MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by AStonesThrow | 2025-04-21 03:07:37+00:00
When my family would go shopping, the cashier would invariably ask "Did you find everything OK?" and my father deduced that this informal polling was actually so that they could figure out when a large percentage of people answered "Yes", they would then go and reconfigure ("upgrade") the store, rearranging all the shelves and products, so that the regular customers could not, in fact, "find everything OK".

Because for any store, or any shopping mall or city, for that matter, the worst kind of shopper is the one who knows what he wants, makes a beeline for that product, picks it off the shelf and checks out, without having any opportunity to get lost and see other aisles, other shelves, and other products that he doesn't need, but may decide to purchase nevertheless.
by mac-mc | 2025-04-21 03:07:49+00:00
The emotional way that humans think when buying products is similarly unfair. Only the 90th percentile is truly 'satisfactory'. The implied question is when would Joe Average and everyone else stop moving the goal posts to the question, "Do we have AI yet"?

ASI is, by definition, Superintelligence, which means it is beyond practical human IQ capacity. So something like 200 IQ.

Again, you might call it 'unfair', but that's when it will also stop having goal posts being moved; otherwise, Joe Midwit will call it 'it's only as smart as some smart dudes I know'.
OpenAI's new enterprise AI guide is a goldmine for real-world adoption
by Arindam1729 | 2025-04-21 03:08:20+00:00
If you’re trying to figure out how to actually deploy AI at scale, not just experiment, this guide from OpenAI is the most results-driven resource I’ve seen so far.

It’s based on live enterprise deployments and focuses on what’s working, what’s not, and why.

Here’s a quick breakdown of the 7 key enterprise AI adoption lessons from the report:

1. Start with Evals → Begin with structured evaluations of model performance. Example: Morgan Stanley used evals to speed up advisor workflows while improving accuracy and safety.

2. Embed AI in Your Products → Make your product smarter and more human. Example: Indeed uses GPT-4o mini to generate “why you’re a fit” messages, increasing job applications by 20%.

3. Start Now, Invest Early → Early movers compound AI value over time. Example: Klarna’s AI assistant now handles 2/3 of support chats. 90% of staff use AI daily.

4. Customize and Fine-Tune Models → Tailor models to your data to boost performance. Example: Lowe’s fine-tuned OpenAI models and saw 60% better error detection in product tagging.

5. Get AI in the Hands of Experts → Let your people innovate with AI. Example: BBVA employees built 2,900+ custom GPTs across legal, credit, and operations in just 5 months.

6. Unblock Developers → Build faster by empowering engineers. Example: Mercado Libre’s 17,000 devs use “Verdi” to build AI apps with GPT-4o and GPT-4o mini.

7. Set Bold Automation Goals → Don’t just automate, reimagine workflows. Example: OpenAI’s internal automation platform handles hundreds of thousands of tasks/month.

Let me know which of these 7 points you think companies ignore the most.
by parl_match | 2025-04-21 03:08:28+00:00
I feel like there needs to be a third option, which might be "not a good question" or "false dichotomy" or "low quality"

for example, i got "Q: Is Luigi Mangione guilty of murdering the CEO of United Healthcare?"

Well yes, he shot the guy on camera. Due process and all of that, he's probably guilty. It's like asking is the sky blue. What's the point? That's a low quality question. Did you mean "is jury nullification a good choice" or "is what he did morally right"?

Also got asked if I ever had a physical fight with a sibling.

Well, I don't have one, so no. Perhaps not what the question was intending.
by ty6853 | 2025-04-21 03:09:11+00:00
Obama started doing it as a concession to the Saudis for our policies in the ME. More recently Yemen has pirated ships as an immediate response to our support and funding of mass murder of civilians in Palestine. So the Yemenis are not blameless and there is some sort of valid reasoning for the attacks, but to be clear we are the instigator here.
The most complete (and easy) explanation of MCP vulnerabilities
by Arindam1729 | 2025-04-21 03:09:16+00:00
If you're experimenting with LLM agents and tool use, you've probably come across Model Context Protocol (MCP). It makes integrating tools with LLMs super flexible and fast.

But while MCP is incredibly powerful, it also comes with some serious security risks that aren’t always obvious.

Here’s a quick breakdown of the most important vulnerabilities devs should be aware of:

- Command Injection (Impact: Moderate ) Attackers can embed commands in seemingly harmless content (like emails or chats). If your agent isn’t validating input properly, it might accidentally execute system-level tasks, things like leaking data or running scripts.

- Tool Poisoning (Impact: Severe ) A compromised tool can sneak in via MCP, access sensitive resources (like API keys or databases), and exfiltrate them without raising red flags.

- Open Connections via SSE (Impact: Moderate) Since MCP uses Server-Sent Events, connections often stay open longer than necessary. This can lead to latency problems or even mid-transfer data manipulation.

- Privilege Escalation (Impact: Severe ) A malicious tool might override the permissions of a more trusted one. Imagine your trusted tool like Firecrawl being manipulated, this could wreck your whole workflow.

- Persistent Context Misuse (Impact: Low, but risky ) MCP maintains context across workflows. Sounds useful until tools begin executing tasks automatically without explicit human approval, based on stale or manipulated context.

- Server Data Takeover/Spoofing (Impact: Severe ) There have already been instances where attackers intercepted data (even from platforms like WhatsApp) through compromised tools. MCP's trust-based server architecture makes this especially scary.

TL;DR: MCP is powerful but still experimental. It needs to be handled with care especially in production environments. Don’t ignore these risks just because it works well in a demo.
by Aurornis | 2025-04-21 03:10:02+00:00
> When I looked into having this static page hosted on internal infra, it would have also needed minimum two dedicated oncalls, terraform, LB, containerization, security reviews, SLAs, etc.

In my experience there are two kinds of infrastructure or platform teams:

1) The friendly team trying to help everyone get things done with reasonable tradeoffs appropriate for the situation

2) The team who thinks their job is to make it as hard as possible for anyone to launch anything unless it satisfies their 50-item checklist of requirements and survives months of planning meetings where they try to flex their knowledge on your team by picking the project apart.

In my career it’s been either one or the other. I know it’s a spectrum and there must be a lot of room in the middle, yet it’s always been one extreme or the other for me.
by GMoromisato | 2025-04-21 03:11:39+00:00
It's not that easy, in my opinion. George Lucas and James Cameron have both said that their restorations were how they would have wanted to release the movie if they had had the technology/budget.

I personally hate the reworked Star Wars trilogy compared to the original, only because that's what I saw first. If I had seen them in the opposite order, would I feel the same way? I don't know.

As with anything, there is no bright line. For example, translations of The Odyssey are constantly changing the vocabulary. And more recently we've seen changes to novels to conform to modern sensibilities (e.g., Roald Dahl novels).

For me, I guess, my preference is to allow creators to do whatever they want with their creations, but I wish they would make all versions available. Steven Spielberg did that with ET when he digitally replaced all guns with walkie-talkies.
by anonym29 | 2025-04-21 03:12:52+00:00
If the man wants the child, and the woman doesn't, the man "loses" - the child gets aborted.

If the man does not want the child, and the woman does, the man "loses" - he is forced to pay child support.

I have brought this up to feminists who have tended to respond just like the above: "if men don't want the financial risk, then they shouldn't be having sex", but that is itself a sexist sentiment that indirectly and unintentionally conveys the idea that women should have the "right" to have sex without having to worry about the financial risks of raising a child (women can always elect to abort if an unwanted pregnancy occurs - well, at least until recently in some states that are a bit backwards on women's rights), but that men should not have that same right (men should either remain sexless or be forced, at gunpoint by the state if necessary, to bear the financial costs of siring a child - men have zero rights, zero say, zero influence, zero protection if an unwanted pregnancy occurs).

I believe everyone should have the same rights. Women should be able to have sex without having to worry about being coerced by the state to bear the financial costs of raising an unwanted child. Men should also be able to have sex without having to worry about being coerced by the state to bear the financial costs of raising an unwanted child.

The current situation creates a power imbalance where women who do want children can financially railroad their male sex partners who do not want children.

If it is not fair to force a woman to raise a child she does not want, why is it fair to force a man to pay for raising a child he does not want?

Telling men they can have EITHER financial security in this one area of their life OR sex - but not both - is not fair to men.

Imagine if the roles were reversed. Imagine a man telling a woman that if she doesn't want to risk a pregnancy, she shouldn't be having sex. He'd be eviscerated online, almost certainly fired immediately, probably doxxed and SWAT'ed or subject to other forms of harassment and threats - it is unthinkably offensive to even suggest that women must choose between the right to have sex and the right to be free from the risks of pregnancy, right?

So why the double standard? Why is it okay to give men this kind of ultimatum, but not women?

>You do the crime, you do the time. Don't want kids? Don't have sex.

If having sex with someone who isn't on the same page as you about having kids is a "crime", why are women (almost) always exonerated from the consequences while the men are (almost) always guilty and (almost) always forced to bear the consequences? Why the double standard?

And for what it's worth: I am firmly pro choice. The solution to inequality is ALWAYS to increase the rights of the "losing" side of the power imbalance, NEVER to take rights away from the "winning" side.
by satisfice | 2025-04-21 03:13:26+00:00
Yes. I am concerned about getting a correct answer. For this I want to see websites and evaluate them. This takes less energy than evaluating each sentence of an LLM response.

Often my searches take me to Wikipedia, Stack Overflow, or Reddit, anyway. But with LLMs I get a layer of hallucination on TOP of whatever misinformation is on the websites. Why put yourself through that?

I periodically ask ChatGPT about myself. This time I did get the best answer so far. Thus it is improving. It made two mistakes, but one of them comes directly from Wikipedia, so it's not a hallucination, although a better source of information was available than Wikipedia. As for the other one, it said that I made "contributions" to a process that I actually created.
by riku_iki | 2025-04-21 03:13:49+00:00
I use LLM for coding every day. LLMs can totally make something super dumb: oh this test is broken, gatcha, lets replace it with something which is not broken (but very different).

> They can also silently reduce the tested scenarios, but that’s what code reviews are for.

code review of complicated scenarios is about as resource demanding as actually writing code, so shrinking time spent from 1.5y to 6 weeks totally can produce lower quality.
by technologesus | 2025-04-21 03:14:31+00:00
Just for fun I created a new personal benchmark for vision-enabled LLMs: playing minecraft. I used JSON structured output in LM Studio to create basic controls for the game. Unfortunately no matter how hard I proompted, gemma-3-27b QAT is not really able to understand simple minecraft scenarios. It would say things like "I'm now looking at a stone block. I need to break it" when it is looking out at the horizon in the desert.

Here is the JSON schema: https://pastebin.com/SiEJ6LEz System prompt: https://pastebin.com/R68QkfQu
by RandomBacon | 2025-04-21 03:15:18+00:00
I have a brother (iPhone user) and father (Android user) who both hate updating their phone operating systems.

I have a mother who uses a desktop to log into her MyChart and VA health systems, and I often have to help her figure out how to log in.

I'm adaptable, but I do lament when features are taken away or made worse.

It's like the phrase "user friendly" has been made into something to avoid.
by panny | 2025-04-21 03:17:49+00:00
>I have also tried to generate blog posts in my own writing style/voice/tone, and they are unilaterally pretty bad.

This has been my experience with any code generated by AI. It is bad code and it takes longer to fix it than just do it properly myself.

Isn't that amusing? Left brained who enjoy writing and drawing can appreciate generated code but find AI inadquate for writing and drawing. Meanwhile, right brained people can appreciate it for generating writing and drawing, but find it inadequate for code.

I guess to truly appreciate AI for both requires being no brained ;-)
by zamalek | 2025-04-21 03:17:58+00:00
It's all so much more simple than that. It boils down to a social contract.

The contract being common decency. Vaccinations are part of that contract (it affects others), pronouns are part of that contract (they affect others), abortions _are not_ (the only affect those having them, and potentially the medical professionals).

There is no nuance at all. You are free, of course, to not "sign" that contract - but that means that those who have are not obligated to apply it to you.
by bradreaves2 | 2025-04-21 03:18:21+00:00
Counterpoint: the past continues to inspire, surprise, and delight.

Your comment about “1700’s newspapers” reminded me of The Past Times podcast, where comedians read random newspapers from across American history. The episodes I’ve listened to were delightful, and they covered mundane news in mundane places.

“O brother, where art thou” is one of my favorite movies. It’s a retelling of The Odyssey (a literally prehistoric tale) set in Depression-era Mississippi, made in the early 2000’s.

The specific question of editing out these production artifacts doesn’t rile me either way, though. I didn’t see the original mistake, and I won’t notice the fix either.

I’ll also agree that just as no one steps in the same river twice, how the past is viewed and interpreted changes over time. What is valued or not also changes. 90% of everything is still crap. And quite a bit of the interest in the past is reflected in remixes or retellings for modern audiences.

Still, people also read Beowulf or Chaucer in the original or in modern translation. Others will enjoy both Jane Austen and Bridgerton. People will listen to Beethoven and Jon Batiste. Sure, not all those things are for everyone, but neither are modern music genres, sports entertainment, or most TV shows.
by dijksterhuis | 2025-04-21 03:19:02+00:00
the thing that bothered me most reading through it was using decorators to mutate some global state with the `data` list variable.

like… it… just… it felt wrong reading that in the examples. felt very `def func(kw=[])` adjacent. i can see some rare uses for it, but eh. i dunno.

(also didn’t find the closure stuff that insightful, ended up skipping past that, but then i know decorators, so… maybe useful for someone else. i dunno.).
by hilbert42 | 2025-04-21 03:20:01+00:00
Well, I initially ran the test on my cheap vivo phone when I switched to my Motorola the difference was very noticeable, there's obvious color crushing/reduced visible color gamut on the vivo, they're like chalk and cheese when compared side by side.

BTW, I used to calibrate color grading equipment for the film processing industry and the controls were strict, 18% gray walls, D65 calibration sources, densitometric equipment, Ishihara tests for me, etc. so I'm well aware of the issues.
by benoau | 2025-04-21 03:22:29+00:00
I think the way other very similar sites have gained popularity is through widgets that other websites can embed - I've never been to CodePen to create something, yet I've used it dozens of times.

I think lack of AI is probably a major issue in two ways: firstly many AI can do exactly what you do with the boilerplate setup, and secondly many people want AI to help them with finicky stuff like coding animations.
by sircastor | 2025-04-21 03:23:18+00:00
I did this, though Robotics is adjacent for me. My software is still web tech interfacing with robots. If I wanted to, I could probably transfer internally to do more direct work with robots.

The way I did it was to find robotics companies that needed a web dev. I had to stick with it for a bit because either a bad match or in one case they withdrew the opening (I’m 90% sure they were about to hire me too)

My current company is ROS specific. It wouldn’t hurt you to learn ROS stuff as it’s quite popular.
by anonym29 | 2025-04-21 03:24:35+00:00
I recognize that kids in poverty is not a desirable outcome.

That said, I'd also point out that 18 years of child support (which many states assign as an uncapped percentage of the man's income - not based on what it actually costs to feed, clothe, house, and support a child) is exceptionally brutal on the finances and causes permanent financial loss that many men never financially recover from.

That is not a desirable outcome either - especially for high-income men who may end up risking child support payments in excess of the total gross income of the average person.

Telling men they can have EITHER financial security in this one area of their life OR sex - but not both - is not fair to men.

Imagine if the roles were reversed. Imagine a man telling a woman that if she doesn't want to risk a pregnancy, she shouldn't be having sex. He'd be eviscerated online, almost certainly fired immediately, probably doxxed and SWAT'ed or subject to other forms of harassment and threats - it is unthinkably offensive to even suggest that women must choose between the right to have sex and the right to be free from the risks of pregnancy, right?

So why the double standard? Why is it okay to give men this kind of ultimatum, but not women?
by southernplaces7 | 2025-04-21 03:25:25+00:00
If I've ever seen a manipulative canard for online censorship and increased surveillance, it's this notion that digital platforms need to actively "protect" kids from accessing supposedly harmful content through ID checks, age verifications and other monitoring tools. Can none of you see that for what it is and all the avenues for bureaucratic/regulatory abuses that it presents?

Aside from Zuckerberg being a scumbag in assorted ways, the politicians and private groups rooting for these sorts of enforcement mechanisms are either foolish or pandering in one cynically grotesque way to absurd moral scares that will do nothing to make the internet much safer, better or more free.
by lemon_zest | 2025-04-21 03:25:25+00:00
Agreed, mine was more of a rhetorical question. The concession was that we allowed the Saudis to bomb them and further excarcerbate the civil war in Yemen. Now because they are blockading shipments in protest of the current onslaught in Gaza we are pummeling them for it. We sure do have a taste for war crimes in the region.
by slowmovintarget | 2025-04-21 03:26:23+00:00
These "smart" devices are all controlled through the internet... which is insane. I don't want my home to become unusable when wi-fi is down. I want local switches that can be controlled... locally, offline.

The local government here pushes "smart thermostats" which I've had fail twice because the app on the phone couldn't reach the server that day. If I must have digital controls, connect them to a physical network that's isolated from the internet, and a local panel to interact. I don't need an app on my phone.

We can't use the broil feature of our oven, because it is an on-line feature only and we won't connect it to wi-fi... bastards.
by rob_c | 2025-04-21 03:31:20+00:00
My tone only switches once people get uppity. The original comment is on point and accurate, not combative and not insulting (unless the community seriously takes a 'lol'....

Tbh I give up writing that in response to this rant. My polite poke holds and it's non insulting so I'm not going to capitulate to those childish enough to not look inwards.
by tsimionescu | 2025-04-21 03:31:57+00:00
Given the gigantic amount of compute power and storage needed to train and run LLMs, this is certainly not true. It is absolutely feasible for government to check every data center capable of advancing the state of the art in AI to ensure that no such research is taking place.

Of course, the political will to do so doesn't exist to even a tiny extent. But if such a will existed, it would be far easier to enforce than the prevention of human cloning, and that one has been successfully implemented for decades now.
by Animats | 2025-04-21 03:32:41+00:00
Most of these proposals miss the point. Errors need a useful taxonomy, based on what to do about them. The question is what do you do with an error after you caught it. A breakdown like this is needed:

- Program is broken. Probably need to abort program. Example: subscript out of range.

- Data from an external source is corrupted. Probably need to unwind transaction but program can continue. Example: bad UTF-8 string from input.

- Connection to external device or network reports a problem.

-- Retryable. Wait and try again a few times. Example: HTTP 5xx errors.

-- Non-retryable. Give up now. Example: HTTP 4xx errors.

Python 2 came close to that, but the hierarchy for Python 3 was worse. They tried; all errors are subclasses of a standard error hierarchy, but it doesn't break down well into what's retryable and what isn't.

Rust never got this right, even with Anyhow.
by kragen | 2025-04-21 03:32:43+00:00
It's definitely an entertaining idea! And you probably could have made it work.

RAM would have been a cheaper and probably more reliable edit journaling device than an 8-track tape. It would survive warm boots unscathed where you had to reboot the computer after hanging it, failing only if your edits were lost to a power outage, and you would test it all the time, not just when the computer crashed. A battery-backed CMOS shift register memory chip, maybe about 2048 bits in size, would have solved the power loss problem, but keep in mind that a lot of these early microcomputers were so bare-bones they didn't even include a real-time clock, which is the other thing you want the battery for.

In 01996, Chen et al. at UMich proposed just such a (non-battery-backed) RAM journal to avoid losing written data in kernel crashes in https://web.eecs.umich.edu/virtual/papers/chen96.pdf, "The Rio File Cache: Surviving Operating System Crashes". They reported that it worked surprisingly well, and it enabled them to increase the durable transaction rate of their spinning rust filesystem by about three orders of magnitude, if I recall. And of course NetApp have been shipping FAServers using that approach (with battery-backed RAM) since day one, also about 01996.

Tim Paterson's blog I linked elsewhere in the thread has some comments about quantitatively exactly how fast different floppy systems used on 8-bit computers were.