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 1861–1880 of 3684 matching discussions
I used to demand the same but a word can have multiple meanings depending on the context, eg OpenMind means something specific. Open{$IT-term} does not necessarily mean Open Source {$IT-term} and OpenAI might mean an AI available to all people, not implying anything about cost. What could be illegal is the word Free, which a for-profit company would never use in the first place.
I very explicitly constructed the analogy to not require that! All a "cult leader" need be, in my analogy, is a passive question-answering oracle, the answers of which are biased by a semi-coherent preference function. The machine by itself is not an optimizer, certainly (much of that being by design—see various ~7-year-old conversations across the Internet about how to safely construct "tool AI", that has led almost directly to current model architectures.) But a bunch of mentally-ill people, who are indeed optimizers, can choose to allow the biases evident in the machine's output to become their own... and thereby effectively "bring to life" whatever partial echo of a will is recorded into the machine's output. Now, these same mentally-ill people could just-as-well do this with e.g. the…
Yes, but since we are specifically talking about claude.md, Anthropic themselves claim on their website these files "serve[s] multiple purposes: providing architectural context, ..." ( https://claude.com/blog/using-claude-md-files ) They also recommend starting with an /init command, which is also something the study very specifically called out as "having a marginal negative effect" And from personal experience, I can only confirm that many people seem to see this as the main purpose of agents/claude md files - a persistent architectural overview of your project. Quick Edit: My point simply being that I think it's understandable if some people don't understand the big deal about these files because they've had a drastically different experience than other pe…
I don't trust anything OpenAI says anymore.
Great to hear that you are planning larger benchmarks! I am particularly interested in longer-running tasks with many steps and self-correction. Divergence is fine as long as the model can still solve the task, which Divergence-300 @32 does not measure. The current benchmark suites that frontier AI labs use are probably a good fit, e.g. https://z.ai/blog/glm-5.3#:~:text=Performance%20across%20com... https://www.kimi.ai/ai-models/kimi-k3#:~:text=Performance%20... https://www.anthropic.com/news/claude-opus-5 https://openai.com/index/gpt-5-6/ But guessing from your current benchmarks, I assume that you are severely compute-constrained. What is your time budget?
> I'm not sure why these types of news are still coming out when we all have AI at work. Because OpenAI is burning $15 billion/year, and outrageous stories like those get parroted in the media. It's free marketing for a company desperate to get middle management to believe that a $500/mo subscription is absolutely crucial for every single employee.
> but very few of them are cyber focused, so it’s not surprising IMO Yeah but that's a business decision. I work on security at a company that does sandboxing and when the company decided to build an AI harness I was brought in as one of the earliest engineers on the product. We do almost everything on that list and we're a fraction of the size of OpenAI. And it wasn't particularly hard, and we have harder requirements imo (because we solve more general problems vs "run a very specific agent with a very specific task and very specific access"). > And you’re also not fully considering the granularity problem, eg there are a lot of sandboxing tools out there but they’re usually quite coarse in the dials and levers they offer, so the only way you can still make the workload do what it …
That's incorrect. My thought process hinges upon the fact that Hugging face did not report that uncontrolled models escaped confinement autonomously by coordinating with other models via a series of zero days during training. OP is concerned about the autonomous nature of the incident, not whether or not the incident happened. Nor am I contesting that the incident happened.
I see. Following your conjecture, there are two possibilities: 1. It wasn't an accident. OpenAI explicitly directed its agents to hack Hugging Face. Despite the fact that such a thing is a federal crime that carries prison sentence. 2. It wasn't an accident. OpenAI and HuggingFace conspired and let the hack happen for publicity. Is there anything I'm leaving out?
By this point, he is very much nutso enough that a Lean certified counterexample to his theories would not dissuade him. His response would be either that the formalization is incorrect (with no coherent insights on how to fix it), or worse, Lean itself is a tool of Western imperialism and incapable of properly explicating his ideas. He has, in the past, ranted against such things as monotheism and English grammar as being the reason for his theories' lack of popularity. IIRC he has expressed support in the past for attempts to formalize IUT in Lean, but we'll see where that really goes, because he's absolutely not clearheaded enough to lead such a project himself.
Quite frankly, the proprietary company's products are no longer good enough for them to be able to enforce a moat. The scene is popping and nobody is satisfied staying with one provider. If they stopped selling via Openrouter, the 18.2% of Openrouter's revenue that currently goes to OpenAI or the 23.4% of their revenue that goes to Google would probably dry up. Some people would switch back, but those who are happy to juggle multiple budgets and endpoints and API key management infrastructure are already doing so to avoid Openrouter's 5-10% cut. This is really evident at any $bigco where you can wait for weeks for a purchase order, needing leadership's approval and accounting's "I'll get to it when I get to it." > OpenAI/Anthropic/etc don’t establish the direct customer relat…
> now put that in the hands of people/governments with bad intentions Like Anthropic and OpenAI?
(Although I'm not completely sure this maps onto Anthropic, which was never primarily targeting consumers.) This pisses off businesses though. I guarantee you that multiple businesses will set up workflows with different AIs for orchestration as sold to them by OpenAI and Anthropic. Cue agents.md not working, "What do you mean the thing I'm paying this much per seat for doesn't play well with the other AIs?" The consumers here are developers -- who are--> potential founders OR future purchase decision makers. It's a TERRIBLE idea to piss them off just because they're small. They're "small" right now. But quite a few of them will have long careers and they will remember. It's why so many trad corp companies give stuff away to students for free / treat the people on the come up as f…
They get paid the same either way, Openrouter takes their cut and passes it onto the consumer. And anyone with an Openrouter account has already escaped from their proprietary moat. So for those who have expressed a clear preference for provider-agnostic model infrastructure, do you want to just wall yourself away from them forever? And per the rankings [0] 18.2% of the tokens sold through went to OpenAI [1]. 3.8% for Anthropic though. Google's up there at 23.4% primarily because GCP/Vertex/whatever they're offering is a billing nightmare and the only way to set a hard cap and sure you won't wake up the next day with a $10k bill is via OR. [0] https://openrouter.ai/rankings#market-share [1] Although gpt-oss 20b and 120b are indexed as 'openai' because they're the …
It's not dangerous to go further unless you're prepping for IPO at anthropic or openai. Open weight Chinese models are basically matching state of the art closed models at a fraction of the inference and training costs, which puts a hard cap on OpenAI's future inference margins. They're not going to get any sort of multiplier if they keep paying to train models, so they're trying to ban model training. It won't work long term, but it could totally screw over the US for the next decade or so. Even worse than the economic issue: Consider the implications of "alignment" succeeding. Alignment to whose values? The pedophile-felon in chief? Even worse, tech CEOs? It's dark times when China's basically our last best defense against totalitarianism.
I think the skepticism surrounding the Hugging Face attack is not about whether the attack actually happened, but whether it was truly accidental.
Precisely. Anthropic was never good to its consumer users.
OpenAI/Anthropic/etc don’t establish the direct customer relationship. And OpenRouter can steer traffic away from those labs over to their own model. The major labs don’t get personalized data about the user to train on, since it’s aggregated. Which is just some of the reasons why strategically it doesn’t seem in their best interest to allow a middle person.
Exactly. This is a free market economy. Buyers and sellers come together of their own free will, unencumbered by interfering third parties and exchange money for goods and services. There are a lot of comments in this thread proposing some kind of interfering in these transactions. Don't like Amazon or Anthropic digitizing rare books? Then buy them yourself and stop with the kvetching.
Can someone help me understand why OpenAI, Anthropic & other proprietary models would want to make their offerings available on OpenRouter? It seems strategically not in their interest.
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.