It would appear no one else submitted the posts in question, so the most obvious answer is the account is finding interesting articles that no one else has found. It would be one thing if it won out of many dupe posters, but that doesn't seem to be what's happening.

This is valid.

1. each one is a first-party vendor announcement, submitted very close to the announcement and under the vendors headline.

2. Titles are "verbatim" vendor headlines. No editorializing which follows HN guidelines to the letter.

3. Someone; a script/agent is watching vendor feeds and X accounts then submitting within minutes of the posting.

4. Altman/Navier–Stokes post got [duped] so prob not inside thing.

High frequency karma farming.

You aren't serious about high-frequency karma ("HFK") unless you colocate your equipment with the routing for your sources so you can beat your HFK competition to a submission by at least 200ms.

We will have reached HFK-ception when the bots are fighting to be the first to submit "How I used AI to build a High-Frequency Karma Farming Bot on Hacker News."

Then a week later: "Paul Graham announces a 100000$/month high priority access plan to the HackerNews via YC API." :)

YC already announced something along these lines.

re: https://www.ycombinator.com/early-access

Oh my... I should be more careful in my predictions :)

Their scraper is physically really close to the internet building!

There's a good chance it'll be scrubbed now that it's frontpaged here

Tangent, but that's not in the movie. It was in Clarke's contributions to the script and novelization, but Clarke and Kubrick had a bitter falling out over different visions and Kubrick took out much of Clarke's stuff from the final product.

It was made explicit in the sequel movie 2010: The Year We Make Contact, but even if you don't consider that movie canon, the explanation still makes sense solely within the context of 2001, IMO.

Sounds like he acted the way HAL would have in that situation, two competing drives, remove one (kill the crew) and the task is much easier.

Both of your links are basically ads, or at least the titles make them sound like it.

> Lenovo showed a model that incorporates solid-state air cooling. That technology has been around for a while but it looks like it matured and is production-ready. This allows for super-light and slim designs, which, in turn, should allow for bigger batteries installed and I think it's some sort of breakthrough

See now this sounds like something I'd click on. (The linked article doesn't really discuss any of the technology or engineering though)

There have been several threads and developments on this over the past few days, including statements from the primary subjects involved. Third-hand instagram comments are not really the best source to be bringing in.

Everybody comes into information in different ways. There were no comments here about this specific aspect of the story - which is definitely interesting!

Weren't the agents massively parallel, whereas the lean verifier presumably is not? Also, I presume said agents were themselves running the verifier on their own parts many times.

I mean, I have a bachelor's in math and I don't imagine I could begin to understand either the human or LLM proofs without a massive investment of time and effort.

But can you verify them? With less effort?

I'm not sure what you mean by "verify" here. I could run the lean verifier as could anyone else. Maybe I could write my own proof checker and do a purely mechanical translation into my own thing, though I don't think that's less effort.

Do you have hard evidence of this assertion?

We can't have hard evidence. It's a SaaS and they own the code and the machine it runs on.

So it may be a widespread hallucination. But there's no evidence of that either.

We could still have soft evidence though. Make a Todo app on Monday, and make a Todo app on Tuesday, and see what it makes in comparison.

someone already does that https://aistupidlevel.info/

It's actually a extremely cool site, and fascinating to view the results off the AI bots i use.

You would need a significant sample size to make any sort of conclusion from such a probabilistic process. Then there's the issue of how you would actually grade/compare.

Run a benchmark with a large number of samples, rerun a few days later. Compare results, use statistics to see if there's a statistically significant difference.

Doing this in a way that doesn't get you noticed or fucked with is potentially going to be quite difficult.

If they have a "hey we're being benchmarked" mode, which is not hard to imagine, avoiding tripping it is going to be annoying and difficult to prove.

You would want to use your own benchmark, certainly, not something publicly known. But outside of that I don't think "this is a benchmark" is such an easy category to determine -- a benchmark should be similar to a typical scenario anyway.

> "this is a benchmark" is such an easy category to determine

I mean, it's not _that_ hard to determine most likely, and/or it's hard to be sure you didn't get found out by llm-assisted analysis on your traffic. It's not going to be a one-shot request and response it's going to be a whole bunch of them in an artificial way, by nature.

And then anything you found is single-use only if you're paranoid because even if they find out later, they have your benchmark now (because you sent it to them to use it even if you don't publish it).

There is a toot from an Open AI person a couple days ago saying they are "pulling all the levers" because of capacity issues. I have no idea what the heck the person is talking about, but I'm guessing there are consequence for those levers.

    > "Demand for Astra is really unprecedented. We're pulling all the levers possible to sustain the demand, but I've not seen anything like it until now and we went through very steep growth before. Priority will always be to keep excellent service for existing users, but we might have to pause new Pro subscriptions for a bit if this continues."

Depends on the nature of the levers

Presumably the parent does not want to have to trust Aurora to do that

It isn't exactly hard for a bad actor to come up with that prompt

well no crap right? Except I submitted for an exception, even sending my linkedin and using a company email address. it should be extraordinarily obvious we own this code.