"M6 also introduces a Dual 16-core Neural Engine, providing up to 2x the peak compute over previous generations to make on-device AI workflows run even faster" .
Your description grants psychological characteristics like intelligence, will, and intent to the AI. The AI is an intelligent and willful agent that has some intent to take over the firm and is doing that by making strategic hiring decisions.
A different and externally/phenomenologically identical way to look at it is that the AI is just a program that generates output too unpredictable, too voluminous, or too idiosyncratic for people to evaluate. When people submit their own will and their own intent to that program, by treating the black box as an intelligent oracle, they've entered into a psychotic state divorced from reality.
It's two self-consistent and coherent perspectives of the same event, except one involves believing that scifi AI has arrived and the other just thinks people can be dangerously stupid and credulous.
Cult leaders (of cults of personality) can't exist without exploiting mentally-ill people. But would you say that that therefore implies that cult leaders themselves are irrelevant, and that cults should be better modelled as groups of mentally-ill people with emergent group behaviors?
I'd argue no, because different cults end up looking and behaving very differently for reasons that have very little to do with the mental illnesses of the cult members, and much more to do with the particular cult leader. Understanding "what the cult leader optimizes for" is an important part of understanding what the cult will do.
And I would posit that that holds true even if the cult leader never proactively does anything, but instead only answers cult members' questions. As long as the cult members are treating the cult leader's word as gospel, the cult-as-group still ends up optimizing toward the cult leader's preferences.
Any analogy that requires me to treat a machine as I would a conscious human is immediately invalid. The machine is not a person and has no intent or free will, like a human does.
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 extrapolated preferences of a person or group from a [holy] book, of course. (Think of that episode of Star Trek TOS with the gangsters.)
An inference model is just slightly more dangerous for such a cult to latch onto, in that:
1. a model can be asked questions directly, and so the cult members can "rashly" act directly upon its answers/advice/commands, rather than the words first having to pass through "interpretation" (which would otherwise have had a mellowing effect, both due to "decision by committee" if a group of interpreters are involved, and by common sense insofar as any non-mentally-ill people are involved); and
2. a model will offer its opinion (and inject its trained-in biases into) conversations on ideas/subjects/domains even when these didn't exist at the time of the model's construction; so you never reach the point you do with holy books, where an interface-layer of clergy becomes required to map the book's proclamations about things-that-only-mattered-2000-years-ago into equivalent proclamations about things that matter today (where, again, that layer ends up "mellowing" things considerably.)
Also, obviously, a sufficiently-mentally-ill cult can literally think of a model as a person, giving it the "right to have input" into decisions, the "right to self-determination", etc, in a way that would be downright odd to do with a holy book. Though I don't think that's a failure mode that's happening within Anthropic.
A human being is not capable of being a passive question answering oracle. All humans have free will, intent, and bias in what questions they answer and how they answer it. Again, if your analogy requires me to treat a human being and a machine as equivalent when it comes to manipulating other humans emotions, I have to reject it categorically.
What I'm getting at is that you really need to avoid anthropomorphizing these models. A model can't have an opinion, for example. It's a part of the psychosis I'm talking about.
I think HN should be a place where I am excited to see what others have to add. When I see a post I am excited to see what takes and spins others have on it. I do want real criticism and a lively debate about important things, but there has to be a balance.
I want to see other comments that seem like they genuinely want to help steer something or build people up. Sometimes I get the impression that's not happening on HN.
The golden mean is only a useful lens if all sides are equally prepared to take up extremist positions. If some people are taking up considerate or even reasonable positions but others take up the absolute, the golden mean will always skew towards the unreasonable.
The problem is that everything is negative, all the time. Nothing good is allowed to be acknowledged. Everything someone or some company does must not be acknowledged to have any redeeming value- it’s all just negative
Which is sad, because so much amazing stuff is happening on the world right now, and seems to be only accelerating. For everybody.
I don't know, I find it very hard to stay positive about our general direction in the last couple of years, and know few people in real life who don't share this opinion, in or outside of tech. And I'm also not entirely sure I understand why others are excited, it perplexes me. I would appreciate any insight into this.
It may not be critical thinking though, but simply being contrarian, which is one of the easiest ways to sound smart without necessarily providing much of value or substance. And strangely, seeing as it’s relatively rare IRL, seemingly the default on the internet. Blindly praising isn’t worth much either, but I doubt that’s what jonluca is encouraging. It’s possible to “yes, and” without resorting to either sycophancy or relentless negatively.
> Is seeing people talking about the things they don’t like something that makes you unhappy? Why?
Probably (I'm just assuming) because that person observes negative/cautious/"I don't like this because X and Y and also Z"/etc sentiment too much and feels like people are only quick to notice issues while forgetting about good sides.
I’m not the person you’re responding to, but I’ll answer. It’s not worth the (token) cost. It’s too inefficient. It’s brute-forcing solutions to problems by spending more and more tokens.
Have you considered getting better at coding so you can build stuff yourself instead of waiting for models you might not be able to get access to anymore?
I'd love to meet the devs who can spin up full feature web apps in under 15 minutes with all the bells and whistles I've gotten Claude to spin up and code. I don't think the AI haters understand the level of time cutting that you can achieve with a very simple and reasonably crafted prompt.
I'm talking back-end, with database models, classes, queries, accompanying front-end layouts, with real dynamic data, running. Stuff that takes days to weeks to spin up, with minimal errors or issues, having cut down on days or weeks of effort, you can focus on testing and making it all into better code.
And the trade off for that productivity is relying on a completely untrustworthy company/product that gets more expensive and uncertain by the week while your skills erode.
Companies don't care about your skillz, they care about velocity and costs. If AI helps increase velocity and decrease cost by lowering total headcount, then its a massive win. That factors in AI "unpredictability".
You cant claim that you need to skill up and then that you cant also review code, this makes no sense to me. The perl
clutching against AI is something else.
What if you're using it for Mathematics (e.g., making progress on unsolved problems) instead of writing software? Would you consider that a valid use-case?
Who cares about what some random HN user thinks of as a "valid use case?" Engineers that are anti-AI in 2026 are simply NGMI. They have had plenty of opportunities to update their priors and seem incapable of it. No point in wasting your time with them.
Using LLMs for development is not efficient. All of the problems these companies are having trying to provide enough compute and energy are proof.
Understanding the actual problems we are trying to solve with code and efficiently coming up with solutions (essentially, pre-LLM development) will always be better than wastefully brute forcing solutions with LLMs.
> AIslop is of higher quality than devslop on average.
How did you come to that conclusion? That goes against everything I've heard from people who understand development. Every resource I can find about AI vs non-AI development comes to the exact opposite conclusion you did.
Devslop is spaghetti code that grows organically. AIslop is overly complicated code that someone neglected to read. I just distrust the former more than the latter.
The former has the advantage that there's some person you can go to and ask "what the heck, what were you thinking when you wrote this?" The result can be either or both sides seeing it from a different perspective, having a productive discussion to find a good solution, and either or both sides potentially learning something.
None of that is possible with the LLM flavour of slop. I can ask, but I will just get more brainless slop to describe the original slop in other words. It's a soliloquy that I find neither helpful nor interesting.
> You either have lost touch with reality so far to be unable to understand what "oppressed" means or you're just parotting someone else who suffers from that affliction.
This 100% applies to you. If you can’t see ICE actions as oppressive, you’ve definitely lost touch with reality.
ICE is just enforcing law. Also they're enforcing the law regardless of the skim color. There are plenty of white people which have been removed from the USA by ICE, consequently invalidating the previous thesis of it being about white/straight people.
"This changed in June 2025, just weeks after White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller, reportedly frustrated with the slow increase in ICE arrests, called the head of every ICE Field Office into a room in Washington, DC and ordered them to “just go out there and arrest illegal aliens.” Following this meeting, the Trump administration launched its first splashy raid of an American city, sending hundreds of agents into Los Angeles and sparking fiery confrontations between protestors and federal agents." [0]
That's what you're talking about when you say "just enforcing the law"?
> Also they're enforcing the law regardless of the skim color.
"Publicly available ICE and research datasets show clear shifts in who is being arrested and detained—large growth in interior arrests and detention of people without U.S. criminal convictions and major variation across states—but they do not provide a consistent, complete public breakdown of ICE arrests and detention by race and nationality at the county level, so any precise county-level racial or national origin tallies are not available from the cited public sources." [1]
So how do you know that? Are you just guessing? You're accusing me of the exact thing you're doing. Honestly it sounds to me like you're the one suffering from some serious brainrot.
