Where am I?

    y = ->(f) {
      ->(x) { x.(x) }.(
      ->(x) { f.(->(v) { x.(x).(v) }) } )
    }

JavaScript:

    const Y = f => (x => f(v => x(x)(v)))
                   (x => f(v => x(x)(v)));

    (define (Y f)
     ((lambda (x) (f (lambda (y) ((x x) y))))
       (lambda (x) (f (lambda (y) ((x x) y))))))

    y :: (a -> a) -> a
    y f = f (y f)

    let z f = 
      let fn = ref (fun x -> x) in
      fn := (fun x -> f (!fn x));
      !fn;;

As you might expect for a moderately complicated topic, ChatGPT is hallucinating. That is beautiful because it is not the Y combinator.

That is the Fixed-point combinator. The Y combinator is used to implement recursion when you can't directly reference the function binding.

In the haskell solution, y is used recursively on the rhs, so it's not the Y combinator, and so it's defining something different and simpler, so of course it looks different and simpler.

Do not trust ChatGPT without first giving it a brief bit of thought yourself.

And also, please don't just post ChatGPT's ramblings here if you have nothing worth adding. Most of us, I think, are here for human discussions, not to talk to chatGPT indirectly. If I wanted chatgpt's ramblings, I would go to that site instead.

  (defun y (f)
    [(op @1 @1)
     (op f (op [@@1 @@1]))])

See here: https://mvanier.livejournal.com/2897.html starting at "Deriving the Y combinator" where it presents a lazy version of Y in Scheme, similar to the Haskell one and argues that it's not valid.

Regarding the Scheme version, there is a shorter form:

  (define (Y f) 
    ((lambda (x) (x x))
     (lambda (x) (f (lambda (y) ((x x) y))))))

Except, the TXR Lisp one doesn't assume that the function takes one argument: the (op [@@1 @@1]) syntax describes a function that takes any number of arguments, and passes them to the funtion produced by [@@1 @@1], so it's like this version:

  (define (Y f)
    ((lambda (x) (x x))
      (lambda (x) (f (lambda y (apply (x x) y))))))

You can see the equivalence:

  3> (expand '(op [@@1 @@1]))
  (lambda (. #:arg-rest-0023)
    [sys:apply [@@1 @@1]
      #:arg-rest-0023])

The double @@ in @@1 means "do not refer to @1, the implicit parameter 1 of this op function: refer to parameter @1 of the next enclosing op function":

  (op f (op [@@1 @@1])
    ^        --- ---
     `-------'---'

These defaults all work together to make a short Y combinator which lets the recursive function have multiple arguments.

  1> (expand '(op f @1))
  (lambda (#:arg-1-0016 . #:arg-rest-0015)
    [f #:arg-1-0016])
  2> (expand '(op f @1 @2 @3))
  (lambda (#:arg-1-0019
           #:arg-2-0020
           #:arg-3-0021 . #:arg-rest-0018)
    [f #:arg-1-0019
      #:arg-2-0020
      #:arg-3-0021])
  3> (expand '(op f @1 @2 @3 @rest))
  (lambda (#:arg-1-0024
           #:arg-2-0025
           #:arg-3-0026 . #:arg-rest-0023)
    [f #:arg-1-0024
      #:arg-2-0025
      #:arg-3-0026
      #:arg-rest-0023])

  fix :: (a -> a) -> a
  fix f = let x = f x in x

That definition is dependent on recursion already being present.

i sometimes think yc is just a front to secure payment for hn servers for many many years.

Yes there are LLMs useful for such things and you could use them to make moderation decisions. YMMV with how "good" you want your moderation to be.

It actually does a better job than the stock "this comment does not go against our community standards" response you get from the human moderators of any social network.

Not so easy. Jailbreaks are becoming harder to perform every day.

[1] - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BrQyMrmRBsk

http://www.paulgraham.com/articles.html

This discussion from earlier this year gives some interesting context: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=34750727