, but there were also tens of posts about it with only 1-10 comments: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47641788

Here’s another popular one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47632503

The reason it’s not really news this week is because both the Bahrain and the Dubai regions have been effectively non-operational for the last 4 months, so the IRGC saying they destroyed an already-destroyed region is less newsworthy.

So I’m not sure the EU law is really working.

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.