You write that "The olfactory bulb can vary in size by up to 3x, depending on "age and olfactory experience", so perhaps (we're making this up) with more usage your olfactory bulb might actually get bigger" which certainly does not seem out of the question. What we can assume with even greater likelihood is that the sense of smell works better when regularly stimulated. Even if your method did not have any commercial applications in entertainment it could likely (at least if this method scales beyond 4 distinct sensations) have therapeutic potential for people who suffer from blocked noses, chronic sinusitis, allergies or other conditions that block their sense of smell for physical reasons. It might even be used by Sommeliers to retain the capacity for their tradecraft while unable to use their actual nose while suffering from a cold. As we know that there is a strong association between smell and memory there are many other useful therapeutic and educational applications that come to mind if this technology can be made safe for broader consumer use. Right now, regardless of protocols used, you are somewhere on the spectrum between shining nascent lasers at your eyes to determine whether they work and emit light output (which doesn't scale with an increase in power) and the nobel prize worthy quadrant of Jonas Salk and Barry Marshall. While I do hope you succeed and I'd hate for you to be overly cautious I also hope your (olfactory) neurons survive!
Readit Newsbijant commented on We Induced Smells With Ultrasound writetobrain.com/olfactor... · Posted by u/exr0n
bijant commented on Our babies were taken after 'biased' parenting test bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c... · Posted by u/binning
This is Colonialism, pure and simple and US Soldiers have to "protect" the authorities responsible for this abuse of native Americans by european settlers. Greenland should be taken away from Denmark and these Mothers should get their kids back.
bijant commented on Scientists now know that bees can process time, a first in insects cnn.com/2025/11/12/scienc... · Posted by u/Brajeshwar
I am no expert at all in this topic! So please take this with a grain of salt. I just have the feeling (maybe wrongly) that the love and focus for bees is having detrimental/ unwanted effects on the ecosystem.
Here some more articles / discussions:
* https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44505552
Why won’t you let „the ecosystem“ decide that on its own ? It’s much older than you and you are not its lega guardian. If the ecosystem (of which we are a part) decides it wants more honey bees than that’s what it shall get.
bijant commented on Scientists now know that bees can process time, a first in insects cnn.com/2025/11/12/scienc... · Posted by u/Brajeshwar
Not that I want to curb your enthusiasm for bees, but…
I recently read that honey bees in particular get the most attention from humans lately, so they are kept in high numbers.
This has some adversarial effect on other pollinators, which hurts ecosystems more than it helps.
I‘d give it a chance. After all it can’t be any worse than Seinfeld for Bees
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bee_Movie
A nice Easter egg in the Gemini 3 docs [1]:
If you are transferring a conversation trace from another model, ... to bypass strict validation in these specific scenarios, populate the field with this specific dummy string:
"thoughtSignature": "context_engineering_is_the_way_to_go"
It's an artifact of the problem that they don't show you the reasoning output but need it for further messages so they save each api conversation on their side and give you a reference number. It sucks from a GDPR compliance perspective as well as in terms of transparent pricing as you have no way to control reasoning trace length (which is billed at the much higher output rate) other than switching between low/high but if the model decides to think longer "low" could result in more tokens used than "high" for a prompt where the model decides not to think that much. "thinking budgets" are now "legacy" and thus while you can constrain output length you cannot constrain cost. Obviously you also cannot optimize your prompts if some red herring makes the LLM get hung up on something irrelevant only to realize this in later thinking steps. This will happen with EVERY SINGLE prompt if it's caused by something in your system prompt. Finding what makes the model go astray can be rather difficult with 15k token system prompts or a multitude of MCP tools, you're basically blinded while trying to optimize a black box. Obviously you can try different variations of different parts of your system prompt or tool descriptions but just because they result in less thinking tokens does not mean they are better if those reasoning steps where actually beneficial (if only in edge cases) this would be immediately apparent upon inspection but hard/impossible to find out without access to the full Chain of Thought. For the uninitiated, the reasons OpenAI started replacing the CoT with summaries, were A. to prevent rapid distillation as they suspected deepSeek to have used for R1 and B. to prevent embarrassment if App users see the CoT and find parts of it objectionable/irrelevant/absurd (reasoning steps that make sense for an LLM do not necessarily look like human reasoning). That's a tradeoff that is great with end-users but terrible for developers. As Open Weights LLMs necessarily output their full reasoning traces the potential to optimize prompts for specific tasks is much greater and will for certain applications certainly outweigh the performance delta to Google/OpenAI.
Wow. I go to bed and wake up to claims it hit the front page. Interesting.
Here is almost the same exact sequence but with constant instructions to remain brutally honest and objective: https://chatgpt.com/share/691b4035-0ed8-800a-bee3-ae68e2a63c...
I was just late at night and wanted to post this chat transcript on HN to share some perspective on what developers are getting from ChatGPT.
I happen to be an expert in this particular area that I’m building.
ChatGPT seems to remember that I am in New York and want “no bullshit” answers. In the last few days it keeps weaving that into most responses.
That fact appears in its memory that users can access, as is the fact that it should not, under any circumstances, use emojis in code or comments, but it proceeds to do so anyway, so I am not sure how the memory gets prioritized.
Here is the interesting thing. As an expert in the field I do agree with ChatGPT on its statistical assessment of what I’ve built, because it took me years of refinement. I also tried it with average things and it correctly said that they’re average and unremarkable. I simply didn’t post that.
What I am interested in, is how to get AI transcripts to be used as unbiased third-party “first looks” at things, such as what VCs would do for due diligence.
This was just a quick thing I thought I’d get a few responses on HN about. I suspect it might have hit the front page because some people dug through the code and saw the value. But you can get all the code for free on https://github.com/Qbix/Platform .
Yeah, there is obviously an element of flattery that people let go to their head. I have had ChatGPT repeatedly confirm the validity of ideas I had in fields I am NOT an expert, while pushing back on countless others. I use it as one data point and mercilessly battle-test the ideas and code by asking it to find holes in them from various angles. This particular HN submission, although done very late at night here in NYC, was an interesting mix of genuinely groundbreaking stuff and ChatGPT being able to see the main ideas at a glance, and “going wild”, while at the same time if I run it with instructions at the start of “be extremely objective”, it still approaches this same thing in the end.
Well, the conclusions of your previous conversations also remain in memory, especially if you explicitly refer to them. Still your new transcript kinda proves my point ? Except for the non-standard (a nice way of saying: violates best practices) way you implement service workers there is literally nothing original or unique about any part of your codebase other than the fact that its written in php ? I have nothing against php but haven't worked on any php projects in a long while and didn't take the time to look into your code in detail. You're obviously smart and opinionated when it comes to webDev which is great. While your post seemed to be borderline LLM psychosis, its a different story if you were sleep deprived and drunk and now realize that you probably haven't rebuild google all by yourself. Your issue seems to be something else which is also quite frequent here. AI skeptics getting drawn into repeated fundamentalist discussions about LLMs being incapable of this or that BUT then having a "feel the AGI" moment not only becoming convinced of a utility of LLMs they previously denied but -being inexperienced- going far beyond that and believing that LLMs can do all kinds of things that they (at least currently) can't which ends up frustrating them and leading to some renewing their skepticism. You're not alone, it's quite likely that tomorrow when people who haven't had early access to Gemini 3 get it and start one-shotting functional clones of classic computer games share that on social media (or on the hn frontpage) and others are inspired to give it a try with "Gemini, please make a PC version of Half-Life 3 for me!" and are subsequently underwhelmed with the resulting code that doesn't compile or with the outcome of "Tell me how to make a Billion Bucks in less than 3 months!" millions will join you. What sets you apart is your capacity to understand the engine behind the output if you put in the work and don't allow the sweet talk to get to you!
How does a transcript chronicling some poor guy's descent into AI induced psychosis make the frontpage ? This is literally (and yes I know) what's been happening on reddit for months now: "Have I built a perpetuum mobile ? GPT4o seems to think so!" but at least on reddit the comments don't engage with the "substance" of those chat transcripts.
I am not saying that these kinds of transcripts are without value, they clearly demonstrate that even competent engineers can get sweet-talked into (probably out of character) actions like "boast about your accomplishments on hn and a CTO will take notice and offer you their job because you are so much more brilliant than them" while I have no idea if "Greg" has people around him to talk to, he clearly has no one who compliments him like this on his php codebase. If he wanted to engage productively with an LLM he could have prompted it to "roast his code" "point out weak points" "criticize the underlying architecture" but obviously thats not what he wanted or needed. He needed to hear some compliments, the LLM understood that and the machine complied. Obviously thats not the experience he will get out in the real world. It's more like having a talking blow-up doll compliment you on your lovemaking skills and encourage you to upload a video of the interaction to your favorite tube-site and sent the link to all your business contacts to show-off your inimitable love-making prowess.
It's quite funny that they will switch to german technology now, because I can think of no german service provider that would not immediately comply with any and all US sanctions.
>personally I do not think he has any actual interest in sexual reproduction and would not waste his time interacting with people that do not actively work in GNU / Free Software
I'm getting my one lick in because I know litigating this will be futile, people will defend RMS to the bitter end regardless of what he says or does, and I'll probably just be flagged for my trouble.
RMS blogged many times over many years about his beliefs that child pornography and pedophilia should be legal and socially acceptable. He also has a history of creepy behavior around women. He clearly is not asexual.
If RMS wasn't a part of Epstein's shit, it's only because he wasn't sociable enough to fit in with that crowd, not because he wouldn't be into it.
You're wrong about me, I'll defend RMS far beyond the bitter end and I frankly don't see what's wrong with that. About a billion people defend the fact that their prophet Mohammed had sexual intercourse with a 9 year old child. Mohammed did little to advance Freedom or Software and didn't even develop Emacs. So as long as there are people left defending an actual child predator I see no reason not to defend someone exploring theoretical theoretical arguments in favor of what you call pedophilia. I might stop defending him if he was literally Hitler but only because that would contradict everything he stands for and believes in. He believes in radical Freedom and non-coercion and does what is humanly possible to live those values. He also obviously is not neurotypical. I have seen too many brilliant autistic friends be excluded from groups and communities because their behavior towards the other sex was labeled "creepy" or "weird". Living in a patriarchal society sadly means that women tend to feel unsafe around men that do not conform to certain (sometimes utterly ridiculous) rules governing social behavior because they have experienced "crazy" men acting aggressively towards them finding their "unpredictable" behavior dangerous even when there is no rational indication that it poses any threat to them. You obviously fail to account for the possibility that people that advocate certain principles (like Stallman did in those texts that you claim to be his advocacy for the legalization of child pr0n or whatever it is you mean with pedophilia (which is a medical condition and just as "legal" as schizophrenia) probably statutory rape ?! Do so because they believe in these principles and not because they have a personal stake in the specific issues. I will not deny that this is often the case and we saw this in the "freedom of speech vs censorship" debate where on all sides of the political spectrum only the censorship of their own group was called out. RMS is old enough and has been a public figure for long enough that you cannot -in good faith - make that claim with regards to him though. If there had been claims of inappropriate sexual behavior, #metoo events, or rape you (and others) would also have brought them up. Aaron Swartz, RMS, Linus Torvalds and Steve Jobs are no saints, but they changed things and they pushed the human race forward.
Just looks like a Rube Goldberg server to me. This is really illustrative of the nonsense that media copyright has manufactured. I'm not going to solve "HDMI-CEC weirdness with a XYX" I'm going to download the movie from a torrent or run an emulator.