Alternative proposal: Since no one reasonable actually wants a future where humans are irrelevant - including the people in power who generally like being relevant - we could remember that we’re thinking beings with agency and just decide not to use AI to replace ourselves.
We made a new tool. Using the tool for some things makes life better. Using the tool too much would make life worse. So let’s not do that!
Good luck with that, nobody reasonable wanted World War II either.
Fun trivia: Hotta's book "Japan 1941: Countdown To Infamy" suggests that the Japanese military collectively knew they would lose if they went to war against the U.S even as its rival service branches egged each other on into starting it.
Distillation only lets you keep pace with released models. By all indication, OpenAI/Anthropic’s unreleased internal models are so far ahead of Astra/Fable and every other lab that the chance of anyone else catching up is rapidly closing.
That's more a function of the amount of compute they can throw at it. They can afford to let an agent run in a loop for longer than you and I can. Its not proof of a vastly superior model.
Not proof but it does waggle it's eyebrows suggestively!
Like sure the marketing is undoubtedly overblown. But in 2025 there was no amount of money you could spend to make such impressive but weirdly unreadable progress.
Agreed but the math results don't seem out of reach for the publicly available models in 2026. Certainly, they have an unrefined but superior internal model. But the math results don't prove said internal model would be as big of a leap if released today as Mythos was when it was announced.
We don't have any information other than that they are capable enough of solving unsolved math problems. Are they good at writing a good movie script? Do they understand protein ligand interactions? Who knows. Let's wait till they release the model
Do you have any source for any of that? Also haven't people been saying that China would be hopelessly distanced for the better part of 2 years, only to be proven wrong over and over again? Deepseek-r1, kimi k3, etc.
People said the same about mythos, and o3, and gpt-4.
Most of the very recent spectacular achievements (math conjectures) were done by leveraging datacenter capacity (throwing agents and millions' worth of compute at the wall until something sticks), not any secret sauce intelligence.
It’s not a religious belief. There is a mountain of scientific evidence supporting the idea that ultra processed foods are bad for you, including the study linked in this HN submission, for reasons linked to the biological effect of specific ingredients and processes.
Type any enzyme or emulsifier off an ingredient list into Google and you can easily find a study about its health impact.
We have been using emulsification for centuries, dude. This is fully a religious belief about purity. The fact that the package the food comes in is considered in the nova classification just makes me double down on this stance, you don't eat the packaging.
>including the study linked in this HN submission
This study proves absolutely nothing - the participants were not blinded to what they were consuming (and presumably could consume it at any speed/order). We already know how you perceive a food will effect hormones/biological response [1].
Avoid any food additives that you want; you just won't convince me 1) this framework is something logical or 2) cheese is a minimally processed food.
That’s true except for this part, which is arguably a bigger deal for the Wikipedia ecosystem:
> Excessive data downloading: Agents we believe to be operated by OpenAI made millions of automated requests to our public APIs to access the knowledge on Wikimedia projects, crawled millions of pages (mainly from our projects Wikidata and Wikimedia Commons), and made hundreds of thousands of data queries to the Wikidata Query Service (WQDS). This traffic may have contributed to a partial outage on WQDS in May.
Even when agents are well-behaved and browsing Wikipedia for ethical reasons, the system wasn’t designed for this kind of load from bots. As OP says, we don’t need to accept this as the new normal.
OpenAI and other companies within the reach of the US legal system will eventually get their agents under control, or get sued out of existence.
But overseas operators in loosely-governed parts of the world (russia, nigeria, etc) will someday have access to these tools. And while OpenAI's agents were merely uncaring, these ones will be intentionally malicious.
The arms race for scammers, hackers, and botnets will escalate. We'll need new ways to block and fight back against them.
Not sure what you mean. The top of the linked page is a video showing the product being used. Immediately below are the words “Compose images from scratch” and more examples, followed by “Text-to-image with strong prompt following and a native understanding of composition.” This is all within the first 100 words of content on the page.
I agree that it's clear for me and most techies, but maybe for a more general audience they could have added "AI image generation" or some variant of "generative AI" or "image generation model" or something like that. You can also compose images from scratch in Photoshop and Blender.
Why should the announcement page for an image generation model and a technical description of its capabilities and interface be accessible for or catering toward a more general audience? What's next, should my API docs explain what an API is?
The method of the NS advance involved RLHE (reinforcement learning via human example), and that is only open-ended if users continue to advance the frontier within chats ahead of publications.
Sure, but the point is that the labs use more powerful internal models for research work, not public models. Public models tend to lag the internal frontier by a decent margin, and are constrained in other ways by monitoring. It’s just not a useful indicator.
FWIW, I flagged and downvoted both of your comments. The article is a very interesting overview of the space and recent developments, and having to scroll past multiple paragraphs about your low attention span and reading difficulties to get to some actual technical discussion was quite frustrating!
Is flagging and downvoting really the right tool to express disagreement of opinion here? I disagree very much with what you just wrote, but I would not flag it.
For the next time, instead of scrolling, you can just press the little "-" next to a post which collapses it and its whole subtree. Out of sight.
Besides, I explicitly stated that I read 2/3 of the article. How is that "low attention span"? And I didn't just bash it, I formulated what I find missing in it. Do you have answers to those questions? And how does asking such questions indicate "reading difficulties"?
It's quite fascinating that if my comment is so appaling to you, why you'd take the time to respond. I thank you for that though.
It reminds me of the Cognitive Dark Forest hypotheses recently shared here:
> “You are creating your cool streaming platform in your bedroom. Nobody is stopping you, but if you succeed, if you get the signal out, if you are being noticed, the large platform with loads of cash can incorporate your specific innovations simply by throwing compute and capital at the problem. They can generate a variation of your innovation every few days, eventually they will be able to absorb your uniqueness. It’s just cash, and they have more of it than you.
So the safest bet again is to stay silent, or at least under the radar. Best bet is to not disrupt - succeed at all … ?”
We made a new tool. Using the tool for some things makes life better. Using the tool too much would make life worse. So let’s not do that!
reply