I'd say an entity capable of instructing one of the leading mathematicians of his era is pretty clearly intelligent by any reasonable measure - however it might be arriving at its output.
HN user
squidbeak
Sorry mate, but you sound jealous in all these replies that the Pelican domain isn't your gig. The below is as labored as nitpicks ever get:
It does not feel all that authentic though, and it's good to react allergically to lack of authenticity. Bad for a lot of business models, but good for humanity.
I hope SimonW keeps them coming.
Disagree. They're a nice tradition, but besides that, they're a useful way of eyeballing improvements. I realise labs are likely to be training for Pelicans - but if they're all training for them, the differences in the results are as indicative as they were before labs trained for them.
The 3.6 Flash pelican is just about the best I've seen.
I suspect you might be jumbling up your smalls with your origami.
There's no psychosis in noting that something consistently produces good work, or in wanting to get the most out what is effectively an employee - hired for the price of the subscription. Seriously, if that's 'psychosis', then every employer on the planet eager to wring out productivity from their employees is afflicted with the same psychosis.
Isn't it rather a psychosis to insist that people are imagining the results they see, just because you don't like the tech and can't stomach the thought there might be something in it?
Perhaps over those two years they'll reach the same conclusion and change the engineering?
For me, a far more interesting and important point of conversation on this matter is anthropic buying rare or evwn unique books, processing them for training data, and then destroying the books for others cannot use it as well.
That's an incredible allegation, and appalling if true. But is it true?
What makes you think that opposition to data center construction in their local area is proof that locals are 'weirded out' by AI generally, rather than just opposed to eyesores that drain their water and put up power prices?
If the USA takes up his suggestions, it will have an incentive to work on international frameworks and treaties with competing nations to make the regulation global.
Hunger is present pretty much only in conflict zones.
How do you explain the existence of food banks in peaceful first world countries?
> It turned out that my subscription, which had been going since 2013,
I am reading this and I am thinking god I am old.
Don't worry, while 13 years seems long enough to make you feel old, you're not old. You'll know you're old when 13 years ago seems recent.
so they're creatively interpreting their Parliamentary Rules to accuse Farage of violating them
You seem deeply ignorant about the rules UK politicians are bound by. The Parliamentary Standards investigation doesn't need any creativity in interpreting a failure to declare a £5m gift as a breach of parliamentary rules.
On the broader point, popularity doesn't exempt politicians from the rules that apply to every MP. Not that Farage is popular, he's -27 in the latest poll.
I see from the comments here many Americans especially are confused by this situation. Some background might make help.
Farage seems to have broken Parliamentary Rules (laid down after the cash for questions scandal in the 1990s) by accepting large sums of money as gifts - but without declaring them, something all MPs are required to do for any gift. But worse, one of these gifts came from a convicted crypto felon.
The Parliamentary standards committee seemed likely to suspend him or order a recall by-election as a result.
Nigel's aim in preempting this near-inevitability was apparently to use the media spotlight the by-election would give him to dominate the summer headlines and present himself as a man-of-the-peeps martyr-rebel under mean & outrageous establishment persecution (rather than just the rich little chancer he is, on the make, with the murkiest of murky connections). If he could hammer this impression into the public imagination, they'd then be deaf to any subsequent findings from the Parliamentary Standards Committee.
In other words he thought this little manoeuvre could turn a damaging problem and weakness into a strength. Unfortunately for Nige, the other parties understood this, & instead have left him to play all summer long with the jokers and silly parties, looking like a laughingstock.
So as you see, there's nothing anti-democratic about it. If he wins, he will still face the suspension and recall election that was coming anyway. But as part of procedure - not on the terms he's trying to set with this little stunt.
This is all from the perspective of people who already oppose Farage, though
Actually, you seem to be the one ignoring data out of partisan prejudice. The polls are quite clear Farage's shady finances are damaging both him and Reform.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/politics/2026/07/12/farage-slump...
What a bullshit list this is. It's high time we grew out of this myth that 'wealth creation' comes from capitalists. Any list like this first needs to make some effort to quantify how much of that 'wealth' is being created by employees, or scientists and engineers whose ideas made the venture responsible for that wealth possible. And as others point out in this thread, look at how much wealth these capitalists destroy, from crushing competition, monopolistic practices, legal intimidation, or most of all from imposing unfair burdens on other companies by lobbying for tax breaks or paying workers too little. All of which shift non-trivial costs onto the shoulders of others.
You're mistaken. A significant portion of Ukraine's manufacturing now happens abroad, out of Russia's reach. Meanwhile, a large part of its domestic production is decentralized and widely distributed. (You can easily find snobbish and pejorative comments by Rheinmetall's CEO about this.)
Nuclear weapon use would lead to no meaningful military success, but it would immediately alienate the superpower Russia depends on in almost every way. China will not tolerate any nation using nuclear weapons. With its extremely dense population, it can't afford a modern wartime precedent to be set for their use.
There were no airlifts into Ukraine, arms had to cross the border as they have since. The supplies were in small quantities up to the invasion. They were an important help to Ukraine, but you are overstating how crucial they were - as if stingers and NLAWs did the fighting, or as if Ukraine didn't have its Soviet legacy or homegrown systems like Stugna-P which had a much more decisive impact those early months.
Western support at any scale didn't arrive until later in the year.
Russian logistics failed because of Ukrainian resistance. The NLAWs and stingers were extremely useful to Ukraine, but the more important fact is that the Ukrainian army was prepared, disciplined, and didn't melt away as Russia expected.
Gameification of war is the literal worst thing I ever heard. Lords of War, eat your heart out.
What 'clear moral objection' did you make? You talk in cliches so it's hard to tell.
Gemini 3.5 Pro hasn't been released yet.
Culture is "a tool, a means to an end. It’s to transmit information from one to another"?
Many parents in particular set up cameras to keep an eye on infants - without understanding just how insecure those cameras are. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-51706631
I've been reading a set of bloggers for 20 years and all but one are all still at it, though one moved a few years ago onto Substack, which ended his RSS feed.
They don't seem to receive high traffic, but they're damn good blogs - which seems to me like a better form of 'success' than any amount of popularity. After all you can find the herd's footprints around all kinds of pointless shit.
That's easy to say when you aren't the one considering adding a huge liability to the companies bottom line.
Obliging companies to make repairable products? Removing their right to lock everyone into disposability and overconsumption? And even worse - trimming a sliver of their profits? Damn right, buddy: we can't be having that.
The bedrock of economic trust and co-operation that only ever served the USA's interest. What do you imagine the new coolness towards US companies or US lobbying is going to do to US GDP longterm?
You actually typify the myopia of many of Trump's supporters. "Cash in today: fuck tomorrow."
"I can beat the shit out of the weakling in the school yard. Behold my superiority!"
Nato membership requires 2% of GDP to be spent on military.
No, actually it isn't a condition of NATO membership to spend 2% on defense. This is a myth.
It's one thing if a democratically elected president who will be out in 2 years is something you hate on... but it's turned from that. It seems every European consintely berates us, from a fundamentally level now.
Do you think that having experienced this treatment from a nation previously trusted as a friend and ally that Europe can sensibly revert to its old confidence in the USA? Sure the Democrats might win power in 2028, or even a reformed and sensible Republican candidate. But who's to say the next populist Europhobic nutter isn't another 4 years behind them? This is the central problem for the US, that many of its citizens still won't confront: there are costs to unreliability, delinquency, bullying and threats.
I won't defend trump, but what has threatening annexation of greenland done? Billions in additional military buildup, which is good for both our economies.
This is childishly fatuous. Europe, then, should be grateful to the US for threatening to invade it?
It definitely is a reputation issue: unless I'm misunderstanding something, you are using this data to suggest a greater incidence of violent sexual behavior among young men as a result to their exposure to ugly types of pornography.
You don't seem to have any data putting your figures into any context over time: run the same study in the 80s and I would wager you'd see similar even worse results. Wank mags and grainy VHS were passed around schools from the moment they appeared, including BDSM and torture porn - often in the form of sleazy B-movies. Sure, pornography is far easier to access today. But the material is the same, and this notion that somehow, today's boys and young men are worse for this exposure than their predecessors is insidious and deeply ignorant.
It is significantly more difficult to find young men today who think it's acceptable for husbands to beat their wives - or that rape is never rape in marriage. Or who think they can get a woman drunk to seduce her. Campaigners had to work damn hard to raise public consciousness out of the traditionalist inertia around these blights. Frankly, to anyone like me, old enough to compare several different eras and their male representatives, comments like yours and the inferences you'd have people draw from them, are utterly ridiculous - and yes, hugely unjust to the overwhelming majority of young men who flinch from the idea of hurting a woman in bed or out of it, regardless of what type of pornography they've been exposed to.
Many young boys now think it’s normal to ask girls for sexual acts before having ever kissed a girl.
This is a common media talking point, but are there any hard figures for this 'many'? The type you're describing existed when I was young, long before the internet. My impression of boys and young men today is that they are generally just as decent, cautious, respectful and idealistic as they ever were - but that a small crude and unpleasant minority taints the reputation of the whole generation.
Russia's meddling is malign. But did Russia send the USA's Vice President to Hungary to campaign on behalf of Viktor Orban?