Attributed mentions
2195
Across all collected Hacker News results
Discussion intelligence
A source-linked Hacker News monitor for the tracked company graph. These are attributable public discussions—not sentiment, endorsements, or unverified company facts.
Attributed mentions
2195
Across all collected Hacker News results
Companies represented
12
Exact-name monitor matches only
Collection source
Hacker News
Latest new record seen
Source-backed records
Showing 421–440 of 2195 matching discussions
I don't know how long the agent loop runs. Without a limit, the cost seemed likely to be higher than expected. Therefore, I decided to create a library to limit the cost. It's not complex as it blocks with purely simple code. I'm developing it little by little during my breaks. npm install budget-guard const ai = guard(openai.chat.completions, {project: 'app', dailyCapUSD: 50}); await ai.create({ model: 'gpt-5.6', messages }, { feature: 'summarize' }); The current default behavior is blocking. I'm wondering if it would be better to use warning messages and callback functions. Any feedback is appreciated.
I was on the fence for a long time as well. It just looked like a lot of work. And not to sugar coat it, it _is_ a lot of work. But it’s also been so rewarding. You get to see someone experience things for the first time, like riding a bike or eating a tomato. Teaching them it’s ok to have feelings, helping them overcome their fears, watching them make friends. Giving them the advice I wished I had heard from someone I trusted growing up. And a million other things. And the hug and kiss at night with “I love you daddy” can’t be replicated.
How so? The suggestion is that Gobekli Tepe is the original T-shaped pillar school of agricultural knowledge, thousands and thousands of years old, and which was subsequently replicated in another region of the world where agricultural knowledge also rapidly expanded through human industry. That’s pretty clear. That it has not been academically demonstrated is of course relevant - but then, the research at Gobekli Tepe came to a screeching halt around the same time this idea was first proposed, so perhaps it is important to do more than just scratch the surface of the subject ..
This is an important point. When the post says they're improving... > 3. Security measures, which limit what AI systems can access or affect. What they mean is that proper hard internal security just went from somewhere far below "build a better model" priority to higher, because of a company-wide directive. The HuggingFace incident wouldn't have happened if OpenAI had dedicated sufficient resources to isolation and monitoring. Now, we presume, they are dedicating more. Enough? Who knows. We'll see if the corporate priorities for security stick when a competitor temporarily vaults into the lead.
> So what's wikipedia doing vs what LLMs do? For Wikipedia, people look up sources to create some original work. They do it while citing the original work but that's not the major point. That's clearly all lawful, you are allowed to do that. For LLMs, people (or let a software do it, doesn't really matter) copy original work and use it for commercial purpose. If that's allowed fully depends on the license of the original work, but I didn't think anybody really beliefs that OpenAI and others check the license for every single original work they ever used. So it's basically the biggest copyright infringement ever. Everything else is just framing coming from big companies. So, the problem already starts while training the model. Regarding its output, if it happens to output work that fall…
Why would they offer a coding subscription and start competing with some of their biggest customers; when they are capacity-bound and companies like OpenAI will take however many wafers that Cerebras sells to them? OpenAI's Sol ultrafast (powered by Cerebras) is still in preview, presumably because they're overall capacity bound.
It's not that dangerous, OpenAI just shit the bed building their infra. Write safer software and you'll be okay.
So the that the Norwegian sovereign wealth funds become the exit liquidity for early OpenAI investors? Why? If they want to invest in AI, they are better off developing hardware that could host AI models and making their own models (making an in-house Cerebras, or buying hat firm entirely) off opensource ones, and running them in their own datacenters than investing into a bubble caused by circular investment.
Do you know the story of the boy who cried wolf? There may very well be a wolf lurking [0] but OpenAI/Anthropic have both cried wolf so many times, incorrectly, that it’s incredibly hard to believe “this time there IS a wolf!”. Remember “GPT-2 is too dangerous to release”? I had a conversation at work just yesterday about how we need to start hardening things we’ve let languish because of the coming LLM-backed attacks we are sure to face, even if just from a script kiddy. I do think we are headed in that direction, however it’s Sam/Dario’s own fault that people aren’t going to take them seriously. Lastly, as other have pointed out, this seems more financially motivated than our of any real desire for “safety”. We’ve all seen how both labs approach “safety” so it’s quite rich for…
> If you look into what happened the details corroborated by hugging face make it seem extremely unlike to be deliberate or a "marketing ploy". I should clarify There is a reason why we didn't have a artifact readthrough caching proxy in our system, because they are notoriously insecure. if you look that CVE history you can see its been full of bypass bugs for year. Also its not an isolated environment if you can arbitrarily pull through any package. If I was doing any kind of cyber training then any kind of unmonitored proxy would have been forbidden. Not because I am savant, but because I've seen what fuckery a human can get up to with the slightest hint of a proxy. At best its negligence based on naïvety. the marketing around this is no mistake though.
I enjoyed the writeup on the optics. Very similar to the contrast transfer function in my field (cryo-EM). Except arguably harder because this is an anisotropic technique with a much less coherent source. In this case, refractive index is analogous to coulombic potential in my field. i.e. stuff being in the way (refractive index, electron density) of the scattered wave = weak phase change = things become out of phase and cancel (or reinforce) as a function of spatial frequency. Of course, you can phase flip in Fourier space (which we do), but that still leaves you gaps at (and approaching) where contrast crossed over zero. To solve that in my field we average across different defocuses (shifts the phase of the oscillations) to fill in the gaps. Nothing analogous here that I can tell but p…
> This sentence is entirely based on unverified accounts from OAI Are you seriously arguing 'they made it all up'? I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and lets say they made it all up, now are you arguing that AI breaking out and breaking into another company is not possible? I think you're smart enough to see we've reached the point where it is clearly possible, AI can find zero days and exploit them. If directed purposefully/maliciously it could be much much worse than the hugging face incident. The incident is supposed to be the canary the coal mine and you're arguing the canary might of died of old age or some underlying canary condition. Open your eyes.
Methodology: HN Search returns recent public items matching a monitored company name. AIIStack stores a short normalized excerpt and the original link, deduplicates by company/provider/item ID, and creates an activity signal only after a threshold of newly observed records. Review the original discussion before making a decision.