MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by flakiness | 2025-04-16 20:12:19+00:00
https://github.com/openai/codex/blob/main/codex-cli/src/comp...

Hey comment this thing in!

const thinkingTexts = ["Thinking"]; /* [ "Consulting the rubber duck", "Maximizing paperclips", "Reticulating splines", "Immanentizing the Eschaton", "Thinking", "Thinking about thinking", "Spinning in circles", "Counting dust specks", "Updating priors", "Feeding the utility monster", "Taking off", "Wireheading", "Counting to infinity", "Staring into the Basilisk", "Negotiationing acausal trades", "Searching the library of babel", "Multiplying matrices", "Solving the halting problem", "Counting grains of sand", "Simulating a simulation", "Asking the oracle", "Detangling qubits", "Reading tea leaves", "Pondering universal love and transcendant joy", "Feeling the AGI", "Shaving the yak", "Escaping local minima", "Pruning the search tree", "Descending the gradient", "Bikeshedding", "Securing funding", "Rewriting in Rust", "Engaging infinite improbability drive", "Clapping with one hand", "Synthesizing", "Rebasing thesis onto antithesis", "Transcending the loop", "Frogeposting", "Summoning", "Peeking beyond the veil", "Seeking", "Entering deep thought", "Meditating", "Decomposing", "Creating", "Beseeching the machine spirit", "Calibrating moral compass", "Collapsing the wave function", "Doodling", "Translating whale song", "Whispering to silicon", "Looking for semicolons", "Asking ChatGPT", "Bargaining with entropy", "Channeling", "Cooking", "Parrotting stochastically", ]; */
by kmeisthax | 2025-04-16 20:12:48+00:00
> I see this as an administrative move to demonstrate active marketing of their properties, to delay their copyrights lapse (similar to Disney bringing Steamboat Willy to try to preserve a 100-year-old copyright).

Copyright doesn't work that way. You're thinking of trademark law, which only covers how you can name things in commerce, not what you can and can't copy.

The only thing about copyright that's use-it-or-lose-it is fair use, and only because of how English-language[0] legal systems work. You may have heard that Japan "doesn't have fair use", but what that really means is that they don't have binding precedent. This gives copyright owners an incentive to litigate novel reuses of their work early and often.

Nintendo, of course, is the kind of company that doesn't need an excuse to sue someone; but it does explain why they tend to be very slightly more litigious in common-law countries.

I imagine the real reason they released the soundtrack app is to keep third-parties out of their business. i.e. they don't have to pay 30% to Apple or deal with Spotify's shitty "pay out of a pot" system if their soundtracks are just an NSO benefit.

[0] Yes, I know this is "English-heritage" not "English-language", but in practice this is a language split.
by VyseofArcadia | 2025-04-16 20:12:48+00:00
I feel like requiring software "engineers" to be actual capital E Engineers would fix a lot of problems in our industry. You can't build even a small bridge without a PE, because what if a handful of people get hurt? But on the other hand your software that could cause harm to millions by leaking their private info, sure, whatever, some dork fresh out of college is good enough for that.

And in the current economic climate, even principled and diligent SEs might be knowingly putting out broken software because the bossman said the deadline is the end of the month, and if I object, he'll find someone who won't. But if SEs were PEs, they suddenly have standing, and indeed obligation, to push back on insecure software and practices.

While requiring SEs to be PEs would fix some problems, I'm sure it would also cause some new ones. But to me, a world where engineers have the teeth to push back against unreasonable or bad requirements sounds fairly utopian.
by kowabungalow | 2025-04-16 20:12:54+00:00
You are staring at a prompt that uses Akashic and fren for specific statistical attacks based on relatively small volumes of material using these terms and saying that anyone who thinks there was a reason to use them is out of touch? The prompt creator was a red state hari Krishna who didn't like spell check and this would work in a rewording we all understand?
by mystified5016 | 2025-04-16 20:12:55+00:00
I work for a US startup manufacturing (as much as is feasible) in the US.

Because of the embarrassment that is meant to be our government, DoE hasn't paid for a contract completed in December (including physical goods), and DoD has silently stopped all of the R&D contracts we've been applying for.

We're about a week or three away from bankruptcy.

Our only foreign vendors are for PCBs and a particular type of motor. US PCB fabs are and have always been vastly more expensive and really don't do small scale runs at any sort of reasonable price. The motors? No one makes them domestically.

I'd gripe more, but this administration simply doesn't care about little guys like us. US small business are going to start dropping like flies soon.
by jumploops | 2025-04-16 20:13:52+00:00
(copied from the o3 + o4-mini thread)

The big step function here seems to be RL on tool calling.

Claude 3.7/3.5 are the only models that seem to be able to handle "pure agent" usecases well (agent in a loop, not in an agentic workflow scaffold[0]).

OpenAI has made a bet on reasoning models as the core to a purely agentic loop, but it hasn't worked particularly well yet (in my own tests, though folks have hacked a Claude Code workaround[1]).

o3-mini has been better at some technical problems than 3.7/3.5 (particularly refactoring, in my experience), but still struggles with long chains of tool calling.

My hunch is that these new models were tuned _with_ OpenAI Codex[2], which is presumably what Anthropic was doing internally with Claude Code on 3.5/3.7

tl;dr - GPT-3 launched with completions (predict the next token), then OpenAI fine-tuned that model on "chat completions" which then led GPT-3.5/GPT-4, and ultimately the success of ChatGPT. This new agent paradigm, requires fine-tuning on the LLM interacting with itself (thinking) and with the outside world (tools), sans any human input.

[0]https://www.anthropic.com/engineering/building-effective-age...

[1]https://github.com/1rgs/claude-code-proxy

[2]https://openai.com/index/openai-codex/
by Pxtl | 2025-04-16 20:14:20+00:00
At this point I wish we could just get all our clients to say "self-signed is fine if you're connecting to a .LOCAL domain name". https is intrinsically useful over raw http, but the overhead of setting up centralized certs for non-public domains is just dumb.

Give us a big global *.local cert we can all cheat with, so I don't have to blast my credentials in the clear when I log into my router's admin page.
by crazygringo | 2025-04-16 20:14:39+00:00
> I find it really weird and cringey that you're bringing up ego. I don't feel like I'm smarter than everybody else, nor am I claiming to be, nor do I see how any of my comments could even be construed as such.

Then you should re-read your comment. Calling people "insanely naive"? "Bot-speak"? The "dumbest take"? "Irresponsibly ignorant"?

And you really think you're not trying to portray yourself as smarter than everyone else who didn't see this coming?

Your comments are insulting, provocative, in bad faith, and do not belong on HN.

I was trying to make a reasoned point that no, most reasonable smart people didn't expect the Trump administration to be anything like what it is now. I don't know of anyone who predicted this. Your claims to the contrary are simply rewriting history. You're calling people ignorant, when you seem to be the one with the faulty memory.

I hope you can learn a little humility. Good luck to you.
by mubou | 2025-04-16 20:15:17+00:00
I don't get why people keep trying to make llms.txt happen. Use the standards that already exist.

1. sitemap.xml says /foo exists

2. LLM requests /foo with:

Accept: text/markdown, text/html;q=0.9

3. Site responds with a markdown rendering of /foo

Done. Alternatively, use <link rel="alternate">. This is a solved problem, and the tools that are already available are more flexible, don't require specific URLs, and aren't LLM-specific.
by roughly | 2025-04-16 20:15:18+00:00
> smarter, i.e., better at abstract reasoning

This is the nub of it - we're better at one very particular thing. I think I'm gonna get crucified if I really go into arguing against abstract reasoning as the baseline for understanding the world on this site, but without trying to defend that particular assertion I'd just make a note to say that what IQ tests are testing is a very specific type of thinking and not actually generalized intelligence, which is a very broad topic.
by klodolph | 2025-04-16 20:15:48+00:00
I don’t think that this corresponds to the thing called “Frutiger Aero”.

The Windows Aero style existed in 2004, and somewhere around 2017, the style Frutiger Aero was invented, partly based on those styles but partly new.

Just like Vaporwave.

Some aesthetics existed in the past (like art deco), some are invented out of materials from the past (like art deco revival).
by EA-3167 | 2025-04-16 20:16:57+00:00
This isn't Schrodinger's cat, a lack of observation doesn't make the chromosomes go away, and really focusing on intersex people when the topic is trans people feels like a bit of a shell game anyway. You are however entitled to your opinion, to present as you see fit, and I think you have the right to be treated according to how you present.

When it comes to the law though, word games are unhelpful and get in the way, clear definitions are required. In terms of respecting human dignity, these definitions change nothing; people inclined to respect trans people will still feel the same way, and bigots will hardly change either. You can still have laws and legal structures designed to protect people while recognizing the reality of their biology, because it's about GENDER identity, not BIOLOGICAL identity.
by ddejohn | 2025-04-16 20:17:24+00:00
> humanity is presently in the process of evolving beyond nation-states

No, it isn't. This is some Curtis Yarvin BS.

> So, any solution that truly addresses the _original_ funding disaster must be future-compatible with an internet in which we've overcome the burden of nation-states.

What does this even mean? How do you envision a "future-compatible" CVE database? And what does it have to do with nation states?
by Calinterman | 2025-04-16 20:17:31+00:00
I mean, you could say the same about reddit or instagram depending on which people or subjects you follow on those platforms. They may have more moderation and checks to user identity but the problem is the same. This is coming from someone who quit using it altogether because of the 2016 elections: Trying to judge an anonymous platform with zero entry-level checks on what slips through isn't logical when that same standard suddenly doesn't apply when one puts the same logic on billion dollar companies who have all the moderation in the world and still can't clean their platforms up.
by breppp | 2025-04-16 20:17:43+00:00
I could give your own post as an example https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43685383 , where you judged a statement as false due to the presumed location of the author in the power/knowledge spectrum.

But sorry, it's hard to discuss when you quote a single sentence from the few paragraphs i've written and say it's wrong, with nothing added. When adding to it your replies in previous discussions we had such as this: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43705166

I feel you are overly emotionally attached to the subject and this is approaching troll/flame territory. It's not that I don't want to discuss with you, but I feel in our engagements a lot of aggression and very little actual passing of information except for short sentences, so let's end it right here
by daveguy | 2025-04-16 20:18:16+00:00
> I'd prefer to create our own bureaucracy...

So, historically the creation of bureaucracy in the US government included industry professionals to guide the requirements and a public comment period before finalization. This is done because most people in government recognize they are not up to date on the latest industry knowledge.

Destroying everything and creating a new bureaucracy is in absolutely no way better than fixing the original one on updated information.

It seems you may have fallen victim to the very well thought out "government bad!" argument.
by ToValueFunfetti | 2025-04-16 20:19:01+00:00
>you appear to assume that for calculations where "each mistake could cost $millions or lives", engineers who calculated by hand typically didn't double-check by redoing the calculation

Not at all! For any n extra checks, having an n+1 phase that takes a 20th of the effort is beneficial. I did include triple-checks to gesture at this.

>It is also unclear why multiplication and division have different difficulties, when dividing by n is equal to multiplying by 1/n.

This actually fascinates me. Computers and human both take longer to divide than to multiply (in computers, by roughly an order of magnitude!) I'm not really sure why this is in a fundamental information theory kind of way, but it being true in humans is sufficient to make my point.

To address your specific criticism: you haven't factored out the division there, you've just changed the numerator to 1. I'd much rather do 34/17 in my head than 34 * (1/17).
by nightpool | 2025-04-16 20:19:40+00:00
https://arxiv.org/pdf/2206.02285

In this work we find that many current redactions of PDF text are insecure due to non-redacted character positioning information. In particular, subpixel-sized horizontal shifts in redacted and non-redacted characters can be recovered and used to effectively deredact first and last names.

Information-theoretic attacks work on black boxes too
by Lammy | 2025-04-16 20:19:53+00:00
They absolutely can deal with the one-time setup of one single thing that's easy to set up auto-pay for. It's so many additional concepts when you add in the ACME challenge/response because now you have to learn sysadmin-type skills to care for a periodic process, users/groups for who-runs-what-process and who-owns-what-cert-files, software updates to chase LE/ACME changes or else all your stuff breaks, etc.

Your attitude is so dismissive to the general public. We should be encouraging people to learn the little bits they want to learn to achieve something small, and instead we are building this ivory tower all-or-nothing stack. For what, job security? Bad mindset.
by parliament32 | 2025-04-16 20:20:23+00:00
> First of all, a linear “score” like CVSS just cannot work in cybersecurity. Instead, we should have a system on the attributes of a vulnerability.

This is exactly what CVSS is: a scoring system based on attributes.

> In the first category, we might have attributes such as: Needs physical access to the machine, Needs to have software running on the same machine, even if in a VM, Needs to run in the same VM.

This is exactly what the AV vector in CVSS is.

> In the second category, we might have attributes such as: Arbitrary execution, Data corruption (loss of integrity), Data exfiltration (loss of confidentiality).

This is exactly what impact metrics in CVSS are.

I fear the author has a severe misunderstanding of what CVSS is and where the scores come from. There's even an entire CVSS adjustment section for how to modify a score based on your specific environment. I'd recommend playing around with the calculator a little to understand how the scores work better: https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln-metrics/cvss/v3-calculator
by mystified5016 | 2025-04-16 20:20:24+00:00
I think it's worth specifying even further: wealthy business owners don't want to pay what a US employee costs.

Most jobs are wholly unsustainable. You have to job hop every couple of years to keep up with inflation because God knows you're not getting a raise that keeps you comfortable.

This has led to churn and brain drain and the slow collapse of US domestic business.

It's not that people don't want to work, it's that wages have fallen so far behind the cost of living that it's financial suicide to stay in any one job. Even with all the traps like employer sponsored healthcare, most people just can't afford to be paid the pittance most businesses are willing to pay.

This is a deep societal illness in the US. We've glorified and deified the concept of greed to the point where even talking about income inequality and the unimaginable concentration of wealth is just anathema. It's seeped into the everyday consciousness in the form of "I'm the only one that matters, fuck absolutely everyone else"

I genuinely believe that America will never, ever recover until we address this. We will always be this sick and broken country until the state entirely collapses or we get our shit together and address income inequality.

I have some real serious doubts that we'll ever get there, but it's easy to be pessimistic.
by nopinsight | 2025-04-16 20:20:29+00:00
Research by METR suggests that frontier LLMs can perform software tasks over exponentially longer time horizon required for human engineers, with ~7-month for each doubling. o3 is above the trend line.

https://x.com/METR_Evals/status/1912594122176958939

—-

The AlexNet paper which kickstarted the deep learning era in 2012 was ahead of the 2nd-best entry by 11%. Many published AI papers then advanced SOTA by just a couple percentage points.

o3 high is about 9% ahead of o1 high on livebench.ai and there are also quite a few testimonials of their differences.

Yes, AlexNet made major strides in other aspects as well but it’s been just 7 months since o1-preview, the first publicly available reasoning model, which is a seminal advance beyond previous LLMs.

It seems some people have become desensitized to how rapidly things are moving in AI, despite its largely unprecedented pace of progress.

Ref:

- https://proceedings.neurips.cc/paper_files/paper/2012/file/c...

- https://livebench.ai/#/
by smsm42 | 2025-04-16 20:20:53+00:00
This is good sometimes but also horrible sometimes, because reputation exists for a reason. It's a filter, and if you have terabytes of information around which has mostly garbage quality you need filters if you want to make it useful. Of course, reputation does not solve the problem entirely, but at least it makes some steps towards the solution. Otherwise, you're basically on your own against the ocean of garbage, and not many people can really handle that.
by v4nn4 | 2025-04-16 20:20:59+00:00
Stochastic calculus is required to derive closed formulas and approximations used to calibrate SDE models. Similarly to deep learning, the secret sauce lies in the training, less in the inference. The code used by banks is closed source, and the research papers are missing said secret sauce. Calibrating models in a production environment handling correlation, multi-curves, stochastic funding, discrete dividends, etc. is not a solved problem. Interest rate derivatives modeling heavily relies on change of measure, even when using simple models.
by lskillen | 2025-04-16 20:21:20+00:00
Hi HN, author here,

I co-founded Newzbin (where we created the NZB file format) from 2001 to 2010, and I’m now the co-founder and CTO of Cloudsmith (a Series B-funded startup in the artifact management space).

I recently wrote this short memoir on how tech and curiosity helped me survive severe depression, dropping out of school, and a lot of self-doubt, and how that journey eventually led me to 20 years of building startups.

It’s about growing up in a broken home, finding escape from the burnout of life in a beige Commodore 64, and building a life from very little. There are also a few odd tidbits about co-founding Newzbin, inventing NZBs, and (briefly) fighting Mickey Mouse (ish) and friends in court.

My main two takeaways are (other than, "isn't tech wonderful?"): (1) university degrees don't matter perhaps as much as many might think, (2) talking to people isn't an easy way out of depression, but it's a lot better than _not_ talking to people; also, passion and grit can and will carry you (especially as a founder).

I’d love to hear from others who’ve taken a non-traditional career path or found stability through tech. I'm not sure if it’ll help anyone who’s already deep into their software career, but if nothing else, it might be a decent read.

Lee
by creeble | 2025-04-16 20:21:23+00:00
VersaCAD was the only commercial program I can remember for p-System. It ran from floppies, or a hard drive that could be set to boot it.

It was a great CAD program, I many ways ahead of AutoCAD in its time. But AutoCAD was written in C, which proved far more popular (and, ultimately, more portable) than UCSD-p.
by bornfreddy | 2025-04-16 20:21:28+00:00
No, it doesn't - because meltdowns are the final stage of "why is this adult not listening to my side of the story?!?'. What works is communicating with them (earlier), listening to them, talking to them and - yes, explaining situations to them. Basically treating them with respect. No offence, but whenever I saw a meltdown, the child in question always had a point. It was the adult who was missing it. What is worse, sometimes the adult was even plain wrong in their position, at least from my point of view.

I hope I don't come across as rude, this is just something I feel very strongly about. Once you see how differently the kids behave if you treat them with respect it is difficult to be quiet about it. :-)
by mannyv | 2025-04-16 20:21:52+00:00
One problem with live and p2p is latency.

What does that mean?

The steps to live are pretty simple on the server side (assuming HLS):

1. Stream to your encoder, ideally at a bitrate higher than the transcoded bitrate.

2. Encode and transcode your video, ideally to 540/720/1080p 30fps. Each resolution will have its own bitrate, so maybe 2/3.5/5.5 respectively. Assume 2 second segments, and a manifest duration of 10 seconds. So you have 5 segments out there at any given time (though there are usually a few more hanging around).

3. Put the 3 newest segments to storage, and rewrite the four manifests with the new segment URLs. (do you need to rewrite the top-level manifest? I believe you do, but I can't remember).

4. Delete the older segment(s) (optional)

So when the client requests the manifest (the m3u8), it'll getch the three sub-manifests (forgot the term) and chose the appropriate resolution. It'll also start loading the segments up. Ideally it would look at the manifest and fetch the latest segment, so it starts nearer to "now."

Then the client will occasionally re-fetch the manifests to get the new segments (the manifest is marked as live; VoD manifests don't require reload). The fetch time probably must be < than the segment duration, which is in the manifest somewhere.

All that takes time. It takes time for the server to encode, time for the encoder to put the file(s), time for the client to fetch the manifests, and time for the client to fetch a video segment.

Looking at the above sequence, a client can be generally 0-10 seconds behind everyone else, depending on how the client behaves. And that's a few seconds behind "live," because receiving, encoding and putting files takes time.

So can you do p2p live? As long as you relax the constraints on what you mean by "live," yes. As you can imagine, the chain of latenty keeps growing longer the more peers a segment goes through. And that segment is only really good for 2 seconds (or up to 10 seconds, if the client is sloppy). If live means "up to 20 seconds since now" then yes, you can definitely do it. The tighter that time window gets the less likely you'll be able to do it. You might be able to do it with a lower bandwidth stream, but even TLS negotiation takes time. Does your client not use TLS? That will save you time.
by ren_engineer | 2025-04-16 20:22:33+00:00
Gwern talked about it when GPT 4.5 came out, a ton of breakthroughs with image and text AI came from anons trying to optimize models for their waifus. That's basically the origin of chat models in general - https://www.reddit.com/r/OpenAI/comments/1izpgct/comment/mf5...