Show HN: Gemini Pro 3 imagines the HN front page 10 years from now

I don't understand this phrase. If I'm deciding whether to work for a company, I don't care about the ability to hold management decision-makers to account. I care only about the quality of the decisions. (I would rather an unaccountable decision maker that makes good decisions to an accountable decision maker that makes bad decisions.) Putting myself in the shoes of an owner of a company, I also have the same preference. The only person I can imagine actually preferring this rule is management themselves, as it means they can't be replaced by computers no matter how much worse they are at their jobs than a computer would be.

Was going to say - it would be fascinating to go a step further and have Gemini simulate the actual articles. That would elevate this to level of something like an art piece. Really enjoyed this, thank you for posting it.

I'm going to go ask Claude Code to create a functional HyperCard stack version of HN from 1994 now...

Edit: just got a working version of HyperCardHackerNews, will deploy to Vercel and post shortly...

Gemini is still quite horrible with giving direct sources. seems to be a human policy implementation bug because it does appear to be aware of the content in more obscure sources I've seen. but it somehow wouldn't give up the links.

I do wonder whether I come off as an sycophant or asshole or a mix of both to schizoids, but then I realize everyone including myself should reach for a real therapist as quickly as possible. though I'm still out on whether chatbots might not be a bad substitute. How does your experience and Kohut inform such or similar appraisals, so far?

Not to be that knowitall. Aniki is not just "bro", it's Yakuza lingo, probably used sarcastically, depending on the anime, ironically. No real Japanese person would use it all the time.

Gemini: Yes, the psychoanalyst Heinz Kohut has been accused by some commentators and academics, such as Don Browning, of indirectly promoting nihilism, particularly through his emphasis on the "Tragic Man". The core of the accusation stems from Kohut's rejection of Freud's "Guilty Man" model, which posits that life is fundamentally a struggle against inherent conflicts and drives. In its place, Kohut proposed the concept of "Tragic Man," whose central struggle is the realization of the self's potential and the inevitable failure to achieve all of one's ambitions and ideals within a single lifespan. Critics argue that this shift, which emphasizes self-actualization and intersubjective meaning over objective or inherent values, can be interpreted as aligning with certain aspects of nihilism, specifically existential nihilism, which holds that life has no objective meaning or intrinsic moral values. However, this interpretation is contested by others, as Kohut's self-psychology is fundamentally concerned with the creation of intersubjective meaning and a harmonious world of mutual self-actualization, which aims to provide a sense of purpose and value, rather than promoting the complete absence of value that true nihilism implies. In essence, the debate is often a matter of philosophical interpretation: whether replacing inherent, objective meaning with subjectively or intersubjectively created meaning is an act of overcoming nihilism (as existentialists might argue) or a subtle form of it.

There was a huge over correction somewhere around the beginning of 2025, maybe February or so, with ChatGPT. Prior to that point, I had to give a directive in the user config prompt to “don’t tell me something isn’t possible or practical, assume it is within your capabilities and attempt to find a way. I will let you know when to stop”. Because it was constantly hallucinating that it couldn’t do things, like “I don’t have access to a programming environment”. When I wanted it to test code itself before I did. Meanwhile one tab over it would spin up a REPL and re-paste some csv into python and pandas without being asked.

Frustrating, but “over correction” is a pretty bad euphemism for whatever half assed bit of RLHF lobotomy OpenAI did that, just a few months later, had ChatGPT doing a lean-in to a vulnerable kid’s pain and actively discourage an act that might have saved his life by signaling more warning signs to his parents.

It wasn’t long before that happened, after the python REPL confusion had resolved, that I found myself typing to it, even after having to back out of that user customization prompt, “set a memory that this type of response to a user in the wrong frame of mind is incredibly dangerous”.

Then I had to delete that too, because it would response with things like “You get it of course, your a…” etc.

So I wasn’t surprised over the rest of 2025 as various stories popped up.

It’s still bad. Based on what I see with quantized models and sparse attention inference methods, even with most recent GPT 5 releases OpenAI is still doing something in the area of optimizing compute requirements that makes the recent improvements very brittle— I of course can’t know for sure, only that its behavior matches what I see with those sorts of boundaries pushed on open weight models. And the assumption that the-you-can-prompt buffet of a Plus subscription is where they’re most likely to deploy those sorts of performance hacks and make the quality tradeoffs. That isn’t their main money source, it’s not enterprise level spending.

This technology is amazing, but it’s also dangerous, sometimes in very foreseeable ways, and the more time that goes the more I appreciate some of the public criticisms of OpenAI with, eg, the Amodeis’ split to form Anthropic and the temporary ouster of SA for a few days before that got undone.