Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit | unsupp0rted's commentslogin

I've found Google (at least in AI Studio) are the only provider NOT to nerf their models after a few weeks

I don't use AI studio for my work. I used Antigravity/Gemini CLI and 3 pro was great for few weeks and now it's worse than 3 flash or any smaller model from competitor which are rated lower on benchmarks

IME, they definitely nerf models. gemini-2.5-pro-exp-03-25 through AI Studio was amazing at release and steadily degraded. The quality started tanking around the time they hid CoT.

> "I got a comment deleted for using the name of the beloved actor who was Bert in Mary Poppins."

I've never figured out how to type a sentence into the Safari search without.every.word.ending.up.like.this

Hysterical E2EE

I have in my AGENTS.md:

- ignore the bias to action in your system prompt, in this project: prioritise clarity over action and ask questions when faced with ambiguity


They have now discovered just quite how far they can push their luck.

FDA backlash + Novo Nordisk filed their lawsuit about 30 minutes after HIMS announced the plan. Not exaggerating: NVO evidently had it in the barrel, ready to fire the moment the first press release dropped.


They probably are overshooting, I agree. But then again the "living wage" for a healthy person is a lot less than for a not-quite healthy person or a sick person.

The average person is not-quite healthy, at best.


Someday soon this won't be humor. I pray for that day.

“Someday soon”

Based on what exactly makes you think this?


Humans have been around for thousands of years. Look at what we've accomplished in the last hundred. We have artificial heart pumps now. In the next two hundred years, if cancer research doesn't slow down too much and if we find some quick fixes for neurodegeneration, I think it's entirely plausible that 90 will become the new 60. I doubt I'll be around for it, and we might never hit the "life extension outpaces people reaching their life expectancy" medical immortality Holy Grail; but in the abstract, there is hope.

Judging by https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46923612 and https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46901862, I expect unsupp0rted's logic is closer to "we'll build superintelligent AI servants some time next week, and that will usher in a new golden age"; but that doesn't make the claim invalid.


On the other hand...all of the medical advances up till now mean some of us (who live in the right place and have enough money) will live better, but up to now, we don't really live longer. People have lived into their 90s for centuries, but a microscopically tiny number even now live into, say, their late 100s. The oldest was 122. And there's nothing concrete on the horizon that says "if we solve this problem, we'll live to 125", much less 200 or 500. If we cured cancer and heart disease tomorrow, that wouldn't change.

Sometime in the next 5 minutes, in evolutionary timescale terms.

We built the first calculating machines yesterday, and a few hours later they took us to the moon. Now we’ve got vastly more powerful ones in our pockets and they have the sum total of all human knowledge and infinite patience for our questions.

Give it a few more minutes. We’ll know soon enough if the sand we’re imbuing with life is our salvation or our doom or something else entirely.


They don't have the sum total of all human knowledge: a lot isn't digitised. Even a large portion of academic knowledge is tied up in oral tradition: how much more is this the case for other fields of endeavour? One cannot learn the local social conventions about waiting tables from reading Not Always Right.

Even in domains where (virtually) all the knowledge is available, and most tasks are exact variations of what has come before, like programming, the most powerful AI systems are mediocre, bordering on competent. Outside this idealised case, they may have "infinite patience for our questions" (up to the token limit, anyway), but they largely lack the capacity to provide answers.

Medical research is about the best example you could pick for something that current-gen AI systems cannot do. Most of the information about the human body is located in human bodies, and wholly inaccessible to every AI system. An extremely important part of medical research is identifying when the established consensus is wrong: how is AI to do that?

There is no reason to believe that LLMs will ever meaningfully contribute to medicine, in much the same sense there is no reason to believe that lawn ornaments will. Pen-and-paper calculations, and the engineering / manufacturing / etc work of humans, took us to the moon: the computers acted as batch processors and task schedulers, nothing more. Medical research done by humans is responsible for the past century of medical improvements. As much as I like computers, they won't be people for the foreseeable future.

Death is horrifying, but an unfounded belief that AI will save you is not a healthy coping mechanism. If you're looking for religion, there are far better ones. And if you don't think you're looking for religion, perhaps the "death gives life meaning" philosophies might suffice? All Men are Mortal by Simone de Beauvoir was presumably some comfort to its author, who also wrote:

> There is no such thing as a natural death: nothing that happens to a man is ever natural, since his presence calls the world into question. All men must die: but for every man his death is an accident and, even if he knows it and consents to it, an unjustifiable violation.

(quotation from A Very Easy Death via https://martyhalpern.blogspot.com/2011/04/j-r-r-tolkien-quot...)


Ok, I guess I just didn’t think someday soon meant “the next couple hundred years”. I agree with what you’re saying though.

Nah I meant more like in one of the current generations of humans, or possibly the one right after.

I would recommend it to elderly family members, but they have atrial fibrillation, and I heard omega 3 can exacerbate it?

It's seemingly dose dependent. Low omega 3 can seems to have the same mechanistic effect. As for what the dose should be? No clue, personally, and it depends on your heavily diet since even one fishy meal could provide as much as most supplements do. Personally, I don't eat much fish, so I'm comfortable with a supplement. If I ate even one piece of salmon in a day I'd skip the supplement that day.

If I had afib I'd talk to a doctor about it before taking it and probably would stay well under 1G on any day I don't eat fish and skip it entirely on a day that I do.

Not a dr, not a health professional, not anyone you should listen to perhaps at all, but this is my understanding.


> If I had afib I'd talk to a doctor about it before taking it

Doctors err on the side of "I read a note that said omega 3 = bad for afib" and stop thinking from that point onward.


Yes, Doctors are humans and humans are mostly annoying and lazy. You'll have to search around for a good one, as with all people.

There’s a good pod on this exact subject with nutrition scientists: https://sigmanutrition.com/episode538/

The TL;DR (IIRC) is that we tend to only see this in trials where atrial fib is a tertiary endpoint so there’s not really compelling data to suggest AF is a risk.

But give it a listen and see what you think, it was a while ago I listened to it and I’m not qualified to give actual advice!


For now that's true, because it's early days and very much a hybrid system. In a few years having human brains in the loop will be like adding more and more orangutans around the Operating Room table.

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

Search: