hobom

Other than making buttloads of money, what has he accomplished?

This is not a good analogy for what happened. The LLMs were asked to obtain a flag by hacking a very specific internal target. They obtained the flag via cheating, and all the hacking that followed was targeting something entirely outside of the scope given to the agents, and an attempt to cover up the cheating.

Using your analogy would be like saying that because I gave my employee the task to do my groceries, I shouldn't be surprised to hear that they spend all my money on drugs because after all I gave them the task to spend my money.

> Of course, in most jurisdictions nothing stops you from going to court first if you like. But most modern-thinking judges tend to take a dim view if you turn up in front of them without having given some sort of ADR a go first.

But Uber's terms explicitly force consumers to waive their right to go to court if they want to access Uber's service.

You said that they "didn't take control of anything" and accused the OP to fall prey to buzz headlines. Maybe you should acknowledge that you may have been at least unnuanced?

Using your own voice is absolutely important, even if your voice may suck. Even a bad writer will manage, if they actually put in effort, to convey some of their own thoughts. This gives the reader a feeling of "there is something there, an actual substance of thought", even if it's hard to find. And that's the Using an LLM risks that the crumbs of actual thought get edited out in favor of meaningless pleasantries.

However, I directionally agree though with your message: if you are bad at writing, often you can use LLMs to surgically improve the flow of your sentences for example. One should use a carefully crafted workflow for this though.

And the question is whether that output is better than what an LLM can produce. I am not a good writer, so in my case it's not obvious.

They have such a trusted access program. "Life Sciences Verification Program: The LSVP is designed so that life sciences professionals can use Claude Mythos 5.1 with safeguards designed for professional research and development activities (while all other safeguards remain in place). In partnership with the US government, we have enrolled our first participants, and we plan to expand access to this program to the broader life sciences community." https://www.anthropic.com/claude-fable-and-mythos-5-1

If you give an average classroom of 12 year olds free access to AI, do you think the AVERAGE effect will be that the kids will use the AI to dive really deep into topics and learn programming, or that they will copy and paste the solutions to their homework, and use the freed up time to do other things than study?

OP's point was not that pasting AI output is great. It's rather that it depends on the quality of the output, and that it's on the sender to ensure it is good.

You totally ignored the point OP was making! Even if it is a parenting issue, simply declaring that will not make parents parent better. It's the same reason why we ban children from drinking wine, because parents cannot be relied upon here.

Unless your point was that we should legally ban kids from handling phones, which I think is too extreme.

Counting cache hits towards the token budget is exactly how it should be done for these kind of evals, and at any rate, for cyber evals all frontier models benefit from more tokens not just Kimi K3, so the comparison is still apt.

China is 6 months behind because of distillation attacks, otherwise the gap would be larger

They are taking in more than they are spending hosting them. However, the cost for training the next generation of models is not covered.

Meta was strongly against the Australian social media ban.

Sorry, the "they" referred to the hyperscalers

Even more extreme, that might mean they won't be able to offer Claude to non-US companies at all.

The article didn't suggest that the video mentioned was AI slop, it correctly recognised it as human generated.

So the problem IS that people are putting in too much (even if accidentally) ?

There are several concrete proposals to regulate AI either proposed or passed. The most recent prominent example of a passed law is California SB53, whose summary you can read here: https://carnegieendowment.org/emissary/2025/10/california-sb...

Australia's soon-to-take-effect ban affects nine platforms, including Instagram and Facebook, but not HN. These bans often operate on the amount of users a platform has, so HN is unlikely to make the cut. Nobody cares about this site.

Jonathan Haidt, the most prominent psychologist pushing for restrictions on social media use for children, is also the most prominent proponent of letting kids play and roam more freely. So no, those are not the same people.

What a fantastic way to write a post mortem, pedagogically very useful.

At least in part, according to the article, because the not-yet-on-GLP1 folks are NOT customers since they are often denied coverage in the first place.

The West told plenty of its companies, through public pressure or laws, that they have to divest from Russia, and they did. Rationally they recognized that selling their assets is financially more lucrative than just closing their operations and making 0$. Now why would an corporation which alleges to not be controlled by a government refuse to sell and forego billions in income, even though it is against the interest of their shareholders?

As far as I know that was a distinct, previous endeavor. Only afterwards did the Vinklevoi approach him to make the website, an idea which he then allegedly ran with on his own.

Does 4Chan also have bot BEHAVIOR detection (e.g. unnatural mouse movements)that google captcha has?

The article provides almost no hard data to back the headline up. They link a report on buy backs, but at least the abstract/summary does not provide support for the claim either.

Written in a very partisan way, although the description of how stock buy backs create bad incentives for CEOs sounds convincing to me.

FWIW, I thought he did pretty well and came away more convinced of his theses. For most of Tyler's alternative and let's say colorful explanations of the data, Haidt provided different sets of data and explanations that were more convincing. As a libertarian and techno optimist, Tyler seemed pretty biased, for example when he offered as an explanation for the plummeting mental health of teens at the exact time smartphones get introduced a random " maybe everyone's mood just got worse randomly". The only thing Haidt didn't refute that well was Tyler's (imo overconfident) assertion that teens will just use AI to summarize social media to them and spend more time with friends.

Like the OP, I also greatly respect the work Rachel and you did for AI.

Nevertheless, I can't help but think that you are seeing this issue to negatively.

"The point of the article is that AI as a research tool is insufficient to result in improvements to patient outcomes on its own." This seems unlikely if you consider this question as-is. Past technological improvements has made healthcare better overall without requiring societal changes necessarily. Take mRNA vaccines, a technology that has improved Covid-19 outcomes tremendously. Sure, certain groups have less access than other groups, but surely even marginalized groups are better off overall because of the existence of these vaccines. Health is not a zero-sum game.

And I think this negative attitude also misses the potential of AI by default. Yeah it sucks that not everyone gets MRI access, but those that do will benefit, including marginalized groups. I guess it feels wrong to some people to express a positive sentiment at an unjust state of affairs, but improved diagnosis and treatments translate into lives saved.

You also have to compare AI to the status quo. Sure, AI will have biases, but so do humans (as Rachel points out!) and the decisive question is whether AI has less biases (similarly to how safety of self driving cars is judged). With AI you at least have a chance of analyzing the decision making, and making it objective. We should be extremely excited about this possibility!

It's basically all present in the article