jryle70

I'm confused of why this is a question. First of all everyone is doing something because it benefits them. You and I included. Second of all as long as it's a real discovery, it will be beneficial to us all eventually (after benefiting Anthropic for sure).

Perhaps you're not on HN long enough, but there have been many posts where someone bemoaned the lack of basic science research by corporations, that IBM and Microsoft were the only a few remaining companies with any science research. Guess what? they do it for their own benefits as well.

All the post says is that it was known to be an unsolved cypher. Nothing more, nothing less.

Maybe you can give it a try?

https://scienceblogs.de/klausis-krypto-kolumne/unsolved-adfx...

For every human good art that is cheap I can show you ten that are not. The problem is you don't know which version you'd get. Someone charges less because they are unknown. Fixing AI art is much less hassle than human one.

I think "a lot" is very subjective. I can also say "a lot of people really like AI-generated arts" and that would be true as well. HN is a place where a lot of normally objective, informed, and probably very nice folks in the real life come to engage in endless of debates that go nowhere.

So it isn't really about art?

A lot of posters or arts in general are to be seen once and never again. If you put pre-AI arts together in an exhibition like at the top of the article are you sure it wouldn't irritate people?

I walk past countless of such arts everyday, none of them registered after even 15 mins. Maybe you have better taste, but don't try to project your opinion as that of the majority.

Adidas and Puma, created by brothers, have been fierce competitors, dirty even, for 80 years. Who do you think the parent rooted for?

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

Source? on HN you can say whatever you want. Your own opinion, without even facts to back it up. The more confident you sound the more convincing you are.

HN crowd criticize social media for algorithmic feeds. They are proud that HN is more organic.

Now they want exactly that when they don't like what they see?

> It's important to be able to read through PR in planted pieces

Planted pieces? how about directly from the operator:

Without the lifetime extension investment program, the plant – which currently employs approximately 580 people and provides 10% of Finland’s electricity – could not continue operations beyond 2030. - [0]

That is not just year over year discussion. Of course it's PR, but do you happen to have insider information that contradict that?

More details:

Fortum has an ongoing, approximately EUR 1 billion investment programme in Loviisa with the aim of extending the lifetime of the power plant until 2050. To date, approximately 80% of the projects and EUR 700 million of the capital expenditure required to keep the power plant operational through 2050 are still pending investment decisions.

The PPA with Google will provide the revenue certainty to continue the investments associated with 100% of the lifetime extension of Loviisa. Furthermore, the agreement is expected to enable a new 10 MW power increase of the plant, in addition to the already planned 38 MW uprate which is expected to be live in 2028.

> That doesn't speak to them wondering if there's enough demand to keep the plant alive. It's highly unlikely Loviisa was going to close down even without the Google deal.

You know that because?

[0] - https://www.fortum.com/media/2026/09/inside-information-fort...

> “Job-creating infrastructure” would be infrastructure that creates jobs. A chamber of commerce, small business lenders, startup accelerators etc.

Such a bizarre logic. Since when a chamber of commerce or startup accelerators are infrastructure?

Railways or roads are job creating infrastructure, did you see road building or maintenance jobs disappear? Same with data centers, themselves and the infrastructure to support them such as energy.

> I’m sure Anthropic is saying that now, but there’s no escaping the fact that they and OpenAI repeatedly harped on how it would eliminate mass amounts of jobs for years

This is what you said earlier: "but the net effect of all those data centers will be overwhelmingly negative on employment if everything the AI companies are saying is true"

Anthropic is evidently not saying that. Now you're saying maybe they are not but they imply to, or hope for that. Weasel words, don't you think?

I too believe that AI will cause massive uncertainty in society. However anyone who pretends to know with any certainty how our AI shaped future will be is just that, pretentious.

> No public money needed, it is easily profitable to do without.

According to whom? Show the number, don't just be hand wavy. If it is struggling now to extend beyond 2030 then how can it easily be profitable? Think about your logic.

> Yes I and everyone else in Finland were willkng to wait and find out

Not the plant operator apparently, who has the stakes in it. Do you pay them enough to run the plant?

First of all, are you willing to wait to find out?

Second of all, if it is not Google, it'd be either other businesses, or from tax money. Why should tax money be used to bail out a failed business?

The question is how much they buy. It may not be enough to keep the plant running. Google will only buy up to 50% of what the plant can produce, but the deal allows the plant to operate beyond 2030 according to the operator.

Side note: Really nice dashboard.

> Calling data centers “job creating infrastructure” seems like a bit of an oxymoron

That's your original point, which is wrong since, as you admitted, data center boom is clearly creating jobs.

If you meant those jobs are offset by the negative effect of AI in general if we believe AI companies, a study by Anthropic was actively discussed here a few days ago. TLDR: they don't believe there will be mass unemployment because of AI

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49626373

Do you know the specific of which countries buying how much electricity from this plant, or just your wildly guess?

> they’re displacing previous nuclear power users onto dirtier

They are not. The plant may not survive beyond 2030 without this order.

The plant may be closed without this Google's order. The cost to keep it running is substantial. I guess that's what you prefer?

"The Finland deal will ensure that the Loviisa plant keeps operating beyond 2030, the companies said in a statement. Keeping it running until 2050 will require about €1 billion of investments over the years"

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-09-09/google-gi...

You sound like an OpenAI's competitor.

(Just a faintest, without any clue, completely baseless suspicion on my end, just like what you did)

The whole thread without a single technical post about the significance (or not) of the announcement. Who want to follow me to create a new site that focus on the substance of the news?

I'm not abandoning HN, I can come back here to make fun of posts I don't like, post shallow comments, snarky ones, vent my conspiracy theories, complain about the evils that are S, A or E, post my personal anecdotes, advocate for my beliefs which I'm convinced as the only truth. Last but not least, feel smug posting about AI sounding posts. HN is a great place for all of that.

Do human drivers in the same "good weather" cities have fewer accidents than human in other places?

Can you link to those reports? How reputable are the investigators? Financial market has great incentive to stay informed. Those 401ks are their bread and butter customers, and not every bank/fund is Meta's co-conspirator in its shady deals, if any.

It was next to the other piece, for at least 8 hrs.

Ah, "Americans are awful. Now we can be just awful"

> they also call for banning Chinese models and open weights models...

So I guess Anthropic called for banning Chinese models when they said "but let me state it clearly so that there is no doubt: Anthropic has never advocated for a ban on open-weights models."? - [0]

May be they imply it? They work behind the scene for it? well, who knows. My guess is as good as yours. But since we're acting like a child, bending the truth is allowed?

By the way, China is decisive. They just banned outright Claude and Open AI. I guess no open arguments about regulation is good?

[0] - https://www.anthropic.com/news/position-open-weights-models

Capitalism at its finest! Or wait, never mind

> IBM write all this breathless marketing copy that seems detached from the actual utility of the device

What are the actual utility according to IBM? Did they say you can order one today on their website? Or even "call us to get the pricing info"? Are there case studies of what their customers use it for? Or only potential uses?

> Although I believe there's a difference with the Manhattan project. The original atom bomb was "useful" even at its small scale.

No it was not useful, otherwise it'd have been paraded and hyped up on the media. The trinity test was in July 1945. Hiroshima happened in August. They were practically used as soon as they were deemed ready. Hundreds of thousands people died.

They also totally don't care bout Chinese companies, they use those products because there are really no alternatives. Apple and Samsung (reluctantly) comply. I guess we know which other companies don't?

When news doesn't confirm my belief, doubt it and make sure people know.

Trust me I do the same.

First of all, cite them. Second of all, on which time scale, are they both talking about the near, mid or long terms?