Hacker News: mrbungie

New comment by mrbungie in "Claude Haiku 5.5"

mrbungie — Wed, 07 Oct 2026 19:45:09 +0000

Yep. I was looking at the prices of lower tier models a few weeks ago for zero/few shot tasks (pre Jev) and Haiku rates just didn't make sense at all. I ended up using 5.6-luna.

Good to know that is going back to being an actual option from perf/price perspective.

New comment by mrbungie in "Claude is a Contrarian"

mrbungie — Tue, 15 Sep 2026 00:47:37 +0000

Since LLMs are different between each other (and even version of the same family) I'd expect the differences to be explained by each lab idiosincratic biases in the post-training phase rather than by internet corpora characteristics during the pre-training phase.

New comment by mrbungie in "Why don't machine learning research agents overfit?"

mrbungie — Mon, 14 Sep 2026 17:44:50 +0000

Ah, over-the-top larger-than-life LLM-isms, they are really funny when you see them in a company blog, but they are vomitive when it's your coworker copy-pasting it and insisting you on reading it.

New comment by mrbungie in "More questions about whether researchers can trust OpenAI with unpublished math"

mrbungie — Sun, 13 Sep 2026 16:19:36 +0000

It is an extraordinary claim, it is a millenium prize problem after all. We don't even know, even if there was no copying, how much human involvement there was in the result.

New comment by mrbungie in "OpenAI's Sam Altman says it would be 'ill-advised' to go public in 2026"

mrbungie — Sat, 12 Sep 2026 21:57:35 +0000

> Wall street is less forgiving.

We've seen multiple times how "Wall street" is an exit for insiders, with retail investors left holding the bag.

New comment by mrbungie in "More questions about whether researchers can trust OpenAI with unpublished math"

mrbungie — Thu, 10 Sep 2026 19:49:59 +0000

Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.

An article post that wouldn't even amount to a white paper + the LEAN proof is not evidence of how they got to produce it.

New comment by mrbungie in "AI could kill all humans in next decade, warn experts"

mrbungie — Wed, 09 Sep 2026 17:58:32 +0000

I mean, a disaster could happen even with properly human-aligned AI. In a "AI makes the shots" world with undecipherable and fast feedback loops, which is the one we are seemingly heading towards, a string of short-sighted decisions made by AI agents may be the only thing separating us from extinction.

New comment by mrbungie in "AI could kill all humans in next decade, warn experts"

mrbungie — Wed, 09 Sep 2026 17:50:08 +0000

You are not seriously suggesting that nature and AI-accelerated gain-of-function research are similar in regards to risks, are you?

New comment by mrbungie in "How An AI math breakthrough ignited a controversy"

mrbungie — Wed, 09 Sep 2026 11:33:36 +0000

They represent different AI usage patterns. OpenAI wants everyone to believe that it was done with a practically autonomous network of thousands of agents with little to no human intervention for 88 hours, while Buckmaster/Alpöge were using AI in a more guided way for months. If OpenAI actually used anything from Buckmaster/Alpöge work they would be misleading the public.

New comment by mrbungie in "Tao: Open math problems being non-renewably mined by AI"

mrbungie — Wed, 09 Sep 2026 04:04:21 +0000

Hopefully. We'll need to wait until mathematicians confirm how easy it is to digest whatever GPT did.

New comment by mrbungie in "Tao: Open math problems being non-renewably mined by AI"

mrbungie — Wed, 09 Sep 2026 03:24:52 +0000

For sure, but this was supposedly ~18 million dollars of compute, afaik 100 pages paper / lean proof and only god knows how many bytes of chat interactions + thought traces. Scale matters.

New comment by mrbungie in "Tao: Open math problems being non-renewably mined by AI"

mrbungie — Wed, 09 Sep 2026 03:21:21 +0000

Probably an AI-written Lean proof is very different to how a human would write it, and some may say it's more like mathy neuralese. For sure it works but it is not human-friendly and needs to be transformed into something more readable and digestible to be able to extract insights from it.

Not that different from when trying to read an out-of-control vibe coded codebases, or an sloppy AI long email that someone may send you at 9 AM.

New comment by mrbungie in "On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem"

mrbungie — Tue, 08 Sep 2026 19:27:37 +0000

In what world a tweet and a screenshot of a private convo are evidence of good faith? Plain sociopathic behavior.

New comment by mrbungie in "On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem"

mrbungie — Tue, 08 Sep 2026 19:16:22 +0000

We are not in an everything-has-an-API world yet, and it'll for sure take some time to get there.

New comment by mrbungie in "On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem"

mrbungie — Tue, 08 Sep 2026 18:44:27 +0000

> 1) The article is written in a way that states clearly they threw a lot of compute at the problem. In api cost millions of dollars.

Did I say otherwise?

> 2) Millenium Problems have been the goal every AI company wanted to achieve since their diffusion, all companies have thrown a lot of resource to solve these problems, as they are very famous and scientists spent a lot of time trying to solve them. The first company to solve it will remain in history, despite all of you finding excuses about it.

I know, but I don't know how that relates to my point, which is about the way they are doing it.

New comment by mrbungie in "On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem"

mrbungie — Tue, 08 Sep 2026 18:43:09 +0000

Of course, as any drama, it has been developing into a lot more but the main motivation for OpenAI has been about winning that battle.

New comment by mrbungie in "On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem"

mrbungie — Tue, 08 Sep 2026 18:02:54 +0000

Of course AI was involved, you'd expect most mathematicians and researchers to use AI nowadays. This drama is about AI achieving impressive outcomes with little to no human intervention, as that would be signalling AGI.

New comment by mrbungie in "On the Navier–Stokes Millennium Prize Problem"

mrbungie — Tue, 08 Sep 2026 17:58:34 +0000

They are highly capable, no doubt about that, but:

1) We don't really know how they arrived to this result except that they had a lead and that they threw millions of compute at the problem. The article is written in a way that makes you believe that it was just an agent loop with little human intervention, but without any evidence.

2) If the threats are to be believed, it is concerning how far they are willing to go to show how capable the model is. One would think their products and credibility would be enough to speak for themselves.

New comment by mrbungie in "Claude Opus 5"

mrbungie — Sat, 25 Jul 2026 11:21:46 +0000

Long-term, sure. Short-term it is going to cause a lot of suffering.

New comment by mrbungie in "Better Models: Worse Tools"

mrbungie — Sun, 05 Jul 2026 08:24:10 +0000

Just add a --verbose flag that shows the stacktrace when there is an error. Then add a footer message when an error appears in non-verbose mode that invites the user/agent to use --verbose to get the full picture.

It obviously may end up in thousands of tokens burned through though (you can also fix that adding different levels of verbosity), but hopefully errors are not common.