Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | otabdeveloper4's commentslogin

Someone should document these cringe comments for posterity. As a warning to future generations.

It's too bad the previous singularity cult manias 10 and 15 years ago weren't documented and are lost in time.


Ten years ago, most of the skeptics in these threads would have said the success of AlphaFold 3 was impossible.

They'll only get to claim a hollow victory because AGI is impossible to rigorously define. None of the regulating bodies of consumer products will be able to define it better than academics. They'll use marketing to make those claims and there will be legal battles that keep it in a gray area.

They'll go for that because it's easier than actually inventing the 'sci-fi' AGI, shareholders keep making money, and it keeps them getting paid to keep going. If any of them actually do succeed, then that little deception will be peanuts.


Demis' bar is high and he stated clearly multiple times: AGI should be capable of inventing truly novel things. Examples he gave included the Theory of General Relativity and the game of Go.

Just a taste of what's to come: https://openai.com/index/model-disproves-discrete-geometry-c...

Anthropic's latest model also solved this 80-year-old problem that eluded many expert mathematicians, in a different way, according to one of its employees.

Remember we still have 4 years until 2030.


Quite frustrating to see all these cynical, borderline-irrational comments on HN. Maybe I should do what pg and other ex-HN contributors have done--avoid taking part in the discussions here.

The level of discourse here has dropped so much.

At least I should stop replying to people hiding under throwaway accounts.


It doesn't mean everything you can think of is possible.

People who say every jobs will be automated never held any tool more advanced than a screwdriver and never worked a single day outside of an air conditioned office.

They were predicting flying cars for "the year 2000"...


But enough jobs are going to be automated that it will cause social and economic chaos, and political breakdown. Sure AI can't attach an air conditioning unit outside my window nor use a plunger on my toilet but it can still replace lawyers, secretaries, software devs, and many more jobs.

I'm curious: how will it replace e.g. lawyers? Will judges be replaced as well? Juries?

Are we sur eof any of that?

Taxis were supposed to be all replaced when Uber promised to buy every single Tesla model S coming out of factories from 2020,they're not even self driving today...

Software engineers were supposed to disappear "in 6 months" every 6 months since chat gpt was released

Lots of people on this website live in insane bubbles which are completely out of sync with the reality of most workers


No one rational ever said software engineers were going to be replaced in 6 months. Some people said AI will automate 90% of coding in 6 months and they were not far off (and accurate in some contexts, e.g. startups).

Surely you can think of some times the skeptics have been right.

I immediately thought of this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_predictions_for_autono...


Ten years ago, most people would have said cold fusion was impossible... and still is.

If you look how much goalpost has been moved over the last decade it'd turn out that AI cultist were right more frequently than AI sceptics.

You know in the future they are just going to say it's different this time right?

The Enigma Of Mass Amnesia...

I'm sure HN cult comments from 10 and 15 years ago are still up though, the Dropbox thread is frequently linked to.

Just search for "stochastic parrot" on Algolia. Plenty of "BuT iTs NoT rEaLlY iNtElIgEnT" comments...

Yeah, same.

DNS isn't centralized at all.

The top-level domain registrars are centralized. But you don't need to use them - you're free to use your own TLD's instead of, or even in parallel to, the official ones.


The moronic "no need programmers" hype cycle happens every 15 years. We've all been here many times before.

> AI is better at this than you. You just won't admit it.

No, you're just really, really shit at programming. You just won't admit it.

(AI, in general, is only impressive when you have no clue about the subject domain.)


LLMs are always amazing doing stuff you're bad at. (And always underwhelming doing stuff you know.)

Number of parameters doesn't make the model smarter, it just makes it know more stuff out of the box.

At some point there's diminishing returns and your coding LLM performs worse because you encoded useless stuff like Pokemon combinations or languages you don't speak into its parameter space.

The "smartness" of the model comes from RLHF post-training, which is orthogonal to model size.

Also, if you're using an agentic harness a much better approach is to let the model control its own context. If you ever reach a point where your coding LLM needs to know about Pokemon, just give it a web search tool and let it google the Pokemons.


That's just... not true. Just compare any open model which is trained with the same recipe but multiple sizes.

You can compare models at OpenRouter site. Qwen 3.6 dense is in top 24% for coding.

> Just compare any open model which is trained with the same recipe but multiple sizes.

That's exactly what I did.


Source? Proofs?

Do communism and secular humanism count as "religions" here?


The Crusaides and literally all of British colonialism.

Do you not know anything about history?


The Crusades and colonialism can’t be distilled down to single causes, but even if you tried, religious reasons would not be the main ones. Political and financial motivations were far bigger factors in both.

The East India Company was motivated by religion?

You'll have a hard time justifying that unless you're some sort of hardcore Jewish cryptosupremacy conspiracy theorist.



I interview C++ developers often, and here in 2026 it seems pretty much everyone is using modern (C++20 and up) language versions.

Maybe the tooling finally caught up.


Benign cancers are a thing. They might not kill like they show in the Hollywood movies, but your quality of life will be significantly diminished.

Squamous cell carcinoma does not metastatize, but my god it can disfigure people really badly if not treated in time.

> Squamous cell carcinoma does not metastatize (sic)

This is false; it does so, but slowly.

https://www.moffitt.org/cancers/squamous-cell-carcinoma/diag...


> Benign cancers are a thing.

No, they aren't. Cancer is malignant by definition.

There are benign non-malignant tumors.


"Malignant" and "benign" isn't a dichotomy, it is a loose sliding scale.

"Benign" is any cancer where wait-and-watch is a valid medical approach.


You're simply wrong. Again, cancer is malignant by definition. And again, you seem to be confusing "cancer" with "tumor" -- your description applies to the latter, not the former.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamaoncology/fullarticle/27...

"Malignant tumors are cancerous (ie, they invade other sites)."

https://www.cancer.org/cancer/understanding-cancer/what-is-c...

"Tumors are lumps or masses of abnormal cells (neoplasms) that can be malignant (cancer) or benign (not cancer)."

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/benign

"of a mild type or character that does not threaten health or life especially : not becoming cancerous"

That cancer is malignant by definition is extremely well known. I won't respond further.

P.S. I looked through your other comments and can highly recommend you to https://www.reddit.com/r/confidentlyincorrect/


> cancer is malignant by definition

A distinction without a difference.

You can label a slow-growing tumor as "not-cancer" if you want, for psychological reasons, I guess; "cancer" just sounds scarier. Some slow-growing "not-cancer" tumors are faster than others. It's a sliding scale, not a dichotomy.


"cancer is malignant by definition"

> A distinction without a difference.

What distinction? This is a phrase that this confidently wrong ignoramus apparently doesn't know the meaning of.


Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: