I really don't think this is effective advertising, reactions have been negative virtually everywhere.
The security bugs were real (see the Open Source projects struggling to keep up) so I think gradual rollout was sensible originally before the ban. But people have always resented safety steps.
"W have to go through a regulatory approval process like everyone else" is so much less sexy than "Our model was so powerful that it got banned by the government after a few hours and now all our competitors have to go through a regulatory process invented because of us"
There's nothing sexy about it. From the get go they were accused of FUD drama and that it backfired as predicted. Now what I see in reality is that Anthropic mostly reaped more resentment from their poor marketing attempt. And their model is basically useless or unreliable from being lobotomized by guardrails.
Subscription folks barely have access to the model. Some report a single prompt before hitting weekly limit. And that's when it works instead of downgrading.
If that is a first movers play, it's a disastrous one.
How sexy do you think this guy finds Anthropic now?
> Today I told Sonnet (!) to use a browser MCP to enter a username and password for the project it is working on, it told me that it can't do that because it violates its security protocol.
> This worked fine before. I love Claude, I have stuck with it even through people saying Codex is better but this is definitely getting to be the last straw.
Meanwhile I can tell GLM 5.2 to decompile and crack anything I want with tools like IDA MCP and packet sniffing and it just works. Let alone code.
Asbestos is dangerous not because it's asbestos, but because it makes small and sharp fibres that embed in the lung tissue.
Carbon Fiber (and even fibreglass) can make fibres that small and sharp. So yeah, responsible dust handling is key.
The good news is that Asbestos easily puts off those small fibres just by being handled. CF and FG need to be damaged or machined to do it, handling the material after the dust has been dealt with is fine.
Some people prefer asking actual people since - especially here - there are experts that can answer that question.
LMGTFY was a snarky and rude answer, but typically led to an actual source. "Here's what AI said" is even ruder because you aren't saying "here's the obvious place to find the actual answer", you are saying "I'm not an expert either, so here's a completely unvetted, but plausible sounding answer"
Just saying to ask AI is the most useless and rudest response of all. It adds nothing. At least pasting the AI response in is an (misguided) attempt at being helpful.
So far those experts have not yet answered. I did. In my experience experts find it rude and tiring to be asked questions if it appears that the questioner hasn't done the basics for themselves. "How To Ask Questions The Smart Way" by Eric S. Raymond and Rick Moen seems relevant: https://archive.ph/duRkf
> Just saying to ask AI is the most useless and rudest response of all
Most definitely rude.
But unfortunately useful.
The AI answer I got appeared plausible to my very basic engineering taste.
It is unfortunately true that AI can give better answers than many HN users.
Obviously AI doesn't usually beat an expert answer.
===
To go meta: is up to Tossrock to become the expert they want by learning the metaskills they need.
I actually thought Tossrock's question was really interesting.
There underlying problem is that we have no polite way to suggest someone try AI. RTFM was historically impolite too.
And posting an AI response (even if filtered and edited) is socially destructive.
FYI: The answer given was something like an outer ring would interfere with lift twice as much, plus that putting weight at rim causes more inertia affecting control. I suspect there's a better question about just using a very fine cable (which would give rigidity without much interference with downdraught). I also suspect that we evolve optimal configurations, and that the underlying reasons are often unclear, and I'm left with too many questions that only an expert could answer.
You didn’t answer the question originally and it therefore wasn’t useful at all. All you did was tell them to use AI with an attitude.
If you recognize that it is a rude way to answer, and you add nothing to the conversation, just don’t do it.
How to ask a good question is great knowledge, thanks for the link. How to give a good answer is even more important. Paraphrasing AI as a non expert is an anti-pattern for a good answer. Please stop.
If you can look at your original response and think “everyone would be better off without”, you should not post it.
After my first few months there I realized that the people who didn't look like an old leather bag wore long sleeve shirts and big hats pretty much constantly.
It could be that people that spend more time in the sun are busy getting exercise. Which lowers blood pressure.
It could be that people that spend a lot of time in the sun know that they have skin damage, and are more likely to detect melanomas due to more frequent checks of their damaged skin.
Summary: More sun exposure may or may not lead to lower risk of death on two fronts. It seems far more likely that getting exercise and frequent melanoma checks lead to better outcomes, and both of those are correlated with being in the sun, but by no means necessary to the outcome.
This judge has a very high rate of overturned rulings, and reliably rules for conservative causes.
Prosecutors openly acknowledge strategically filing cases in his court for conservative causes.
It isn't a mistake that he was the judge here, and there is a very good chance the sentences will be overturned if not entire cases.
Of course, that doesn't matter to these defendants, some of whom probably do deserve punishment for what they did, and all of whom will suffer through years of appeals, stress, etc. because some prosecutor wanted to make their career on a big case, and will have moved on years before this is all resolved.
In short, the case was made for headlines, and after putting the defendants through hell, appeals will invalidate most of those headlines after incurring great expense on behalf of the taxpayers and defendants.
And following on from that, this has all the hallmarks of a successful appeal for unreasonable sentences. However, it's going to go to the Fifth Circuit, who are, ah, not known for their friendliness to criminal defendants.
It's physics that you just need to go a certain speed to put an object in orbit.
That doesn't make it an easy thing to do.
Fat people are aware of diet and exercise. They aren't stupid.
Until you have been chronically obese, or helped someone that is chronically obese, you don't understand that it is a deeply rooted subconscious issue, not a physics issue.
Fat people don't want to be fat, anymore than depressed people want to be sad. But something in their minds or bodies makes it non-optional. Pharmaceutical interventions change that thing.
When people - in their millions - say that this is the only effective thing, you could, I dunno, believe them. Or at least believe the pharmacological/medical science, which is, to circle back, all just physics.
Look up what percentage of people take statins long term at some point in their life. For people in certain age brackets it's more than the 40% of people taking GLP-1s that you are so concerned with. Why don't they just lower their cholesterol via other means?
Look up what percentage of people take antidepressants. Why don't they just try being happy?
Look up what percentage of people regularly take OTC pain killers, Benadryl, etc. Why don't they just tough it out?
You are only picking on GLP-1s which happen to treat obesity among other illnesses. All of the other medications I listed are treating conditions with non-pharmaceutical interventions, but you haven't stated a problem with a huge percentage of the population using them.
If your problem is with chronic medication use, this isn't the one to pick on. It is insanely effective.
> not something half the population is subscribed to by default, so if the problem can be addressed by other means, it really should be.
What makes you think that these people haven't tried other options. What makes you think this is the default option, and not a later option? Do you think they are unaware of diet and exercise? Do you think that they choose to be fat? Do you think that people that can get PHDs doing world changing science, climb mountains, run Fortune 500 companies, hell - run marathons, are just too undisciplined or stupid to lose weight?
> Look up what percentage of people take antidepressants. Why don't they just try being happy?
If there's a genuine chemical imbalance that needs correcting, whether that's causing obesity or depression it certainly warrants medical intervention. That should only account for a couple of % of people, however. If 40% of your population is on antidepressants, in other words 40% of your population is chronically depressed, that points to much, much deeper root issues pervading society, and I do not in fact think it's a great idea to "solve" that by drugging up half the population on antidepressants for life either.
> Look up what percentage of people regularly take OTC pain killers, Benadryl, etc. Why don't they just tough it out?
It's funny you mention this because American doctors will in fact tell people who literally need painkillers to function to tough it out, after overcorrecting for a period where they were handing out chronic medication like candy and causing more problems than they solved.
> If your problem is with chronic medication use, this isn't the one to pick on. It is insanely effective.
My problem is with the scale of chronic medication use. Chronic medication is life-saving as a targeted intervention for people who genuinely need it, and I have no problems with that. Using it as a population-wide bandaid for every societal issue instead of fixing root causes is bound to end poorly, though. What happens when 50% of the population is on some cocktail of GLPs, stimulants, painkillers, sleep meds, and antidepressants simultaneously because it was deemed easier and more instantly gratifying to prescribe chronic medication for everything than addressing any actual causes?
> Do you think they are unaware of diet and exercise? Do you think that they choose to be fat?
I think they are perfectly aware of diet and exercise and mostly choose not to bother because it has become culturally accepted to disregard one's own health for the joy of a Big Mac and a Coca Cola or 15. It is worth noting that the obesity rate for Asian Americans is only 16%, despite being exposed to the same environment and food industry. Did eg. caucasian American genetics take a nosedive in 40 years, or did they just normalise being self-indulgent to an unhealthy degree? I think one of those explanations is more likely than the other, even if it's not something they'd like to hear.
> What happens when 50% of the population is on some cocktail of GLPs, stimulants, painkillers, sleep meds, and antidepressants simultaneously because it was deemed easier and more instantly gratifying to prescribe chronic medication for everything than addressing any actual causes?
Don't you then start trying to figure out how you can reduce the uses of those precriptions, while maintaining the health figures they're helping to produce? Isn't the answer to do something better than doing nothing? Work with the problem in front of you? etc.
1) Litigation. We may partner with litigation firms that bring cases empowered by the facts our reporting uncovers, aimed at getting restitution for people who have been harmed. Relevant litigation deals are disclosed in our articles.
2) Investment. When our reporting does not include Material Non-Public Information (“insider info”), we may share it with our affiliated fund. Relevant investments are disclosed in our articles.
- end quote
Not saying that these complaints aren’t valid, but this is PR dressed up as reportage by a short seller/litigation investor.
I’m not falling over myself to test out Sonnet 5, but I am very interested in Fable.
reply