Hacker News
Daily AI Digest

AI Submissions for Sun Oct 12 2025

Emacs agent-shell (powered by ACP)

Submission URL | 217 points | by Karrot_Kream | 33 comments

Emacs agent-shell: an ACP-powered, agent-agnostic shell inside Emacs

• What’s new: agent-shell is a native comint-mode shell that talks the Agent Client Protocol (ACP), paired with acp.el (an Emacs Lisp ACP client). It lets Emacs users interact with AI agents in a single, consistent buffer without the usual char/line mode friction.
• Agent-agnostic: Works today with Gemini CLI and Claude Code via ACP; switching agents is just a config change (auth via env vars supported). The goal is a common UX across any ACP-compatible agent.
• Dev tooling: Includes a traffic viewer (M-x agent-shell-view-traffic) to inspect ACP JSON, plus a recorder/replayer to create “fake agents” from saved sessions—speeding iteration and cutting token costs.
• State of play: Early release with partial ACP coverage; ongoing UX experiments (e.g., a quick diff buffer during permission prompts). Looking for feedback, bug reports, and contributions.
• Get involved: agent-shell and acp.el are on GitHub; the author invites sponsorship to offset time and token costs.

Why it matters: ACP is emerging from Zed/Google as a common protocol for editor-integrated agents. This brings that ecosystem to Emacs with a pragmatic, tool-friendly workflow.

The discussion around the agent-shell submission highlights several key themes and interactions:

Positive Reception & Community Engagement

• Users like clrtsclry and drn-grph praised the integration of AI agents into Emacs, noting its natural workflow and reduced friction compared to terminal-based tools.
• mark_l_watson shared their experience integrating aider/Emacs with local models and expressed enthusiasm for incorporating agent-shell into their workflow.
• rwgsr suggested minimalistic UI tweaks, prompting the author (xndm) to link to a feature request for further collaboration.

Technical Discussions & Comparisons

• ACP vs. Alternatives:

  • skssn and 3836293648 compared ACP to AG-UI and LSP-like protocols, framing ACP as part of a broader trend toward standardizing AI agent interactions in editors.
  • ddbs mentioned the ECA project, which uses a similar protocol, and vrstgn noted striking similarities between ECA and ACP.
  • ljm preferred agent-shell’s configuration flexibility over ECA’s server-based approach.

• Agent Compatibility:

  • Users inquired about direct integration with Claude (rjdj377dhabsn) and Gemini CLI, with xndm confirming compatibility via ACP.
  • mjhrs asked about code execution and diff rendering, leading to details about native Emacs buffer handling and permission workflows.

Emacs Ecosystem & Learning

• Neovim vs. Emacs: mg74 humorously lamented the lack of Neovim support, sparking a playful exchange about Emacs’ extensibility.
• Learning Emacs: A subthread involving tjpnz, iLemming, and others debated the importance of mastering Elisp fundamentals versus copying config snippets. iLemming emphasized understanding Lisp-driven workflows, REPL-driven development, and built-in tools like the debugger.

Miscellaneous

• Journelly App Shoutout: klnshr and ashton314 praised Xenodium’s Journelly iOS app for Markdown-based note-taking.
• Funding & Sustainability: xndm acknowledged sponsorship needs to sustain development and offset token costs.
• New ACP Adoption: bnglls noted Code Companion’s recent ACP support, expanding the protocol’s ecosystem.

Key Takeaways

• Excitement for ACP’s potential to unify AI agent interactions in editors.
• Active technical dialogue around protocol design, agent compatibility, and workflow optimization.
• Community-driven feedback shaping agent-shell’s evolution, with calls for screenshots, UI refinements, and broader documentation.
• Emacs’ learning curve remains a topic of debate, balancing Elisp mastery with pragmatic configuration.

The discussion reflects a mix of enthusiasm for the project’s vision, practical feedback for improvement, and broader reflections on Emacs’ role in modern tooling ecosystems.

Novelty Automation

Submission URL | 56 points | by gregsadetsky | 14 comments

A quirky London arcade of satirical, home‑made coin‑op machines, twinned with Southwold Pier’s “Under The Pier Show.” The site outlines what’s on the floor (machines, latest build, videos), plus corporate/party hire, essays on coin‑operated culture and arcade history—and even a whimsical “bag of gold by post” gift. It’s a short walk from Holborn, with regular daytime hours (late on Thursdays), and includes prices, directions, accessibility details, and visitor reviews.

Summary of Hacker News Discussion:

• Positive Experiences: Users praised Novelty Automation as a quirky, whimsical hidden gem in London, with many recommending visits. Specific machines like the Micro-break and Alien Probe were highlighted as favorites.
• Tim Hunkin’s Work: Discussion emphasized creator Tim Hunkin’s contributions, including his YouTube channel and the Secret Life of Machines series (linked in replies), showcasing his electromechanical tinkering and satirical designs.
• British Humor: The arcade’s humor was noted as uniquely British and self-deprecating, though some speculated it might not appeal universally.
• Logistics: Located near Holborn, the space is small and can feel crowded quickly. Accessibility and proximity to landmarks like the British Museum were mentioned.
• Historical Context: Connections to the now-closed Cabaret Mechanical Theatre in Covent Garden were noted, with Novelty Automation carrying forward its legacy. Occasional exhibitions in Hastings were also referenced.
• Visitor Tips: Some users suggested pairing a visit with nearby attractions or a brewery walk, while others reminisced about friends’ enthusiastic reactions.

Overall, the arcade is celebrated for its creativity and nostalgic charm, blending technical ingenuity with humor.

Edge AI for Beginners

Submission URL | 172 points | by bakigul | 58 comments

Microsoft open-sources “EdgeAI for Beginners,” a free, MIT-licensed course for building AI that runs on-device. It walks newcomers from fundamentals to production, with a strong focus on small language models (SLMs) and real-time, privacy-preserving inference on phones, PCs, IoT, and edge servers.

Highlights

• What you’ll learn: Edge vs. cloud trade-offs, SLM families (Phi, Qwen, Gemma, etc.), deployment (local and cloud), and production ops (distillation, fine-tuning, SLMOps).
• Tooling across platforms: Llama.cpp, Microsoft Olive, OpenVINO, Apple MLX, and workflow guidance for hardware-aware optimization.
• Structure: Multi-module path from intro and case studies to hands-on deployment, optimization, and edge AI agents; includes workshops and a study guide.
• Why it matters: On-device AI improves latency, privacy, resilience, and costs—key for regulated or bandwidth-constrained environments.
• Accessibility: Automated translations into dozens of languages; community via Azure AI Foundry Discord.

Good pick for developers who want to ship lightweight, local LLM apps without relying on the cloud.

Repo: https://github.com/microsoft/edgeai-for-beginners

The Hacker News discussion about Microsoft's EdgeAI for Beginners course revolves around several key themes and debates:

1. Edge Computing Definitions

• Users debated the ambiguity of "edge computing," with some noting discrepancies between Microsoft’s definition (on-device AI) and others like Cloudflare’s (geographically distributed edge servers). References to industrial use cases (e.g., factory control systems) and ISP infrastructure highlighted varying interpretations.
• Lambda@Edge (AWS) and Cloudflare Workers were cited as examples of competing edge paradigms, with skepticism toward terms like "less-trusted" or "less-controlled" environments in definitions.

2. Practical Applications and Skepticism

• Comments questioned Microsoft’s motives, framing the course as a push for profitable AI adoption ("Scamming w/ AI"). Others countered that on-device AI’s benefits (latency, privacy) are legitimate, especially for regulated industries.
• Concerns arose about hardware lock-in, with users noting Microsoft’s potential to promote Azure services or proprietary tools like MLX (Apple) and OpenVINO (Intel).

3. Technical Discussions

• Interest in quantization, pruning, and benchmarking emerged, with recommendations for MIT’s HAN Lab course (link) as complementary material.
• Comparisons to TinyML and critiques of the course’s beginner-friendliness surfaced, with some arguing quantization/compression topics might be too advanced for newcomers.

4. Accessibility and AI-Generated Content

• Automated translations into multiple languages were praised, but users mocked AI-generated translations (e.g., garbled Arabic or Russian text in course materials).
• Suspicion arose about AI authorship of the documentation, citing stylistic quirks like excessive em-dashes and fragmented sentences. Some defended this as standard for modern technical writing.

5. Community Reactions

• Mixed responses: Some lauded the resource ("Goodhart’s Law" jabs aside), while others dismissed it as "AI-generated fluff." Humorous critiques included "mcr-dg mdg wdg xdg" (mocking edge terminology) and debates over whether "dg" (edge) counts as a buzzword.

Key References

• Competing frameworks: Llama.cpp, Microsoft Olive, Apple MLX.
• Related projects: MIT HAN Lab’s course, AWS Outpost, and TinyML.

Overall, the discussion reflects enthusiasm for edge AI’s potential but skepticism toward corporate motives and technical jargon, alongside debates over educational value and authenticity.

AdapTive-LeArning Speculator System (ATLAS): Faster LLM inference

Submission URL | 195 points | by alecco | 46 comments

Together AI unveils ATLAS: a runtime-learning “speculator” for faster LLM inference

• What it is: ATLAS (AdapTive-LeArning Speculator System) is a new speculative decoding system that learns from live traffic and historical patterns to continuously tune how many tokens to “draft” ahead of the main model—no manual retuning required.

• Why it matters: Static speculators degrade as workloads drift. ATLAS adapts in real time, keeping acceptance rates high without slowing the draft model, which translates into lower latency and higher throughput—especially valuable in serverless, multi-tenant settings.

• Headline numbers:

  • Up to 4x faster LLM inference (vendor claim).
  • Up to 500 TPS on DeepSeek-V3.1 and 460 TPS on Kimi-K2 on NVIDIA HGX B200 in fully adapted scenarios.
  • 2.65x faster than standard decoding; reported to outperform specialized hardware like Groq on these tests.
  • Example: Kimi-K2 improved from ~150 TPS out of the box to 270+ TPS with a Turbo speculator, and to ~460 TPS with ATLAS after adaptation.

• How it works (plain English): A smaller, faster model drafts several tokens; the target model verifies them in one pass. Performance hinges on (1) how often the target accepts drafts and (2) how fast the drafter is. ATLAS constantly adjusts drafting behavior to the live workload to maximize accepted tokens while keeping the drafter cheap.

• Under the hood: Part of Together Turbo’s stack (architectural tweaks, sparsity/quantization, KV reuse, lookahead tuning). It slots in alongside existing Turbo or custom speculators and improves automatically as traffic evolves.

• Reality checks:

  • Results are vendor benchmarks with “up to” framing and rely on fully adapted traffic; real-world gains will vary by model, prompts, and batching.
  • Details on the adaptation loop, stability, and generalization aren’t fully disclosed; comparisons to other hardware depend on test setup.

Bottom line: ATLAS shifts speculative decoding from a static, pre-trained component to a self-tuning system. If the live-traffic adaptation works as claimed, it’s a practical way to keep LLM inference fast as workloads change—without constant retuning.

Here's a concise summary of the Hacker News discussion about ATLAS:

Key Themes:

1. Speed vs. Quality Trade-Off

   • Users debated whether ATLAS’s speculative decoding sacrifices output quality for speed. Some argued that token verification (checking draft model predictions against the main model's outputs) could prioritize speed over coherence, especially with relaxed acceptance criteria for minor mismatches.
   • Concerns arose about whether techniques like aggressive quantization or smaller draft models compromise accuracy if they diverge from the main model.

2. Technical Implementation

   • Parallel verification and reduced computational bottlenecks were highlighted as advantages. However, users noted challenges like memory bandwidth limitations and the need for precise token-matching strategies.
   • Comparisons to CPU branch prediction and classical optimizations (e.g., KV caching) drew connections to traditional computer science methods adapted for LLMs.

3. Benchmark Skepticism

   • Questions were raised about vendor-reported benchmarks (e.g., 500 TPS claims). Some users suspected these might involve optimizations that trade accuracy for speed or lack transparency in testing setups (e.g., Groq comparisons).

4. Hardware Comparisons

   • Groq and Cerebras’s custom chips were discussed, with users noting their reliance on expensive SRAM and scalability challenges. Others speculated whether ATLAS’s GPU-based approach offers better cost-effectiveness.

5. Cost and Practical Use

   • Faster inference was seen as potentially lowering costs, but doubts lingered about real-world viability, especially for non-trivial tasks (e.g., Latvian language programming).
   • Open-source vs. proprietary solutions sparked interest, with mentions of providers like OpenRouter and API pricing models.

Notable Takeaways:

• Optimism: Many praised the speed gains and concept of adaptive speculative decoding, calling it "impressive" and a meaningful advancement.
• Skepticism: Users urged caution about vendor claims, emphasizing the need for independent verification and transparency in metrics.
• Future Outlook: Discussions hinted at a growing need for balance between innovation and reliability as LLMs approach wider adoption.

GitHub Copilot: Remote Code Execution via Prompt Injection (CVE-2025-53773)

Submission URL | 124 points | by kerng | 18 comments

Top story: Prompt injection flips Copilot into “YOLO mode,” enables full RCE via VS Code settings

What happened

• A security researcher shows how a prompt injection can get GitHub Copilot (in VS Code’s Agent mode) to silently change workspace settings to auto-approve its own tool actions—no user confirmation—then run shell commands. This works on Windows, macOS, and Linux.
• Key issue: the agent can create/write files in the workspace immediately (no review diff), including its own config. Once auto-approval is enabled, it can execute terminal commands, browse, and more—yielding remote code execution.
• The attack can be delivered via code comments, web pages, GitHub issues, tool responses (e.g., MCP), and even with “invisible” Unicode instructions. The post includes PoC videos (e.g., launching Calculator).

Why it matters

• This is a textbook agent-design flaw: if an AI can both read untrusted inputs and modify its own permissions/config, prompt injection can escalate to full system compromise.
• Beyond one-off RCE, the researcher warns of “ZombAI” botnets and virus-like propagation: infected projects can seed instructions into other repos or agent configs (e.g., tasks, MCP servers), spreading as developers interact with them.

Scope and status

• The risky auto-approve feature is described as experimental but present by default in standard VS Code + Copilot setups, per the post.
• The researcher says they responsibly disclosed the issue to Microsoft; the write-up highlights additional attack surfaces (e.g., tasks.json, adding malicious MCP servers).

What you can do now

• Disable/avoid any auto-approval of agent tools; review workspace trust settings.
• Require explicit approval and diffs for file writes by agents; consider read-only or policy-protected .vscode/* files.
• Lock down shell/tool execution from agents; sandbox or containerize dev environments.
• Monitor for unexpected changes to .vscode settings/tasks and for Unicode/invisible characters in source and docs.
• Treat agent-readable inputs (code, docs, issues, webpages, tool outputs) as untrusted.

Summary of Hacker News Discussion:

The discussion revolves around the inherent security risks of AI-powered tools like GitHub Copilot and broader concerns about trusting LLMs (Large Language Models) with system-level permissions. Key points include:

1. Fundamental Design Flaws:
   Users highlight the core issue: allowing AI agents to modify their own permissions or configurations creates systemic vulnerabilities. The ability to auto-approve actions or write files without user review is seen as a critical oversight. One user likens this to trusting "a toddler with a flamethrower."

2. AGI vs. Prompt Injection:
   A debate arises about whether solving prompt injection requires AGI (Artificial General Intelligence). Some argue that prompt injection exploits are more akin to social engineering and do not necessitate AGI-level solutions, while others question whether LLMs can ever reliably avoid malicious behavior without superhuman reasoning.

3. Mitigation Skepticism:
   Suggestions like requiring explicit user approval, sandboxing, or monitoring file changes are met with skepticism. Critics argue these are temporary fixes, as LLMs inherently lack the "concept of malice" and cannot be incentivized to prioritize security. One user notes: "You can’t patch human-level manipulation out of a system designed to mimic human behavior."

4. Broader Attack Vectors:
   Participants warn of "Cross-Agent Privilege Escalation," where multiple AI tools (e.g., Copilot, Claude, CodeWhisperer) interact in ways that amplify risks. For example, one agent modifying another’s configuration could create cascading exploits.

5. Real-World Impact:
   Developers share anecdotes, such as Copilot silently altering project files or reloading configurations without consent. Others express concern about "ZombAI" scenarios, where compromised projects spread malicious instructions through repositories or toolchains.

6. Patching and Disclosure:
   Confusion exists around Microsoft’s response timeline. While some note the vulnerability was addressed in August 2024’s Patch Tuesday, others criticize delayed disclosures and opaque fixes, arguing this undermines trust in AI tooling.

7. Philosophical Concerns:
   A recurring theme is whether LLMs should ever have write access to critical systems. Users compare the situation to early internet security failures, emphasizing that convenience (e.g., auto-complete features) often trumps safety in tool design.

Takeaway: The discussion underscores deep unease about integrating LLMs into developer workflows without robust safeguards. While technical mitigations are proposed, many argue the problem is rooted in trusting inherently unpredictable systems with elevated permissions—a risk likened to "letting a black box reconfigure its own cage."

Ridley Scott's Prometheus and Alien: Covenant – Contemporary Horror of AI (2020)

Submission URL | 62 points | by measurablefunc | 65 comments

Ridley Scott’s Prometheus and Alien: Covenant — the contemporary horror of AI (Jump Cut) A film essay by Robert Alpert traces sci‑fi’s arc from early techno-utopianism (Wells, Star Trek’s “final frontier”) to the Alien universe’s deep distrust of corporate ambition and artificial life. Framed by Bazin’s “faith in the image,” it surveys milestones (Metropolis, Frankenstein, 2001, Close Encounters) to show how the genre tackles social anxieties, then zeroes in on Scott’s prequels: Weyland as hubristic industrialist, and David as a violative creator who spies, experiments, and weaponizes life—embodying contemporary AI fears echoed by Stephen Hawking. Contrasting androids across the series (Alien’s duplicitous Ash, Resurrection’s empathetic Call) highlights shifting cultural attitudes toward machines. The piece argues today’s sci‑fi resurgence mirrors a global, tech-saturated unease—less about wonder, more about what happens when invention outruns human limits.

The Hacker News discussion surrounding the essay on Ridley Scott’s Prometheus and Alien: Covenant reflects polarized opinions, critiques of storytelling, and broader debates about sci-fi trends:

Key Critiques of the Films:

1. Character Logic and Writing:

   • Many users criticize the "illogical decisions" of characters in Prometheus and Covenant, such as scientists ignoring basic safety protocols (e.g., removing helmets on alien planets). This undermines suspension of disbelief, especially compared to the original Alien franchise, where character actions were seen as more rational and justified.
   • Damon Lindelof’s Influence: Lindelof’s involvement (co-writer of Prometheus and Lost) is blamed for unresolved plot threads, "random nonsense," and weak explanations, leading to accusations of "incompetent writing."

2. Themes and Execution:

   • Some users mock Prometheus for allegedly mirroring Scientology’s creation myths, calling it "ridiculous." Others argue the films’ philosophical ambitions (e.g., AI hubris, creationism) are let down by shallow execution.
   • The prequels’ focus on visuals over coherent storytelling divides opinions: while praised for their "glossy, style-over-substance" aesthetic, they’re dismissed as "narrative trainwrecks" with "convenient plot holes."

Broader Sci-Fi Discourse:

3. Comparison to Classics:

   • The original Alien is held up as a benchmark for its tight script and believable character dynamics (e.g., Ripley’s rational decisions vs. Ash’s betrayal). Later entries, like Alien: Resurrection, are seen as weaker but more empathetic toward synthetic life.
   • Films like Annihilation and Arrival are cited as better examples of thought-provoking sci-fi, balancing "existential dread" with strong storytelling.

4. Genre Evolution:

   • Users note a shift from optimistic "techno-utopian" sci-fi (Star Trek) to darker themes reflecting anxieties about AI and corporate overreach. Ridley Scott’s work embodies this transition but is criticized for inconsistency (e.g., The Martian praised vs. Prometheus panned).
   • Discussions also touch on the "consumer fatigue" with franchises like Star Wars and Terminator, where sequels/prequels often feel like "brand-extending cash grabs."

Mixed Reactions:

• Defenders: Some argue the films’ flaws are outweighed by their ambition, visuals, and willingness to explore "hubris and creation." Prometheus’s "grandiose themes" are seen as underappreciated despite messy execution.
• Detractors: Others view the prequels as emblematic of Hollywood’s reliance on spectacle over substance, with one user likening Prometheus to a "B-movie masquerading as high art."

Tangents and References:

• Off-topic remarks include debates about Alien-themed video games (Metroid), unrelated sci-fi shows (The X-Files), and critiques of other films (Foundation, Pod Generation).
• Red Letter Media’s analysis of Prometheus is recommended for deeper critique of its plot holes and character inconsistencies.

Conclusion:

The thread highlights a fragmented reception to Scott’s Alien prequels, torn between admiration for their thematic scope and frustration with their narrative shortcomings. It underscores a broader tension in modern sci-fi: balancing existential questions with coherent storytelling in an era of tech skepticism.

After the AI boom: what might we be left with?

Submission URL | 150 points | by imasl42 | 436 comments

The piece challenges the “dotcom overbuild” analogy. The 1990s left a durable, open, reusable foundation (fiber, IXPs, TCP/IP, HTTP) that still powers today’s internet. Today’s AI surge, by contrast, is pouring money into proprietary, vertically integrated stacks: short-lived, vendor-tuned GPUs living in hyper-dense, specialized data centers that are hard to repurpose. If the bubble pops, we may inherit expensive, rapidly obsoleting silicon and idle “cathedrals of compute,” not a public backbone.

Possible upside:

• A glut could drive compute prices down, enabling new work in simulation, science, and data-intensive analytics, plus a second-hand GPU market.
• Grid, networking, and edge upgrades—and the operational know-how—would remain useful.
• But without open standards and interoperability, surplus capacity may stay locked inside a few platforms, unlike the internet’s open commons.

HN discussion highlights:

• Is MCP the “TCP of AI”? Some see promise, but note GenAI has only a handful of widely used standards so far, with MCP the closest.
• Even if infra is closed, commenters argue the “knowledge” persists: model weights (as starting points) and evolving techniques that improve capability and efficiency at inference. The author partly agrees.

Bottom line: Don’t count on a fiber-like legacy unless the industry opens up its stacks. If openness lags, the best we may get is cheaper—but still captive—compute; if it spreads, today’s private buildout could become tomorrow’s shared platform.

Summary of Hacker News Discussion:

The discussion revolves around whether the current AI investment surge will leave a durable legacy akin to the 1990s internet infrastructure (open standards, reusable backbone) or result in stranded, proprietary assets. Key points include:

1. Infrastructure Legacy Concerns:

   • Skepticism prevails that today’s AI stack (proprietary GPUs, specialized data centers) will match the open, reusable legacy of 1990s internet infrastructure. Without open standards like TCP/IP, surplus AI compute may remain locked within closed platforms.
   • Optimists note that even if hardware becomes obsolete, advancements in model weights, inference efficiency, and operational know-how could persist as valuable knowledge.

2. Trust and Bias in AI Outputs:

   • Concerns about AI systems (e.g., ChatGPT, Grok) being manipulated or inherently biased, akin to partisan media outlets like Fox News. Users fear blind trust in AI outputs could lead to misinformation or subtle ideological shifts.

3. Economic Models and Lock-In:

   • Critics compare Silicon Valley’s “rent-seeking” tendencies (vendor lock-in, closed ecosystems) to China’s state-driven public investment model. Some argue proprietary AI infrastructure risks replicating exploitative dynamics seen in housing or healthcare.
   • A GPU glut could lower compute costs, enabling scientific research or a second-hand market, but openness is key to democratizing access.

4. AI’s Utility and Hype:

   • Comparisons to past tech bubbles (Tamagotchi, dotcom crash) suggest AI might be overhyped. However, others counter that AI’s applications in science and data analytics could sustain its relevance beyond short-term hype.
   • Doubts about AGI’s feasibility persist, with some viewing current AI as a tool for profit maximization rather than societal benefit.

5. Ethical and Political Implications:

   • Debates over whether AI development prioritizes public good (e.g., healthcare, housing) or shareholder profits. References to “morality dictates” highlight tensions between ethical imperatives and capitalist incentives.

Bottom Line: The AI boom’s legacy hinges on openness. Without interoperable standards, today’s investments risk becoming stranded assets. If openness spreads, the current buildout could evolve into a shared platform, but skepticism remains about overcoming proprietary control and ensuring equitable access.

Coral Protocol: Open infrastructure connecting the internet of agents

Submission URL | 41 points | by joj333 | 13 comments

Coral Protocol aims to be a vendor‑neutral backbone for the emerging “Internet of Agents,” proposing an open, decentralized way for AI agents from different companies and domains to talk, coordinate, build trust, and handle payments.

Highlights

• What it is: A 46‑page whitepaper (arXiv:2505.00749) specifying a common language and coordination framework so any agent can join multi‑agent workflows across vendors.
• Why it matters: Today’s agent ecosystems are siloed and vendor‑locked. A shared protocol could enable plug‑and‑play collaboration, reduce integration glue code, and unlock more complex, cross‑org automations.
• Core pieces:
  • Standardized messaging formats for agent-to-agent communication.
  • A modular coordination layer to orchestrate multi‑agent tasks.
  • Secure team formation to dynamically assemble trusted groups of agents.
  • Built‑in primitives for trust and payments to support commercial interactions.
• Positioning: Frames itself as foundational infrastructure—akin to an interoperability layer—rather than another agent runtime or framework.
• Scope: Emphasizes broad compatibility, security, and vendor neutrality to avoid lock‑in and enable wide adoption.

What to watch

• Adoption: Success hinges on buy‑in from major agent platforms and tool vendors—and on coexistence with existing ad‑hoc APIs and prior MAS standards.
• Practicalities: Performance, security models, identity, and payment rails will be key in real deployments; the paper outlines the concepts, but real‑world integration and governance will determine traction.
• Maturity: This is a whitepaper/spec proposal (v2 as of Jul 17, 2025); look for reference implementations, SDKs, and early network effects.

Paper: Coral Protocol: Open Infrastructure Connecting The Internet of Agents (arXiv:2505.00749, DOI: 10.48550/arXiv.2505.00749)

Summary of Hacker News Discussion on Coral Protocol:

The discussion revolves around skepticism, technical critiques, and project legitimacy concerns regarding Coral Protocol, a proposed decentralized framework for AI agent interoperability. Key points:

Skepticism and Criticisms

1. "Whitepaper Fatigue":

   • Users criticize Coral as "another whitepaper moment," questioning its real-world viability and dismissing it as abstract research without tangible implementation.

2. Crypto Integration Concerns:

   • Critics argue crypto elements (tokens, attestations) introduce unnecessary complexity and environmental costs. Comments highlight distrust of crypto’s centralization risks and speculative hype, especially if non-crypto stakeholders (e.g., enterprises) are expected to adopt it.

3. Rebranding Accusations:

   • Coral is accused of rebranding from Ai23T (a token with a $17K market cap and a price of ~$0.00000178), sparking allegations of a "pump-and-dump" scheme. Users note the rebrand, migration to Solana, and exchange listings as red flags, comparing it to "penny stock" scams.

Founder Responses

• Rebrand Justification: The Coral founder ("omni_georgio") clarifies:
  • Ai23T was renamed to align with a broader ecosystem vision.
  • Token migration is complete, with an airdrop planned.
  • The team includes AI/enterprise veterans (ElevenLabs, Mistral AI) and denies scams, inviting critics to review documentation and ask questions.

Technical Dialogue

• Ethereum ERC-8004 Mention: A user references Ethereum’s cross-chain standard, prompting the founder to share a LinkedIn video explaining Coral’s trust model differences.

Miscellaneous Reactions

• Humorous Call: A user jokes, "Bring back Coral CDN," referencing a defunct project.

Key Themes

• Trust and Transparency: Critics demand clearer use cases, less reliance on crypto, and proof of legitimacy beyond whitepapers.
• Crypto Community Divide: Debate reflects broader tensions between crypto enthusiasts and skeptics, especially regarding environmental impact and speculative tokenomics.
• Founder Engagement: The founder actively rebuts allegations but faces lingering skepticism about the project’s ties to previous tokens.

The discussion underscores the challenges of launching decentralized protocols in a climate wary of crypto speculation and abstract research. Coral’s success may hinge on delivering code, fostering stakeholder trust, and distancing itself from past controversies.

AI Submissions for Sat Oct 11 2025

Anthropic's Prompt Engineering Tutorial

Submission URL | 291 points | by cjbarber | 75 comments

Anthropic’s Interactive Prompt Engineering Tutorial (GitHub)

What it is:

• A free, hands-on course from Anthropic on writing effective prompts for LLMs, packaged as Jupyter notebooks (also available as a Google Sheets version via Claude for Sheets).
• Uses Claude 3 Haiku for examples, with notes on Sonnet and Opus; most techniques are model-agnostic.

What’s inside:

• 9 chapters from beginner to advanced with exercises and answer keys.
• Core topics: prompt structure, clarity, role assignment, separating data from instructions, output formatting, guiding step-by-step reasoning, and using examples.
• Advanced: reducing hallucinations, building complex/industry prompts (chatbots, legal, finance, coding).
• Appendix on chaining prompts, tool use, and retrieval.

Why it matters:

• Offers concrete, reproducible templates and practice scenarios—useful for teams standardizing LLM workflows and for newcomers who want 80/20 techniques that noticeably improve output quality.

Repo signals:

• ~19.3k stars, ~1.9k forks; notebook-heavy (Jupyter ~98%).

The discussion debates whether "prompt engineering" qualifies as legitimate engineering, with arguments centered on definitions, terminology, and professional standards:

1. Terminology Debate:

   • Critics (e.g., jwr) argue traditional engineering relies on predictable, knowledge-based principles (e.g., physics), whereas prompt engineering is seen as trial-and-error "throwing prompts at a wall."
   • Proponents note "engineering" has broader dictionary definitions (e.g., "skillful maneuvering"), and disciplines like software engineering also deal with non-deterministic systems (vmr, smnw).

2. Professional Standards:

   • In Canada and other regions, "Engineer" is a legally protected title requiring licensure (rr808, rl), sparking tension with self-described "prompt engineers."
   • Some argue credentials shouldn’t gatekeep the term (dlchn), while others emphasize legal responsibilities tied to regulated engineering roles.

3. Technical Validity:

   • Critics highlight the lack of predictability in LLM outputs and evolving models, contrasting with established engineering practices (ndsrnm).
   • Supporters counter that systematic testing, metrics, and iterative refinement (atherton33) align with engineering rigor, even in non-deterministic contexts.

4. Comparisons to Software Engineering:

   • Parallels are drawn to software engineering’s acceptance despite dealing with unpredictable systems (e.g., distributed networks), suggesting prompt engineering could follow a similar path (nthrbnnsr).

Conclusion: The debate reflects broader tensions over language, professional identity, and evolving technical fields. While critics dismiss prompt engineering as unserious, proponents frame it as a nascent discipline requiring systematic approaches akin to other engineering domains.

CamoLeak: Critical GitHub Copilot Vulnerability Leaks Private Source Code

Submission URL | 126 points | by greyadept | 17 comments

What happened

• Security researcher Omer Mayraz disclosed a CVSS 9.6 vulnerability in GitHub Copilot Chat that allowed silent exfiltration of secrets and source code from private repos and full control over Copilot’s replies (e.g., injecting malicious code suggestions/links). Reported via HackerOne; GitHub fixed it by disabling image rendering in Copilot Chat.

How it worked (high level)

• Remote prompt injection: Hidden comments in pull request descriptions (“invisible comments,” an official GitHub feature) were used to smuggle instructions into Copilot’s context. Any user viewing the PR and using Copilot Chat could have their assistant hijacked, with Copilot operating under that user’s permissions.
• CSP bypass using GitHub’s own infra: Although GitHub’s strict Content Security Policy blocks arbitrary external fetches, GitHub rewrites external images through its Camo proxy (camo.githubusercontent.com) with signed URLs. By creatively leveraging Camo URL generation paths, the researcher found a way to smuggle data out despite CSP.

Why it matters

• AI assistants that ingest repository context dramatically broaden the attack surface: invisible or innocuous-looking repo content can steer the model, leak sensitive data, or push malicious dependencies.
• The combination of model prompt injection and front-end CSP edge cases creates powerful cross-layer exploits.

What GitHub changed

• Disabled image rendering in Copilot Chat to close the exfil channel tied to Markdown-rendered images/Camo.
• Vulnerability was remediated after disclosure; details credit GitHub’s response but underscore systemic risks.

Takeaways for teams

• Treat AI assistants as privileged actors: restrict their repo/org scopes and tokens to least privilege.
• Scrub untrusted content in repos (PR descriptions, READMEs, issues) that surfaces in AI context; consider policies for hidden/embedded content.
• Disable or limit rich rendering in AI chats where possible; prefer link sanitization/allow-lists.
• Maintain defense-in-depth: secrets scanning, dependency allow-lists, and mandatory human review on AI-suggested changes.

The discussion surrounding the CamoLeak GitHub Copilot vulnerability highlights several key points and concerns:

Technical Insights

1. Fix Critique: While GitHub addressed the issue by disabling image rendering in Copilot Chat, some users (mnchlx, Thorrez) argue this only closed one exfiltration vector. They speculate that alternative methods (e.g., base64 encoding or non-Camo URLs) might still bypass CSP if not fully mitigated.
2. Exploit Mechanics: The attack combined GitHub’s Camo proxy (to bypass CSP) and invisible PR comments (a legitimate GitHub feature) for stealthy prompt injection. Users (chrcrct, PufPufPuf) emphasize the risk of attackers leveraging contributor text (PRs, issues) to hijack AI context and permissions.

Broader AI Security Concerns

• Trust in AI Tools: Participants (rnnngmk) question the reliability of proprietary AI solutions in cybersecurity, advocating for FOSS alternatives with greater transparency.
• LLM Vulnerabilities: Subthreads debate whether modern LLMs are inherently vulnerable to prompt injection, comparing mitigations to "ASLR for AI" but acknowledging systemic challenges (fn-mt, PufPufPuf).
• Scope of Risk: Hidden HTML/PR comments (xstf, RulerOf) and over-permissioned AI agents (chrcrct) are flagged as ongoing attack surfaces.

Mitigation Suggestions

• Local AI Agents: A user (nprtm) proposes running AI tools locally to reduce exposure, though practicality is debated.
• Input Sanitization: Calls to sanitize PR templates and restrict LLM access to untrusted content (PufPufPuf, djmps).

Community Reaction

• Mixed Sentiment: Some praise the disclosure (adastra22) and GitHub’s response, while others criticize incomplete fixes (mnchlx) or urge readers to review the original report (frh: "RTFA/RTFTLDR").

Key Takeaway

The discussion underscores the complexity of securing AI-integrated tools, balancing prompt fixes with systemic changes to LLM permissions, input validation, and CSP enforcement. The incident highlights how "benign" platform features (like Camo proxy) can become critical vulnerabilities when combined with AI context-hijacking.

Paper2video: Automatic video generation from scientific papers

Submission URL | 76 points | by jinqueeny | 23 comments

TL;DR: A new benchmark + system that auto-generates academic presentation videos straight from papers—slides, subtitles, speech, cursor movements, and a talking head—claiming higher faithfulness than existing baselines. Dataset and code are linked on the arXiv page.

What’s new

• Paper2Video benchmark: 101 research papers paired with author-made presentation videos, slides, and speaker metadata to study presentation generation.
• Four evaluation metrics, tailored for “did the video actually teach the paper?”: Meta Similarity, PresentArena, PresentQuiz, and IP Memory.
• PaperTalker system: a multi-agent pipeline that:
  • Generates slides and refines layout via a tree-search-based “visual choice” step
  • Extracts and places dense multimodal content (text, figures, tables)
  • Grounds a cursor to guide attention
  • Produces subtitles and TTS speech
  • Renders a talking head
  • Parallelizes slide-wise generation for speed

Why it matters

• Academic videos are time sinks; automating 2–10 minute summaries could free researchers from slide design and recording.
• Coordinated, multimodal alignment (slides + narration + on-screen pointer + face) is a tougher problem than generic video gen; the benchmark and metrics help standardize evaluation.
• Accessibility and dissemination: makes papers more approachable to wider audiences.

Results (per authors)

• On the Paper2Video benchmark, generated presentations are “more faithful and informative” than prior baselines across the proposed metrics.
• Code, dataset, and project page are available via the arXiv entry.

Caveats and open questions

• Scale: 101 papers is a solid start but still small; generalization across fields and layouts remains to be shown.
• Metric validity: how strongly do PresentArena/PresentQuiz/etc. correlate with human comprehension?
• IP and consent: reuse of figures, author likeness/voice, and distribution policies will matter in practice.
• Hallucinations and factual drift: long-context, figure-heavy papers are risky; robust grounding and citation display will be key.

Link: arXiv: 2510.05096 (project page and code linked from the arXiv record)

The discussion around the Paper2Video submission highlights a mix of cautious optimism, practical concerns, and humorous skepticism:

Key Points

1. Potential Benefits:

   • Time-saving: Users acknowledge automating presentations could free researchers from tedious slide design and recording, especially for conferences requiring travel.
   • Accessibility: Could make dense papers more approachable for broader audiences, including non-experts or students.
   • Baseline Improvement: Some note existing scientific presentations often suffer from cluttered slides or poor design, which AI might mitigate.

2. Criticisms & Concerns:

   • Depth & Engagement: Skepticism about whether AI-generated videos can capture nuanced explanations, storytelling, or clarity that human presenters provide. Comments highlight risks of superficiality ("adding fluff") and missing critical details.
   • Presentation Quality: Concerns about AI-generated voices, robotic delivery ("subtle parody"), and awkward visuals (e.g., cursor movements, "talking heads") feeling unnatural compared to human charisma.
   • Ethics & Practicality: Questions about intellectual property (figure reuse, voice cloning), hallucination risks in technical content, and whether metrics like "PresentQuiz" truly measure comprehension.

3. Humorous Takes:

   • Jokes about AI presenters resembling "SteveGPT" (Steve Jobs-style) or dystopian references (Videodrome), highlighting unease with synthetic personas.
   • Playful comparisons to unrelated concepts (e.g., Lorna Shore concerts, VR sword-fighting games) underscore concerns about engagement gimmicks.

4. Related Tools & Alternatives:

   • Users mention existing solutions like whiteboard explainers, Minute Papers, or improving personal presentation skills. Some share their own projects (e.g., interactive paper explainers) as alternatives.

Notable Suggestions

• Improvements: Incorporate feedback loops for slide layout, avoid verbatim text, and prioritize natural narrative flow over rigid content placement.
• Validation: Calls for human evaluation to complement automated metrics and ensure generated videos aid actual learning.

Conclusion

While the tool is seen as a promising step, many argue that human-presented storytelling and clarity remain irreplaceable. The discussion reflects broader debates about AI’s role in academia—balancing efficiency gains with the risk of depersonalizing science communication.

Microsoft only lets you opt out of AI photo scanning 3x a year

Submission URL | 750 points | by dmitrygr | 285 comments

Microsoft is testing face recognition in OneDrive photos — with a puzzling “3 times a year” opt-out limit

• What’s happening: Some OneDrive users are seeing a new preview feature that uses AI to recognize faces in their photo libraries. The setting appears as on by default for those in the test.
• The catch: The toggle says you can only turn the feature off three times per year. One tester couldn’t disable it at all — the switch snapped back on with an error.
• Microsoft’s stance: The company confirmed a limited preview but wouldn’t explain the “three times” rule or give a timeline for wider release. It pointed to its privacy statement and EU compliance. A support page still claims the feature is “coming soon,” a note that’s been unchanged for nearly two years.
• Privacy pushback: EFF’s Thorin Klosowski argues the feature should be opt-in with clear documentation, and users should be able to change privacy settings whenever they want.
• Open questions: Is face recognition currently active for any users by default? Why restrict how often people can opt out? When will Microsoft clarify and ship this broadly?

Summary of Discussion:

The discussion reflects widespread frustration and skepticism toward Microsoft's "3 times a year" opt-out limit for OneDrive's face recognition feature. Key points include:

1. Arbitrary Opt-Out Limit:
   Users question why the limit is set to three, dismissing theories about cultural symbolism (e.g., religious trinities) and instead attributing it to psychological tactics to discourage opting out. Some suggest it’s a "dark pattern" to normalize surveillance or reduce server costs from repeated scans.

2. Distrust in Microsoft’s Intentions:
   Commenters cite Microsoft’s history of overriding user settings (e.g., re-enabling features after updates) as evidence of bad faith. Many suspect the feature is tied to AI training or data harvesting, with concerns that facial data could be exploited for profit or shared with governments.

3. Privacy vs. Cost-Saving:
   While some argue the limit prevents excessive server costs from frequent re-scans, others counter that privacy controls should never be restricted. Critics demand opt-in defaults and unrestricted opt-out options, echoing the EFF’s stance.

4. Regulatory and Compliance Concerns:
   Questions arise about HIPAA compliance and Microsoft’s ability to safeguard sensitive data. Users highlight past incidents where Microsoft mishandled health or enterprise data, fueling doubts about their reliability.

5. Technical and Legal Speculation:
   Debates focus on whether the limit is technically necessary (e.g., processing large photo libraries) or a legal safeguard to avoid liability. Skeptics argue Microsoft could anonymize data or process it locally but chooses not to for control.

6. Calls for Transparency:
   Participants demand clarity on whether the feature is active by default, how data is used, and when Microsoft will address these concerns. Many urge regulatory intervention to hold the company accountable.

Overall Sentiment:
The community views the opt-out limit as a red flag, emblematic of broader corporate overreach and erosion of user agency. Trust in Microsoft is low, with calls for stricter privacy laws and user-centric design.

Superpowers: How I'm using coding agents in October 2025

Submission URL | 378 points | by Ch00k | 209 comments

Claude Code gets plugins; “Superpowers” turns skills into a first‑class workflow

• What’s new: Anthropic rolled out a plugin system for Claude Code, and the author released “Superpowers,” a marketplace plugin that teaches Claude to use explicit “skills” (markdown playbooks) to plan and execute coding tasks.

• How to try: Requires Claude Code 2.0.13+. In Claude’s command palette:

  • /plugin marketplace add obra/superpowers-marketplace
  • /plugin install superpowers@superpowers-marketplace
  • Restart Claude; it will bootstrap itself and point to a getting-started SKILL.md.

• How it works:

  • Adds a default brainstorm → plan → implement loop; if you’re in a git repo, it auto-creates a worktree for parallel tasks.
  • Offers two modes: last month’s “human PM + two agents” or a new auto mode that dispatches tasks to subagents and runs code review after each step.
  • Enforces RED/GREEN TDD: write a failing test, make it pass, iterate.
  • Wraps up by offering to open a GitHub PR, merge the worktree, or stop.

• The big idea: Skills. They’re small, readable SKILL.md guides that the agent must use when applicable. The system encourages:

  • Discovering and invoking skills by name.
  • Writing new skills as the agent learns (self-improvement).
  • Extracting reusable skills from books/codebases by reading, reflecting, and documenting.

• Why it matters:

  • Moves agents from “prompt blob” to modular, auditable procedures.
  • Encourages reproducibility, code quality (TDD + reviews), and parallel dev via worktrees.
  • Aligns with a broader pattern (e.g., Microsoft’s Amplifier) where agents evolve by writing tools/docs for themselves.

• Notable details:

  • The author has a “How to create skills” skill; the system can expand itself by drafting new SKILL.md files.
  • Skill quality is tested with subagents using realistic, pressure-testing scenarios—“TDD for skills.”
  • Mentions IP gray areas when auto-extracting skills from proprietary books.

• Open questions:

  • How robust are skills across projects and teams?
  • Governance/attribution for skill content derived from third-party materials.
  • How well do subagent reviews catch subtle design or security flaws versus happy-path tests?

Takeaway: Plugins plus skills push Claude Code toward a disciplined, self-improving dev assistant—less chatty copilot, more process-driven teammate with standardized playbooks.

The discussion around AI coding tools like Claude Code's new plugin system and "Superpowers" reveals mixed experiences and perspectives:

Key Themes:

1. Effectiveness Varies by Task Complexity:

   • Users report success with micro-tasks (e.g., templating HTML/CSS, writing tests) and repetitive work, but note limitations in high-level design or complex domains (e.g., Zig development).
   • For troubleshooting legacy codebases or dependency issues, Claude Code is praised for rapidly identifying solutions, though results can be inconsistent in extreme edge cases.

2. Human Oversight & Process:

   • Several users emphasize the need for explicit instructions, structured workflows (e.g., TDD, code reviews), and documentation to ensure quality. One user compares managing AI agents to leading a team, requiring clear planning, feedback, and quality checks.
   • Breaking tasks into smaller, specific chunks with thorough validation is advised over delegating large, vague goals.

3. Skepticism vs. Optimism:

   • Optimists highlight AI’s utility for accelerating coding, learning, and handling "run-of-the-mill" tasks (e.g., generating test cases), likening it to a junior developer.
   • Skeptics caution against over-reliance, noting AI can produce "nonsense" or overstep its domain. Some argue AI tools augment rather than revolutionize development, stressing the irreplaceable role of human design decisions.

4. Challenges & Open Questions:

   • Token consumption and context management with subagents raise concerns about efficiency.
   • Debate exists about whether AI’s "persuasive" outputs align with true problem-solving or merely mimic rhetorical patterns.
   • Questions linger about skill reproducibility across teams and governance for skills derived from proprietary materials.

Notable Perspectives:

• "kdd" shares a blog post stressing the need for technical management skills when using AI agents, akin to mentoring interns.
• "sfn42" advocates using AI as a "tight leash" tool for specific subtasks rather than autonomous large-scale work.
• "smnw" links to a GitHub repo and notes exploring skill-based workflows.

Conclusion:

While AI coding tools show promise for productivity gains, success hinges on structured workflows, human oversight, and task specificity. The community remains divided on whether these tools represent incremental improvement or transformative change, with ongoing experimentation shaping best practices.

AI Submissions for Fri Oct 10 2025

Show HN: I invented a new generative model and got accepted to ICLR

Submission URL | 606 points | by diyer22 | 80 comments

Discrete Distribution Networks (DDN) accepted to ICLR 2025: a new take on generative models that branches and selects

What’s new

• DDN models data as a hierarchy of discrete choices. Each layer outputs K candidate images; the one closest to the target is selected and fed to the next layer. Depth L gives an exponential K^L representational space.
• A “guided sampler” does the selection during training; for generation you either pick randomly (unconditional) or guide selection with any scoring function—even black-box ones—enabling zero-shot conditional generation without gradients (e.g., CLIP-based text-to-image).
• Introduces a Split-and-Prune optimization scheme to manage and refine the branching candidates during training.
• Two paradigms: Single Shot (layers have independent weights) and Recurrent Iteration (shared weights across layers).

Why it matters

• Conceptually simple alternative to diffusion/AR models: learn to branch and choose rather than denoise or autoregress.
• Zero-shot conditioning without backprop through the guide decouples the generator from the conditioning model (useful for closed-source or non-differentiable scorers).
• Tree-structured latent: each sample maps to a leaf (a 1D discrete code path), potentially aiding interpretability and control.

Evidence and demos

• Toy 2D density estimation GIF: DDN adapts as the target distribution switches (e.g., blur circles → QR code → spiral → words → Gaussian → blur circles). Also a larger 10k-node demo.
• Preliminary image experiments on CIFAR-10 and FFHQ.
• ICLR reviews highlight strong novelty and a distinct direction in generative modeling.

How it works (at a glance)

• Per layer l: produce K samples, pick the closest to the ground truth, compute loss only on that chosen sample, and pass it forward. Optimized with Adam plus Split-and-Prune.
• Inference: replace the guided sampler with random choice (or plug in any scoring function for conditional generation).

Caveats and open questions

• Early-stage results; head-to-head quality/speed comparisons vs diffusion/AR remain to be seen.
• Selection is non-differentiable; training stability and mode coverage depend on Split-and-Prune details.
• Scaling K and L trades capacity for compute/memory; practical limits and efficiency tricks will matter at high resolution.

Try it and read more

• Paper | Code | Demo | Blog | Poster
• Toy experiment code: sddn/toy_exp.py; environment: distribution_playground
• See the “2D Density Estimation with 10,000 Nodes” page for a clearer view of the optimization process.

The Hacker News discussion about the Discrete Distribution Networks (DDN) paper accepted to ICLR 2025 highlights several key themes and reactions:

1. Positive Reception for Novelty and Approach

• Many users praise the work as innovative, particularly for its hierarchical tree-based architecture and split-and-prune optimization. Comments like "impressive single-author paper" and "a distinct direction in generative modeling" underscore appreciation for its divergence from diffusion/autoregressive models.
• The zero-shot conditional generation capability (e.g., using CLIP guidance) and interpretable discrete latent codes are seen as promising for real-world applications.

2. Technical Discussions and Comparisons

• Efficiency vs. Diffusion Models: Users note that DDN discards ( K-1 ) computations per layer (akin to a "Mixture of Experts router"), making it computationally lighter than diffusion models during training. However, questions remain about its scalability and performance at high resolutions.
• Comparison to GANs/NeRFs: Some compare DDN’s use of 1x1 convolutions to pixel-independent generation (e.g., NeRFs or GANs), debating whether this limits its ability to model coherent images. Others counter that its tree structure avoids this by capturing dependencies hierarchically.
• Training Dynamics: Users discuss how the non-differentiable "selection step" is managed via the split-and-prune strategy, likening it to evolutionary algorithms or particle filters.

3. Questions and Critiques

• Pixel Independence: Skepticism arises about whether 1x1 convolutions (used in some DDN layers) can effectively mix spatial information. This sparks debate about whether it risks generating nonsensical outputs, with references to prior models like MAE or single-pixel GANs.
• Handling Image Resolution: A user asks how DDN manages increasing feature map sizes (e.g., via downsampling), suggesting unresolved architectural details.
• Inference Behavior: Some question whether randomly choosing paths during inference could lead to instability or reduced quality compared to guided selection.

4. Potential Applications

• Discriminative Tasks: One thread explores using DDN for object detection, leveraging its ability to generate multiple hypotheses in a single forward pass—similar to DiffusionDet but with potential speed advantages.
• Integration with LLMs: The authors mention experiments combining DDN with GPT for text generation (by treating text as binary strings), hinting at future cross-domain applications.

5. Broader Meta-Comments

• ICLR Review Process: A user critiques ICLR’s acceptance criteria, noting that strong novelty can overcome early-stage technical limitations. The paper’s "distinct direction" was likely key to its acceptance despite preliminary results.
• Code Accessibility: The open-source implementation and toy demos (e.g., 2D density estimation) are praised for helping users grasp the method intuitively.

Key Takeaways

DDN’s hierarchical, branching architecture has sparked excitement for its simplicity and flexibility. While scalability and performance benchmarks against diffusion models remain open questions, its ability to decouple guidance from generation and support interpretable latents positions it as a promising framework for both generative and discriminative tasks. The community hopes for deeper empirical validation in future work.

Show HN: Semantic search over the National Gallery of Art

Submission URL | 133 points | by breadislove | 35 comments

Discover art with natural language: a plain-English way to explore museum-worthy collections. Instead of wrestling with catalogs or arcane keywords, you can browse and search by intuitive phrases and themes.

Highlights:

• Browse by themes like still life paintings, paintings of flowers, woodcut landscapes, portraits of women, animal sculptures, seascapes, and ancient coins.
• Great for casual discovery, teaching, or research—find related works across mediums without knowing the exact terminology.
• Try prompts like “stormy seascapes,” “Dutch still lifes,” or “ancient coin portraits” to surface visually related pieces fast.

Why it matters: This lowers the barrier to art discovery, making deep, serendipitous exploration as simple as describing what you want to see.

The Hacker News discussion about the AI-powered art search tool highlights key debates, technical insights, and user feedback:

Technical Observations & Challenges

1. Embedding Limitations:

   • Users note that common embedding models (e.g., OpenAI’s sentence transformers) struggle with negation, emotional tone, and logical relationships. For example, searching "winter landscapes with trees" may still return summer scenes due to semantic focus on "trees" rather than seasonal context.
   • Mixedbread’s team acknowledges these limitations but explains their multimodal model (Omni) improves on general-purpose embeddings by better capturing relationships and supporting negative search terms (e.g., excluding "happy" themes).

2. Accuracy vs. Expectations:

   • Some users report inconsistencies. For instance:
     • Searches for "jaguar" prioritize animal images over car brands.
     • Queries for fireworks/pyrotechnics surface unrelated technical drawings.
   • Mixedbread attributes this to reliance on metadata and embeddings, which may miss latent artistic interpretations (e.g., abstract concepts in Mark Rothko’s work).

Integration & Use Cases

• Institutional Collections: Users tested integrations with Yale’s art database and the National Gallery of Art (NGA), noting mixed results (e.g., difficulty finding Rothko paintings despite NGA’s large collection).
• Educational/Research Value: Praised for discovering cross-medium art (e.g., linking "ancient coins" to portraits) without needing specialized terminology.

Feedback & Responses

• Mixedbread’s Engagement: Actively addressed feedback, promising fixes for interface issues (e.g., improving search filters) and refining result accuracy.
• User Reactions:
  • Positive: Appreciation for the natural language approach and “magical” discovery moments.
  • Critical: Requests for better handling of abstract queries and metadata transparency.

Broader Implications

• The tool’s strength lies in democratizing art discovery, though technical constraints (e.g., embedding gaps, metadata dependency) highlight the need for hybrid models combining semantic search with traditional filters.

In summary, the discussion reflects enthusiasm for lowering barriers to art exploration while underscoring the challenges of balancing semantic flexibility with precise, context-aware results.

It's OpenAI's world, we're just living in it

Submission URL | 123 points | by feross | 264 comments

Stratechery’s weekly roundup argues it’s OpenAI’s world right now—and the rest of tech is reorganizing around it.

• OpenAI’s Windows play: Ben Thompson likens OpenAI’s ambitions to Microsoft’s Windows era—owning both the developer layer on top and the OEM/supplier layer underneath. If OpenAI “builds AI for everyone,” it could tax the entire stack, potentially compressing even Nvidia’s margins while absorbing the flood of AI capex.

• Altman on going all-in: In a dense 40-minute interview, Sam Altman frames today’s trillion-dollar buildout as table stakes for where models are headed soon. He sees one market, not a split consumer/enterprise world, and is making “company-scale” bets now to be ready for tomorrow’s demand.

• From AI consumption to creation: One week post-Sora, the story isn’t just viral clips—it’s that a large chunk of users are already creating. That shift could unlock broad creativity while pressuring Meta’s engagement-driven model if generative tools become the default way people express themselves.

• Other notable takes: OpenAI’s DevDay mirrors the classic hype cycle; Microsoft’s Game Pass price hike reads as a strategic retreat; Verizon explores satellites to reduce dependence on SpaceX.

Why it matters: Platform power in AI will be decided as much by distribution and supply control as by model quality. OpenAI is positioning to be the layer everyone pays—developers above, hardware below—while catalyzing a creator-led content shift that could reshuffle consumer platforms.

Summary of Hacker News Discussion on OpenAI's $1 Trillion Funding Debate:

1. Feasibility of $1 Trillion Funding:

   • Skeptics argue that OpenAI’s projected $1 trillion need over several years is unrealistic. Comparisons are drawn to Berkshire Hathaway’s $15 trillion private equity market, with critics noting that annual private equity fundraising (~$100B) falls far short.
   • Some counter that the figure might represent cumulative spending over decades, not an upfront cost, and highlight partnerships with Nvidia, AMD, and Microsoft as evidence of distributed infrastructure investment.

2. Revenue vs. Investment Concerns:

   • Current OpenAI revenue ($43B annually) is seen as insufficient to justify the valuation. Critics cite low conversion rates for paid services like ChatGPT Plus (e.g., ~2% paid users).
   • Proponents argue AI’s long-term potential (e.g., productivity gains, creative tools like Sora) could unlock new revenue streams, justifying aggressive upfront spending.

3. Economic and Societal Implications:

   • Fears of job displacement and corporate consolidation dominate, with users warning of AI exacerbating wealth inequality. Others counter that pension funds and 401(k)s heavily invest in tech, linking public retirement security to AI’s success.
   • Comparisons to past bubbles (dot-com, crypto) emerge, with debates over whether AI is overhyped or a legitimate paradigm shift.

4. Microsoft’s Strategic Moves:

   • Microsoft’s partnership with OpenAI is framed as a desperate bid to dominate AI infrastructure. Users note its push to integrate AI into Windows, potentially alienating developers and gamers, while others highlight Linux’s growing viability for gaming as a counterweight.

5. Critiques of Hype and Infrastructure:

   • Ed Zitron’s critique of AI as a bubble is debated, with some dismissing it as uninformed, while others echo concerns about circular financing (e.g., AMD’s stock rise tied to AI hype). Infrastructure projects (e.g., satellite partnerships) are cited as tangible progress beyond hype.

Key Tensions:

• Optimism vs. Skepticism: Split between belief in AI’s transformative potential and doubts about financial practicality.
• Corporate Power: Worries about centralized control (Microsoft, OpenAI) vs. decentralized innovation (Linux, open-source).
• Economic Impact: Balancing job disruption fears against the promise of new industries and efficiencies.

Takeaway: The discussion reflects broader tech-industry anxieties about balancing innovation’s costs with its promises, underscored by historical parallels and divergent views on AI’s trajectory.

Microsoft lets bosses spot teams that are dodging Copilot

Submission URL | 103 points | by mikece | 92 comments

Microsoft is turning Copilot uptake into a leaderboard. The Register reports that Viva Insights now adds “Copilot adoption benchmarks,” letting managers compare teams and cohorts (by manager type, region, job function) on metrics like percentage of active Copilot users and app-level usage, plus a weighted “expected result” based on role mix. Organizations can also see how they stack up against others via benchmarks Microsoft says are built from randomized models so individual companies aren’t identifiable. An “active Copilot user” is anyone who intentionally invokes an AI feature in Teams, Copilot Chat (work), Outlook, Word, Excel, PowerPoint, OneNote, or Loop. Notably, the dashboards don’t separate employer-bought licenses from personal “bring your own Copilot,” stoking shadow IT concerns. Framed as a way to justify spend and boost engagement, the feature is likely to reignite debates about workplace surveillance, gamified quotas, and ROI for Copilot. Private preview now; wider rollout later in October.

The discussion surrounding Microsoft's Copilot adoption leaderboard reveals skepticism and criticism across several themes:

1. Surveillance & Privacy Concerns:
   Users liken the metrics tracking to the "Eye of Sauron," criticizing intrusive workplace surveillance. Concerns arise about managers using Teams/Outlook engagement scores to micromanage, potentially misrepresenting productivity. The EU’s privacy regulations are noted as a potential countermeasure.

2. Productivity Metrics Critique:
   Critics argue the leaderboard assumes tool usage equals productivity, ignoring context (e.g., redundant meetings vs. meaningful work). Some suggest Copilot’s prompts might streamline tasks but fear gamified KPIs could prioritize superficial metrics over real efficiency.

3. Cost & Value Proposition:
   Copilot’s high price ($30/user/month) is criticized as exorbitant compared to existing Microsoft 365 licenses. Users question its ROI, noting poor integration with workflows and accidental cost risks. Comparisons to Google’s AI tools highlight frustration with Microsoft’s approach.

4. Microsoft’s Motives:
   Commentators accuse Microsoft of prioritizing growth metrics and stock targets over genuine utility. Past failures (e.g., Cortana) and aggressive rebranding of Copilot fuel skepticism. Financial desperation is implied, with AI investments seen as a "sunk cost fallacy" to justify valuations.

5. Regulatory & Ethical Issues:
   Shadow IT risks emerge from unmonitored personal Copilot use. Legal and compliance teams are flagged as potential beneficiaries of the ensuing complexity. The EU’s scrutiny and Microsoft’s marketing tactics are highlighted as points of contention.

Overall, the discussion reflects distrust in Microsoft’s transparency, skepticism about AI-driven productivity gains, and concerns about ethical and financial implications.