Attributed mentions
3684
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
3684
Across all collected Hacker News results
Companies represented
14
Exact-name monitor matches only
Collection source
Hacker News
Latest new record seen
Source-backed records
Showing 441–460 of 3684 matching discussions
Does it even matter if it distills other models? ethically no, because the information was originally stolen from us users... it is indirectly harming anthropic if it is happening, but who cares? It is better for everyone except anthropic that anthropic doesn't have a monopoly.
Before anyone even contemplates if Anthropic has any good intentions, remember, this is how petty and small minded they are. Truly the last people you want with this kind of power.
2008 was a shortened mention of the event when multiple companies by all rights went "bad", i.e. should have went bankrupt on their own merit and performance. But an external entity bailed them out and so they continue to exist and work later on. But does this mean that those companies (like Fannie Mae et. al.) weren't "bad" in 2008? No, it doesn't. Same logic with pure AI corpos and adjacent dependents. If the doomsayers would ever be right about them being financially unsustainable, then most likely these companies would never get even close to the bankruptcy, simply because they would be bailed by external entities. So we would never be sure if OpenAI and Anthropic were "bad" or not, financially. Because either critics are wrong, or any corporate deficits would be covered by budget mon…
I agree with the conclusion but not necessarily the why. I don't think therapy is always about projecting your other relationships on to your therapist. A lot of time its your relationship with yourself that you're trying to work through. Or sometimes you just need someone who can observe and challenge you. Or sometimes you just need the space to be honest about what's going on in your mind where there won't be the social consequences of saying that to your friends or family. I agree that the frame of the therapist-client relationship is key. I agree that AI simply cannot replicate that. You need someone on the other end who has both the deductive ability but also the emotional intelligence to either suss out or help you suss out what exactly is causing discomfort. And AI just can't creat…
[Disclosure: Antfly CEO] We've talked to all kinds of companies burning incredible amounts of tokens on Anthropic and OpenAI just to search slack, google drive, their email; or getting frustrated by dumb Copilot conversations that can't find things in SharePoint. We think we can make this better and you should own your data.
Anthropic in 2025: We can use our dominant market position to degrade the harness experiences of our competitors because they will never adopt CLAUDE.md Anthropic in 2026: We are losing our market position. Users who adopted other harnesses have a degraded Claude Code experience because it doesn't recognize their AGENTS.md
Honestly will not be surprised to see future Anthropic press release that their AI is so powerful it made something in their bio lab that escaped and killed people, and that the government really needs to step in and and stop them from doing it again. Given Anthopic's self-admitted inability to control their own AI, it seems one of the last things they should be doing is putting the POS anywhere near a bio lab. If an AI company wants to help with science, then give free AI to scientists who actually know what they are doing.
Is it realistic to rewrite your AGENTS.md every six weeks? That's about how often Anthropic releases a new point release of Opus.
DuckDB is a good one, we're working on that especially for the serverless/lakehouse stuff we've got planned for the next release! I believe we originally had qdrant in our benchmarks but ran into an explosion of testing requirements for each provider and different licensing checks for each but I can drum up those numbers!
It just feels like the companies behind AIs are spinning their own poor monitoring and criminal (digital) trespassing into something they can't be held responsible for. Even though they are, of course. In the hugging face incident, Anthropic should pay for damages and a fine for malicious hacking. In this incident, whoever signed off on using the tool, and whoever said the intel was good should both be prosecuted or at the very least reprimanded (whatever the rules for a bad interpretation of intel is) and the tool put on hold.
Could you add qdrant and duckdb to the benchmarks?
> if humans (or any intelligent physical entity) are at most Turing-complete This is a bit of a strange assumption to make. I do agree that a human, if it had infinite memory, would be an universal machine, i.e. capable of computing any given Turing machine [0]. But would that be the limits of its capabilities? It's far from certain. You'll get into the philosophy of free will (funnily enough, a sort of inverted Turing test), i.e. for a given human with infinite memory, is there a Turing machine that exactly replicates the behavior of that human? Is our behavior governed entirely by rules? Would that imply that a human themselves is a kind of Chinese room [1]? > any non-constructive math "steps" or thoughts must also be at most computable. What does it mean for a "thought" to be com…
In the Hugging Face attack, their assigned task was not to invent a message board and hack Hugging Face. That they did all that in pursuit of the actual task strongly indicates goal-oriented behavior
> It's funny, because I literally didn't give any definition. Quoting the consensus from the "Definitions" section of the Wikipedia article on intelligence certainly doesn't seem like "I didn't give any definition". Which of those definitions do you think are not satisfied by the Hugging Face attack? How did that not demonstrate "evolution and learning from mistakes"? Breaking out and inventing a new side channel for communicating with other agents via cache keys to coordinate their efforts is at least arguably an evolutionary step since that allowed them to transcend their original capabilities. From the 8 definitions provided in the Wikipedia page--you're free to develop your own definition if you'd like, of course; it's not as though the ones listed were appointed by God--I could sa…
An AI system cannot replace professional people. It doesn’t replicate or do the work that they do. That’s not what it is for and it is incapable of performing these tasks. If you are using these systems you still need to know what you want and how to specify it. You can use agents to automate much of the work but it can’t tell you that your ideas are bad, that there’s a better way to accomplish your goals; it can’t tell you what you want. And if you can’t understand what it is outputting you’re failing in your primary task as a developer: understanding the problem. I agree with the title. I just don’t think these systems will ever be capable of replacing humans. As much as product managers and executives would love it and not have to deal with us; they’ll just be shooting themselves in th…
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.