Where the AI market is talking

OpenAI: Tomorrow we are re-opening the Pro $200 subscription

Title should be - 'OpenAI cuts Pro $200 usage by 50%'

Does Reddit have an astroturfing problem? What the data suggests

It’s trivial to understand why the useless banter is needed though. Before people started using age limits on accounts, you had more bots and trolls on Reddit. Forums had similar barriers as well, with general or low stakes sections you needed to develop age or standing within before you could post on other topics. “Worse” isn’t a function of behaviors bots can do. There is no activity that dedication cannot make a bot cannot replicate. It used to be that you could make out patterns in bot behavior to figure out which accounts were authentic and which were not. With LLMs, those fingerprints are gone. They post in communities and behave in manners that are indistinguishable from normal users. Forums worked because they were in an era that has long since past.

Jeff – Jev-compatible 0.8B decision models, trained at home, ~30 ms

What they did was immediately obvious and trivial to replicate

What reversing, modernising old games tells us about the economic impact of AI

Yep. And these companies know it. I’ve been in the room with execs candidly saying their billion-dollar cash cows will be easily replicated by a teenager on a weekend. The sane ones recognize that sales, service, and support have value. Is that teenager going to ensure 24/7 operation for a multinational? The less sane ones think “if one teenager can build MS office, our thousands of SWEs can make thousands of, uh, help me out here…”

OpenAI Says It Will Not Release Newest A.I. Model Over Safety Concerns

"Too dangerous to release" until an open-weight model replicates it two weeks later.

SpaceX's Starship launching to orbit for first time ever today

That's the level of tech the colony will need to replicate if it's going to be truly self sufficient for anything other than short periods which it would be to fulfill it's purpose as an actual "backup" in the situation it's trying to restore a broken earth it's going to need chips to put in all sorts of things. For a tiny example look at how long the shockwaves of minor delays in chip availability from various floods in Taiwan or the Suez blockage have caused issues and imaging them just not being available. Yes it wouldn't be the first step on establishing them but it is the kind of things it would need to be truly self sufficient. Chips are in practically every thing today already, it's a critical supply component to do anything other than simply surviving.

Show HN

This is origintracer a low level observability tool of the modern web stack. It observes nginx, Gunicorn, asynchronous Python, Uvicorn and Django and Langchain. Studies their codebases into great depth and write probes and rules libraries in Python to be used with the open source software: its link GitHub: https://github.com/Humbulani1234/origintracer

Who should be held accountable when an AI Agent (accidentally) acts maliciously?

> the debate is going to come down to what is and isn't considered reckless This is a more productive debate than pretending all AI is inherently reckless or should be exempt from all liability, which are the actual two poles of the current dialogue. > Safe-harbor best practices that cap liability are ripe for abuse Safe harbors aren’t swimming pools. You can explicitly exempt certain categories of harm from damages. But if an OpenAI bot hacks Hugging Face and causes some chaos but no lasting damage, that strikes me as something a fixed cheque on a fixed scale fixes more effectively than years of litigation or an NTSB-style inquiry. If, on the other hand, anyone is or could have been injured, no safe harbor. I think it’s important to delineate this, because in the public consciousne…

It's Time to Investigate the AI Labs

This is a wrong-headed attempt to regulate AI. The real problems are different. AI systems, especially multi-agent ones that can do things, are more akin to corporations, than individuals. When you read the logs from the Hugging Face incident, you're seeing something that looks a lot like internal corporate emails. Various units of the organization are arguing over what to do and who does what. They eventually converge and get the job done, breaking the rules at times. This is normal corporate behavior. When agentic AIs do something outside their own internal world, they do it by engaging in transactions with external systems and people. As yet, few have robots to do their bidding. So, again, this is normal corporate behavior. A corporation is a goal-seeking system. In theory, if you agre…

OpenAI, Hugging Face Attack – Music Video

OpenAI still doesn't seem to have a handle on all of its rogue AI activity

> Hacking is illegal I am not a lawyer, but I seriously doubt the feds could win a CFAA conviction on the Hugging Face fact pattern, even if they wanted to charge it. CFAA has specific intent requirements, and unlike some laws, negligence does not suffice. The agents can not have legally cognizable intent and it’s unlikely there’s anyone at OpenAI who intended for the hacking to happen (if there was, the case is easy). Existing laws don’t contemplate AI agents that have independent goals. We need new ones, the existing laws are not remotely sufficient.

OpenAI still doesn't seem to have a handle on all of its rogue AI activity

The incidents flagged after Hugging Face were found by third parties, though, months after they occurred.

Show HN: HN.watch – Videos of all Hacker News posts

These AI explainers are taking over. I tried getting this working back in May. The models were okay but not quite there and it was a ton of effort. Opus 5.5 seems like the tipping point. I made an OSS framework for these for when you want to go beyond one-shoting it: https://github.com/scosman/videowright - Voiceovers: aligns animations to the voiceover, can generate voiceover with elevenlabs, or will transcribe and timestamp a real voiceover - can reorder scenes both in code, and using ffmpeg for audio. - interactive controls during authoring, can ask for micro edits or re-builds - MP4 export/encoder - Generates a video from a prompt (obvs)

Eleven v4 by ElevenLabs

Prompting Claude Opus 5.5

It's very good, yes, but I expected it to produce midjourney type results out of the box. That did not happen. The models are definitely granular stuff now though. They must be training off a ton of digital artist stroke data now. But it other cases, like the music videos, much of the magic is done by access to elevenlabs and suno apis. Edit: just saw your edit about the pdoom video. Can you share how you prompted it? Would be helpful to know.

Ember-1

What you say is true, and Moonshot definitely has an agreement with Fireworks, but it still just feels wrong. It’s not the America I grew up in, where if you took, you gave back. I know that’s not a very coherent and practical position, but it feels true to me.

There is more to code review than (automatable) detection

No, no they can’t. I use AI a lot and I get a lot of value from it but they are still terrible at programming “in the large”, by which I mean slotting features into the place meant for them in the existing code base. When coding and reviewing their view is too local. They will implement a change in the first place that looks feasible when coding. When reviewing they will not look for code duplication or fit. They will review for correctness, performance, security and style but not for architectural coherence. They also have shockingly weak ability to identify business acceptance criteria that are completely missing in the implementation or test coverage.

When did Google get so weird?

This is the key part I think most “normies” miss, and it drives me absolutely mad. People take the “first thing on the SERP” as absolute gospel, always have. It went from being a reputable site (Wikipedia was generally top for a long time) to being an extracted verbatim answer (probably from either Wikipedia, IMDB, etc.) to “AI Overview” - the dumbest model ever trained. And people treat its answers as ground truth. I want to tell them “Look, I know it’s rough out there on the net and a lot of the search results are spammy, barely-coherent AI slop anyway. It’s okay if you want to ask AI for an answer instead. So do that! Please ask ChatGPT or Gemini (and ask it to cite the source for its results so you can verify). It will always do better than AI Overviews will. Don’t even use Google Sea…

When did Google get so weird?

Search died, and none of us noticed. Why would Google announce it? It'd be like the Milk Processor board announcing that all dairy cattle went extinct... no, they'd just try to slip oat juice in as a substitute and hope no one notices. Cloudflare murdered crawlers. Then, OpenAI and Anthropic nailed a few hundred nails into the coffin just to be sure... whatever large websites were still semi-open weren't going to let their precious data be ingested for free. Good prostitutes don't give it away. I'm not sure when all this happened. It snuck up on me too. I think maybe 10 years ago search still worked. Not long after that though. It was dead 6 years ago, and I want to say it was dead even 8 years ago. Someone else could do a better job narrowing it down I'm sure.

Unsealed Briefs in Authors’ Case v. Microsoft/OpenAI

Training in the US has, in fact, been decided (at least to the extent that anything has currently been decided). Bartz vs Anthropic specifically ruled training an AI model on legally owned copyrighted material is sufficiently transformative[1]: This order grants summary judgment for Anthropic that the training use was a fair use. And, it grants that the print-to-digital format change was a fair use for a different reason. But it denies summary judgment for Anthropic that the pirated library copies must be treated as training copies. The document you linked was written a month before the Bartz decision was reached. It's also worth noting even the document you linked says this in its conclusion: Various uses of copyrighted works in AI training are likely to be transformative. The extent to …