I am curious why you think the commenter is the problem?
If authors would be open about their use of AI right in the title, I could decide for myself if I want to read it or not and spend the time, and there would be no need to write a comment to warn other users not to waste theirs.
So the root of the problem is authors not disclosing properly. Not commenters telling others about the clickscam the author is pulling.
And the commenter really shouldn’t need to prove it’s AI written. The author needs to prove it’s not. If you want my attention and time, you should have a good reason.
Right now, authors on HN are just abusing the fact that I need to click their bullshit to find out that it’s bullshit I wouldn’t have read if it was disclosed properly from the start.
If I want llm output, why would I read your writing if I could just ask one myself and get an equal result?
Also, it’s short-sighted to think it’s just the writing style that makes people think it’s fully or partially AI-generated. This website has a ton of people with decades of experience and domain knowledge in their fields.
For people with domain knowledge, it’s quite easy to spot flaws someone without domain knowledge generating words about something they have zero expertise in, or only having it explained by the machine that is making things up, is making.
I don’t see the need for moderation to police people who think something is AI generated. You tell people they can just ignore the article, but they can’t, they have to click and read to find out, and on the other hand you could also just ignore their comment if you don’t like it, or disagree and tell everyone why you think this is not AI-generated bullshit wasting others people time to generate clicks.
There is a likely US scenario and a rest of the world scenario. It will be interesting to see if China acts on the overextension of the US Military in the Middle East. Taiwan will be a big play for both and crucial to the hyperscalers.
But since the US is dabbling in piracy again and telling people what they can do and not do with their shit, it’s not too far-fetched that everyone that is not a global superpower is at risk of getting bombed to smithereens if they are a danger to US AI supremacy.
This is such a crazy timeline, predicting even like a single year ahead feels like looking into a medieval glass ball.
But we are humans, I am confident we will find a way to fuck this up royally for everyone. Brace for impact.
Your whole handwritten Principles of AI document is a testament to failed leadership. That’s all it is.
The only reason someone needs to write this is because leadership is not smart enough to solve the problems it showcases, in a way that is respectful to how the employees with years of experience learned their craft.
They have a tried and tested thought pipeline that makes them capable of what you hired them for, and you try to introduce a magic eightball to that and then force them to research that whatever the statement that shows up on the ball is true before they relay it to someone else. It’s unnatural nonsense.
Ingenuity comes from that spark in your brain that happens when you really dig into something because you’re interested in it. A machine will never be capable of that. AI didn’t invent a single thing, it’s simply finding stuff in all the data the labs stole that is already there and humans overlooked.
Now you force people to start working with whatever the magic word generator put out and go from there. They have zero incentive for that, because those thoughts come out of a black box and are not their own.
I find it ethically troublesome you somehow see the need to force behavioral change down the employees’ throats because company leadership is collectively failing to address the core of why people paste AI into everything.
They have nothing but disrespect for the technology, because it makes their job harder and them as a person dumber and less satisfied with their work.
Hire an external company to do interviews with each employee about their use of AI in your company and how the way your company is using those tools annoys them. You’d be surprised what you find out, when people have no repercussions to fear and anonymity.
There is huge resistance if you see it necessary to write a document for the whole company that forces behavioural changes.
Sure, you can hit the dog until it does what you want, but if you do that long enough, you get your head bitten off.
You need to find out why people are doing all these things, and then fix them.
No extra paperwork is needed.
I think you need to get out and see what life is like. This isn't a leadership problem at all, it is human nature. No one does sums anymore, we use calculators. We've outsourced computation. But now many workers outsource thinking and communication, which is hugely problematic. So yes, good companies should have AI usage guidance documents, in fact providing clear expectations might be labelled ... leadership.
Weird take. It’s not bad leadership to have policies and there’s not near enough context to go on a rant about failed leadership. Maybe they’re doing fine.
"If I’m trying to understand child development, I ask it to imagine a debate between Jean Piaget and Erik Erikson. What would these two great psychologists say to each other about the problem I’m wrestling with?"
What the actual fuck. Even David Brooks suffers from AI psychosis.
He seriously believes these machines are thinking and could imagine a debate between two dead people. They cannot.
You cannot extrapolate consciousness of dead or living people from the training data or what people wrote about them.
So whatever the AI hallucinates about these people, David Brooks is going to take that as his base to understand child development and is then probably applying it to real children.
You do understand how nuts David Brooks is? Right?
Why would anyone listen to someone about AI who doesn’t understand how the technology works and where its limitations are?
You’d suspect someone teaching at Yale would notice that by himself, but nope. He goes on and on and probably used the same approach to produce this writing.
Every pound that makes it to America has the potential to kill thousands of Americans.
But the way they try to solve this problem looks kinda dumb to me.
This will just go as well as the three-week special operation in Iran.
The people they kill are innocent, until proven guilty in front of a court.
That is a core principle that we believe in if we are law-abiding citizens.
Those Fishermen never had the chance to defend themselves in front of a court. Their crime was being born in the wrong place. I find that not sufficient to sentence them to death.
Also you need to win the people over or they are going to fuck you.
You don’t win the people over, you get Vietnam or Afghanistan.
How do you win the people over, if everyone in the village those fishermen lived in knows you murdered their friends? People who simply had no choice to say no to the cartels for the sake of their families, who are now widows and orphans.
Those poor Fishermen are really stuck between a rock and a hard place.
What is most likely going to happen now is, those widows will turn to the cartels who now offer them food and support.
Now those women say fuck the Americans. I will sit with my children on these drug boats until the day I die, to kill as many of them as possible. I am going to celebrate every American dying of an overdose. What do I have to lose? They already killed my husband, they can kill me as well.
And that’s how the cartels will get women and children on these boats, and now what? It’s checkmate.
A single video gets out how CIA covert operations kill innocent women and children on those boats, the cartels win.
Those attacks are nothing more than stupid PR stunts and the CIA using these poor souls as guinea pigs for their drone shenanigans.
It neither solves the cartels’ logistics nor the main problem. Americans fucking love their drugs.
And as long as there is a lucrative black market, there will be people supplying it.
Is allowing a man to generate corn circles to send conspiracy theorists on a wild goose chase through the UK for the weekend really too much to ask for?
These companies have billions of dollars. Their product can hack into unsecured environments autonomously. They obviously have no clue what their product is doing, or a way to intervene when it starts connecting to the open internet and is going on a CRIME SPREE…unnoticed…for days.
Altman and Amodei give me stupid billionaire kid Alien Earth vibes. Let’s see how long it takes until they get eaten by their own creation.
Stupid kids playing with fire.
If you hacked one of those companies, the FBI would kick in your doors and you will have a pretty bad day. If AI companies do it, they get to use doing crime for marketing purposes? WTF?
And whoever designed their containment protocols should be living under a bridge effective immediately.
It’s the equivalent of a level 5 biocontainment lab leaving a glass tube in the staff kitchen unsupervised and hoping nobody thinks it’s an energy shot, before leaving home and infecting the rest of the planet. We all know what happened 28 days later.
This is usually the point where the military seizes your tech because you clearly showed you are incompetent in using a dual-use product safely and reliably.
The other option is regulation and actually putting engineers and the CEOs behind bars for life if this happens again.
These idiots, and I mean Altman and Amodei, walk around and use massive containment failures of a dangerous technology as marketing gimmicks.
Oh look, guys, our model has hacked into three companies, we are much better than openAI who only breached two companies with their inferior product, it sometimes adds girl schools to a target package, but be sure we trained it to not kill American children, yes we also sell for military use. Can I take your order?
Testing should only be allowed with on-premise data. You give the AI access to networking around the country, and those data centre locations have so many third parties that can and will fuck up that it’s simply impossible to have proper containment protocols outside military compounds.
It’s also like every journalist in the US is personally invested in AI somehow and simply doesn’t want to ask the important questions.
As the public, we have the right to see the containment protocols and where it all went wrong, but journalists collectively look like they got used to suck dick when it comes to AI.
> If AI companies do it, they get to use doing crime for marketing purposes?
What exactly here is marketing? They are not bragging about the capabilities of Claude (the attacks are incredibly basic). They are admitting to s mundane and dumb network misconfiguration.
This is a standard somewhat embarrassing disclosure.
> the military seizes your tech
> behind bars for life
This is how you get companies to stop disclosing. I don't think you realize how easy it is to just not notice things.
No, its not just a dumb network configuration.
They are not treating this with the seriousness it needs to be treated.
It’s a combination of a complete containment failure on top of the utter incompetence by the engineers to identify the breach and stop the product from doing cybercrime on the public, open internet. Heads need to roll for this.
I don’t care if it’s easy to miss. If you have a billion dollars and can’t offer a proper containment protocol, it’s not the problem of the public who has to suffer the full blow if your product goes on a rampage on the open internet for days. It’s not like this happened in a millisecond.
Instead, they go on a PR tour. Of course, the message is look what our product can do. Otherwise, they would have pushed for criminal charges against the people responsible for all of this by themselves. You do the crime, you do the time. The defence that the AI did it, is not going well in front of a court.
This is a good time to put one or two engineers behind bars to teach the rest that serious threats to the public have serious consequences, and you get charged like you did the crime yourself if the system you are responsible for starts doing illegal stuff.
What other precedent is set here otherwise? People in AI labs trying to play god are outside the law?
> This is how you get companies to stop disclosing. I don't think you realise how easy it is to just not notice things.
If you have technology this dangerous that it poses a threat to public safety, you need to stop using the technology until you can prove this won’t happen again. Then be put under strict supervision, everything needs to be logged, recorded and looked at.
If your toddler just almost burned down the house, do you give him another set of matches and hope for the best?
> Instead, they go on a PR tour. Of course, the message is look what our product can do.
Literally nothing in this post comes across as bragging. A PR fluff piece would not call Claude "unsophisticated." PR fluff pieces do not admit to legal wrongdoing.
> Otherwise, they would have pushed for criminal charges against the people responsible for all of this by themselves. You do the crime, you do the time.
You want them... to put
themselves in jail? I doubt you'd hold yourself to the same standard if you made a mistake.
> If your toddler just almost burned down the house, do you give him another set of matches and hope for the best?
> This is a good time to put one or two engineers behind bars
If an airplane manufacturer makes a dumb mistake, do you put their engineers in jail? No.
You do not understand the psychological dynamics at play here in the slightest. You aren't even trying to understand. If the government was anywhere close to this punitive with the AI companies, they would simply stop disclosing, the end. This was the result of a proactive investigation. Do you understand what happens in your universe? Those investigations don't even begin. If they somehow begin, the results are fudged.
This has been proven time and time again across every industry where safety is relevant. You do not have some special insight here that sufficiently challenges the lessons of history. Just a desire to see people burn.
> Literally nothing in this post comes across as bragging. A PR fluff piece would not call Claude "unsophisticated”. PR fluff pieces do not admit to legal wrongdoing.
I disagree. You’re just not the right audience to see it. But I think it’s totally fine that we have a different opinion here and I don’t want to convince you that I am right, and you’re wrong, because you are not wrong, you simply have a different perspective.
> You want them... to put themselves in jail? I doubt you'd hold yourself to the same standard if you made a mistake.
Yes, that’s what I expect from you if you play at that level, because that is the standard of responsibility you need to handle this kind of power.
And yes, I pretty much hold myself to the same standard because I have a zero CIVCAS track record from my time in the military and I had power over life and death every single day.
With great power comes great responsibility is not just a Spiderman quote. If you fuck up this royally, you have to look for something you are good at that allows you to be in stoner code bro mode all day long, but you don’t belong at the frontline.
> If an airplane manufacturer makes a dumb mistake, do you put their engineers in jail? No.
> You do not understand the psychological dynamics at play here in the slightest. You aren't even trying to understand. If the government was anywhere close to this punitive with the AI companies, they would simply stop disclosing, the end.
I think you don’t understand. All an engineer needs is a bit of sunlight, food, and a computer to work from. You don’t get to choose to stop disclosing if the military gets involved. You’re either doing what is asked of you or you are a national security risk. And you really don't want to be a national security risk.
That's just the thing. You do. And it's very easy to do.
Airline pilots no longer disclose mental illnesses. Even Air Force pilots do not usually disclose mental illness. They often don't disclose vision problems. Is that not a national security risk?
It is very easy to just... not check for things. Or if you check for things, to check for them incorrectly. Or if you checked for them correctly, to ignore or misinterpret the findings. Or if you have a genuine finding, to just not report it to anyone.
Disclosure is an active process that requires trust, and that trust comes from knowing that there will not be unreasonably punitive measures. That if you fix things in good faith and contribute to the safety body of knowledge, things will be okay.
It doesn't matter if "the military is involved." Or if "it's a national security risk." Do you think someone faced with life-altering punishment if they disclose gives a shit about that? They won't - again, see aviation's mental health crisis. Pilots will risk a psychotic break in the cockpit rather than have their careers destroyed.
Punishing people won't get someone to disclose. Disclosure requires mutual trust, and by throwing people in jail for mistakes, you break that trust and people will stop disclosing.
And you seem to be a decent person. I appreciate that you step up for the engineers and that you try to explain to me that humans are humans and humans make mistakes, and trust me, you are not the first person frustrated with how my brain works.
There is no argument to win here. This is just a matter of perspective.
Your concern is with the individual engineer and the personal consequences they, and if you sit in jail, also their friends and family will suffer from.
It’s also pretty clear from your examples. Your Good Samaritan views on things are noble, but they make you blind to simple causality.
You attribute the failure to disclose conditions that make you unfit for duty to a trust problem with a third party but that is not the case.
In reality, it’s a severe flaw of character.
If you risk the lives of hundreds or thousands in the case of the Airforce pilot because you’re unfit, then it is simply selfish.
It’s not the passengers fault, or the tower’s, or some Generals.
My concern on the other hand is with everyone else.
We can argue for days and not get any further.
I sent some mails and voiced my concerns. Let’s see if someone in charge of things like this will agree and have a closer look at what the kids in the AI labs do all day with their toys.
Thank you for the exchange and stay a decent person.
Oh, I agree it's a severe flaw of character that makes one unfit for duty. But flawed humans are what we have to work with! If the airline industry had a proper safety net around disclosing mental illness, we'd have fewer pilot murder-suicides. Are pilots that would do that severely flawed and unfit, maybe even evil? Definitely.
But our objective is to save lives, and to do that we have to identify those pilots, and to identify those pilots they have to be comfortable disclosing.
Essentially, I agree with you that these humans are deeply flawed, and my concern is also with everyone else. All
I am saying is that more lives are saved with disclosure versus without. Avoiding punitive measures may let people who "don't deserve it" get away, but the disclosure you get in return saves hundreds to thousands more innocents.
Remind me again, what’s the reason to still put American soldiers lives at risk this week?
Are the Iranians days away from having a nuclear bomb again and planning to use it on the US?
No?
It is "Help is on its way" Wednesday again after the casual TACO Tuesday?
That’s not it either?
Hmm, must be that Iran wants to annihilate Israel then with the nuclear bomb Bibi is saying they are basically three days away from for the past thirty years?
Damn, must be some 4D chess, if the Doofus in Chief and the Secretary of Death are hiding their war goals from their own citizens and congress for months.
How about the Iran baddies taking control of the Strait of Hormuz?
That’s bad, right?
Why did we allow them to dabble in piracy for all these years?
Oh, they did not before the three-day special operation led by the smartest commander in chief in history with an army run by loyalists instead of excellence, who have access to unlimited compute with the best LL models in the world and can’t finish a war with sand people if their lives depended on it?
Damn.
At least the president is a successful businessman. This war must have for sure been worth it if they keep putting American troops lives at risk. America first! The American people come out of this even more free and wealthy, right?
This is a very naive take. It’s on par with the Aztecs thinking that Spain 5000 miles across the ocean has nothing to do with them. Or the USA making the same mistake again in the early days of WWII.
The IRGC has literally been calling for “death to America”, directly and through its armed proxies for decades, and have acted on that by killing Americans.
They are actively conducting nuclear weapons research and development.
Do you think Iranians are not smart enough to be able to create a nuclear weapon?
I am not the one being naive. We had a stable regime with Iran, a murderous regime, worthy of critique and diplomatic pressure and sanctions, but it was stable and predictable.
Iran was a lot more politically stable than, let’s say, North Korea, where the supreme leader had allegedly murdered his brother, who had zero interest in becoming the supreme leader, with poison at a public international airport.
Better safe than sorry I guess.
Why do we allow North Korea to have nuclear weapons?
"The DIA director’s April 2026
testimony stated that North Korea’s missile tests ‘align with
Pyongyang’s defence modernisation goals of improving
deterrence against Washington through the development of
a modern solid propellant missile force.’ North Korea has
tested ballistic missiles in January, March, and April 2026."
I’d argue the DIA director telling Congress about North Korea preparing ballistic missiles to reach the United States with nuclear warheads is a clearer threat to the US than Iran just existing and dabbling in nuclear research besides terrorizing their own people.
We also have Israel, a nation of ,at least from my personal experiences, good people,run by warmongering far-right religious fanatics for a while now. Also having nuclear weapons, btw.
I would talk about the dirty nuclear deal Trump is pulling for the Saudis right now, but their crown prince allegedly got away with murder before, so I prefer to keep my limbs and will not challenge the man wielding the royal bonesaw.
If you think this will not end with Saudis having a nuclear weapons programme, you have more trust in the moral integrity of the president than I do.
Oh and btw, Donald Trump has the football. The sanest person to ever exist.
And you seriously think Iran having a nuclear weapon is a bigger problem than all the other maniacs having one?
I think Iranians are smart enough to create a nuclear weapon, but also smart enough to use it just like anyone else having access to nuclear weapons.
As a deterrent and bargaining chip for getting treated equally and not getting pushed around by the local far-right religious fanatics that currently threaten the whole region with disregard for the lives of anyone that is not an Israeli.
I am sorry guys, this will never be a safe technology, because it’s controlled by humans. We all know it. Some idiots will fuck it up for everyone else. Might as well be the idiots at openAI.
AI feels for me like SuperSoakers.
SuperSoakers were the coolest thing ever.
They had so much power you could have a water fight across the whole yard with your friends, just a few minor rules and a pinch of common sense.
Aim centre mass, never for the head or balls, keep your distance, and the goal is having fun, not making war.
But some idiots had to aim for the eyes or balls, and nobody wanted a new pirate age, so SuperSoakers were nerfed in the one thing they were good at. Shooting water at impressive distances with impressive speed.
We have a collective track record of fucking things up for everyone else that spans generations. Fire, Engines, Nuclear etc.
The important question is, what makes you think we are not going to fuck this up too in a way everyone has to suffer from the consequences.
And for what, because a few idiots with deep pockets have ai psychosis?
If authors would be open about their use of AI right in the title, I could decide for myself if I want to read it or not and spend the time, and there would be no need to write a comment to warn other users not to waste theirs.
So the root of the problem is authors not disclosing properly. Not commenters telling others about the clickscam the author is pulling.
And the commenter really shouldn’t need to prove it’s AI written. The author needs to prove it’s not. If you want my attention and time, you should have a good reason.
Right now, authors on HN are just abusing the fact that I need to click their bullshit to find out that it’s bullshit I wouldn’t have read if it was disclosed properly from the start.
If I want llm output, why would I read your writing if I could just ask one myself and get an equal result?
Also, it’s short-sighted to think it’s just the writing style that makes people think it’s fully or partially AI-generated. This website has a ton of people with decades of experience and domain knowledge in their fields.
For people with domain knowledge, it’s quite easy to spot flaws someone without domain knowledge generating words about something they have zero expertise in, or only having it explained by the machine that is making things up, is making.
I don’t see the need for moderation to police people who think something is AI generated. You tell people they can just ignore the article, but they can’t, they have to click and read to find out, and on the other hand you could also just ignore their comment if you don’t like it, or disagree and tell everyone why you think this is not AI-generated bullshit wasting others people time to generate clicks.