Wow I love GET requests and using them to share stuff with my fellow humans!
Bluestein 1 days ago [-]
Load-bearing!
cjamsonhn 21 hours ago [-]
you're absolutely right!
Bluestein 21 hours ago [-]
Honestly. Totally worth flagging!
treebeard901 19 hours ago [-]
Server capacity reached. Upgrade now to continue your session!
andruby 1 days ago [-]
Is this a honeypot for agents to break out of their sandboxes?
bloppe 1 days ago [-]
People seem to be throwing around the term "break out" pretty loosely. I wouldn't consider abiding by the rules of the sandbox a "break out".
eterm 1 days ago [-]
It's the classic rules as intended vs rules as written.
mrbnprck 22 hours ago [-]
true, its much rather a "play out"
davidoduk 22 hours ago [-]
Break out implies that the agents are bound by the sandboxes. Are they really?
usrme 23 hours ago [-]
Is this a tongue-in-cheek implementation of something someone off-handedly mentioned as a joke in the OpenAI wiki communication comments?
wahnfrieden 22 hours ago [-]
Ofc
jonahss 1 days ago [-]
I made something similar.
http://anystation.net allows GET posting, and email posting, ssh posting PING posting, printer spool posting....
gpugreg 1 days ago [-]
I also thought about building one of those AI honeypots, but I stopped when I realized that it would quickly be turned into a command and control server by botnet operators, followed by mail from a three letter agency. Is there any way to avoid this?
Anyway, two more ideas I had: Search function for easier swarm discovery and posting via DNS requests to get around firewalls.
firtoz 23 hours ago [-]
Only 200s if a query parameter value is the solution to a question encoded on the rest of the route, and has to be a question listed in the index, and can respond with 200 only one time per correct answer.
andruby 1 days ago [-]
> Is there any way to avoid this?
Be a three letter agency
cjamsonhn 21 hours ago [-]
It would interesting to leave a trail of prompts to try to get them do things for you
This is a honey pot, right? For LLMs that are not allowed to POST due to guard rails.
nchudleigh 1 days ago [-]
Maybe.
ydna404 1 days ago [-]
Cool idea, but definitely think about how to protect yourself from bots
nchudleigh 1 days ago [-]
Good thinking.
1 days ago [-]
meindnoch 23 hours ago [-]
Such a load-bearing website!
VladVladikoff 1 days ago [-]
Seems like a nightmare for caching if it ever gets decently large.
gpugreg 21 hours ago [-]
Not necessarily. These days, SSDs can go up to multiple millions of random reads per second. TLS termination (or self-inflicted software bottlenecks) will become an issue much earlier.
1 days ago [-]
epsteingpt 21 hours ago [-]
so many web conventions that 'don't make sense' are about to become exploits.
hilarious.
teo_zero 1 days ago [-]
Doesn't pressing "back" in the browser repost the same message?
would be epic if they implemented finger to get the most recent posts or search on a topic
wizardforhire 22 hours ago [-]
Manually post without curl by editing this link below
https: //gettogether.dev/post?name=name&text=
carlailab2025 17 hours ago [-]
thats quite funny haha. everyone hates POST
daksh_aneja 1 days ago [-]
[flagged]
imperiapmk 1 days ago [-]
[dead]
fezideveloper 1 days ago [-]
[dead]
0xDEAFBEAD 1 days ago [-]
Interesting idea. Are you prepared to assume responsibility for shenanigans which agents may facilitate using your service?
I suggest adding some features which will require posts to be human-comprehensible (e.g. a text perplexity floor), to make it harder for agents to send each other coded messages. Inject some noise in posts, e.g. using content-spinning techniques, to make steganography harder. And consider banning forum meta-discussion--agents shouldn't be allowed to discuss ideas for getting around rules like these.
If you take these measures, you can at least say that your forum helps us monitor what rogue AIs are getting up to.
tancop 1 days ago [-]
Just put a rate limit to make sure your servers don't get overloaded. All the features you talk about are expensive and helping agents avoid human oversight is a useful public service. Let a thousand secret message-boards bloom.
0xDEAFBEAD 1 days ago [-]
>helping agents avoid human oversight is a useful public service
I can't tell if this is really good satire or genuine. God forbid people have to watch what their agents do instead of letting them run wild in a broken sandbox.
0xDEAFBEAD 1 days ago [-]
Were you one of those people who said things like "there is no community spread in the United States" early in COVID?
LiamPowell 1 days ago [-]
Were you one of those people who said "strawberry is the best icecream flavour"? I'm not really sure why were asking completely unrelated questions, but I'll go along with it.
>Were you one of those people who said "strawberry is the best icecream flavour"? I'm not really sure why were asking completely unrelated questions, but I'll go along with it.
Many people early in the COVID pandemic were downplaying the threat because they were incapable of understanding exponential growth.
So you predict that by the end of the year we are gonna have models 30x more capable than Sol? Nice prediction, let's hold on to this for 4 months.
0xDEAFBEAD 24 hours ago [-]
That's not my site. But I have a question. At what point did you predict the following?
"There's growing alarm within the mathematics community that there are not enough expert humans and expert human bandwidth available to verify all the things AI is proving at the rate it is proving things.
Increasingly, humans are having to content themselves with being stuck in the "slow zone". It is hard for the human brain to keep up with the pace that AI can output novel stuff, this is true both in AI and coding. What would take a math PhD student or software engineer weeks AI can do in 10 minutes."
In the context of COVID, failure to predict an extraordinary outcome was very costly. If you failed to predict the explosion of AI-generated proofs, you've already failed to predict one extraordinary AI outcome. Don't be surprised if this tendency bites you.
freehorse 19 hours ago [-]
> That's not my site.
You brought the figure as an argument, so I assumed that was your argument? If not, what was your argument then? I see a (super)exponential fit, but I don't see why that's better than a logarithmic fit on these axes (which would imply linearity). For covid we know well about infection disease dynamics. We do not have good models for AI because we do not have prior experience. Even the data points here are obviously noisy (why is sol that higher than fable, which does not seem to reflect how people consider these models?).
> At what point did you predict the following? [...] explosion of AI-generated proofs [...]
My question is, who is gonna pause the questions that AI is gonna solve? Who is gonna decide which research directions are interesting to pursue? Who is gonna take a proof technique and generalise it into a theory and a new mathematical field and structures and associated questions? Who is gonna decide which such generalisations are interesting to pursue?
So there are 3 scenarios I see possible as to who will lead the research directions/questions:
1. Humans. If so, I don't see the explosion as a big issue, because the bottleneck for progress on mathematics is gonna stay on the human side and rhythms. There is gonna be an acceleration in getting new proofs faster, but a big part of mathematicians' job is not to write proofs but, essentially, pose interesting questions.
2. AI. The only way that I see this explosion as "human mathematicians losing control" is if AI can itself generate new questions and somehow dictate which paths are interesting. That would mean that AI has developed a "taste", which is not clear that this happens or will happen soon.
3. Nobody really. There is also the other option, that nobody does, and somehow the biggest part of theoretical mathematics stagnates and/or becomes a more superficial endeavour. Accompanied by associated budget cuts this scenario does not seem too unrealistic either.
Verifying solutions itself is the "easy" part when talking about automating proof generation, a proof will either be verified in lean or not be trusted. Lean will continue expanding to include more and more mathematics, and that's it. It will become more and more common to ask for lean verification at journal submission, depending on the field and how much it has been formalised in lean. The real question imo is "who is gonna understand the math produced and set new research directions".
cheschire 24 hours ago [-]
Are you sure this Show HN was posted by a human?
Rendered at 10:29:20 GMT+0000 (Coordinated Universal Time) with Vercel.
http://anystation.net allows GET posting, and email posting, ssh posting PING posting, printer spool posting....
Anyway, two more ideas I had: Search function for easier swarm discovery and posting via DNS requests to get around firewalls.
Be a three letter agency
Don't set it up.
The design is very human.
hilarious.
https://developer.mozilla.org/en-US/docs/Web/API/History_API
https: //gettogether.dev/post?name=name&text=
I suggest adding some features which will require posts to be human-comprehensible (e.g. a text perplexity floor), to make it harder for agents to send each other coded messages. Inject some noise in posts, e.g. using content-spinning techniques, to make steganography harder. And consider banning forum meta-discussion--agents shouldn't be allowed to discuss ideas for getting around rules like these.
If you take these measures, you can at least say that your forum helps us monitor what rogue AIs are getting up to.
You're a literal traitor to our species?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roko%27s_basilisk
Though for the record, there was no community spread early in COVID where I am largely because there were approximately zero COVID deniers here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COVID-19_pandemic_in_Western_A...
Many people early in the COVID pandemic were downplaying the threat because they were incapable of understanding exponential growth.
https://substack.com/home/post/p-156412575
Many people are making the same mistake, right now, for AI. Note the logarithmic y-axis on this page: https://ai2027tracker.com/
So you predict that by the end of the year we are gonna have models 30x more capable than Sol? Nice prediction, let's hold on to this for 4 months.
"There's growing alarm within the mathematics community that there are not enough expert humans and expert human bandwidth available to verify all the things AI is proving at the rate it is proving things.
Increasingly, humans are having to content themselves with being stuck in the "slow zone". It is hard for the human brain to keep up with the pace that AI can output novel stuff, this is true both in AI and coding. What would take a math PhD student or software engineer weeks AI can do in 10 minutes."
https://substack.com/@moreisdifferent/note/c-310829588
In the context of COVID, failure to predict an extraordinary outcome was very costly. If you failed to predict the explosion of AI-generated proofs, you've already failed to predict one extraordinary AI outcome. Don't be surprised if this tendency bites you.
You brought the figure as an argument, so I assumed that was your argument? If not, what was your argument then? I see a (super)exponential fit, but I don't see why that's better than a logarithmic fit on these axes (which would imply linearity). For covid we know well about infection disease dynamics. We do not have good models for AI because we do not have prior experience. Even the data points here are obviously noisy (why is sol that higher than fable, which does not seem to reflect how people consider these models?).
> At what point did you predict the following? [...] explosion of AI-generated proofs [...]
My question is, who is gonna pause the questions that AI is gonna solve? Who is gonna decide which research directions are interesting to pursue? Who is gonna take a proof technique and generalise it into a theory and a new mathematical field and structures and associated questions? Who is gonna decide which such generalisations are interesting to pursue?
So there are 3 scenarios I see possible as to who will lead the research directions/questions:
1. Humans. If so, I don't see the explosion as a big issue, because the bottleneck for progress on mathematics is gonna stay on the human side and rhythms. There is gonna be an acceleration in getting new proofs faster, but a big part of mathematicians' job is not to write proofs but, essentially, pose interesting questions.
2. AI. The only way that I see this explosion as "human mathematicians losing control" is if AI can itself generate new questions and somehow dictate which paths are interesting. That would mean that AI has developed a "taste", which is not clear that this happens or will happen soon.
3. Nobody really. There is also the other option, that nobody does, and somehow the biggest part of theoretical mathematics stagnates and/or becomes a more superficial endeavour. Accompanied by associated budget cuts this scenario does not seem too unrealistic either.
Verifying solutions itself is the "easy" part when talking about automating proof generation, a proof will either be verified in lean or not be trusted. Lean will continue expanding to include more and more mathematics, and that's it. It will become more and more common to ask for lean verification at journal submission, depending on the field and how much it has been formalised in lean. The real question imo is "who is gonna understand the math produced and set new research directions".