MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by harmmonica | 2025-04-24 21:17:34+00:00
When you say "surpassed" do you specifically mean their models are more capable than OpenAI? I'm pretty sure that's what you mean. If that is what you mean, how do you look at it from a product standpoint?

Sounds like ChatGPT has 10 million (paying?) subscribers across their products. Does Google have an analog subscription service ("AI Premium" sounds like one, but I've heard no publicity about their subs)? If they don't have a direct analog, has Google also surpassed ChatGPT with some kind of productization of their AI offerings? If they have, can someone educate me on what that/those products are? I realize AI is, for better or worse, baked into every Google product.

Maybe there're add-ons in, for instance, GCP for those offerings that companies are leveraging, but just trying to understand if this is another case where Google has actually pulled back ahead tech-wise, but still hasn't figured out how to productize it.

edit: grammar
by xdennis | 2025-04-24 21:17:34+00:00
I often try to test how usable LLMs are for Romanian language processing. This always fails.

> Split these Romanian words into syllables: "șarpe", "șerpi".

All of them say "șar-pe", "șer-pi" even though the "i" there is not a vowel (it's pronounced /ʲ/).
by eli_gottlieb | 2025-04-24 21:17:50+00:00
Oh, it's a good deal worse than that. The NSF actually has a statutory mandate to ask for those Broader Impact sections; Congress would have to pass a law to stop it. So now the people applying for grants need to include, by law, a section that, by policy, will get the grant application returned for editing and "mitigation", while the Administration is also ordering, again without Congressional authority, that one out of every two dollars spent at the NSF be cut.

The NSF doesn't even cost that much money to run. They're doing this counterproductively and, as far as I can tell, for no good reason at all.
by nartho | 2025-04-24 21:18:01+00:00
Claude 3.7 :

I'd be happy to tell you about the Marathon crater. The Marathon crater is a significant impact structure located on Earth. The Marathon crater is situated in Ontario, Canada, and is estimated to be about 450 million years old, dating back to the Ordovician period. It has a diameter of approximately 65 kilometers (40 miles), making it one of the larger impact craters in North America. The crater was formed when a meteorite struck the Earth, causing a massive impact that left behind this distinctive geological formation. Over time, erosion and other geological processes have altered its appearance, but scientists have been able to study its structure through various geological surveys and analyses. What's particularly interesting about the Marathon crater is its size and age, which provide valuable insights into Earth's geological history and past impact events. The study of such craters helps scientists understand the frequency and effects of meteorite impacts throughout our planet's history. Would you like me to elaborate on any specific aspect of the Marathon crater, such as its discovery, geological features, or scientific significance?
by fergonco | 2025-04-24 21:18:43+00:00
> If the surgeon were the father of the man (the one who died), then the cousin couldn’t be his son (unless there's some very unusual family structure going on involving double relationships, which riddles don’t usually intend).

> Therefore, the only straightforward explanation is:

> The surgeon is the cousin’s parent — specifically, his mother.

Imagine a future where this reasoning in a trial decides whether you go to jail or not.
by krick | 2025-04-24 21:18:56+00:00
Technically, it isn't "wrong". It well could be the guy's mother. But I'm nitpicking, it actually is a good example. I tried ChatGPT twice in new chats, with and without "Reason", and both times it gave me nonsensical explanations to "Why mother? Couldn't it be a father?" I was actually kinda surprised, since I expected "reasoning" to fix it, but it actually made things worse.
by mattlondon | 2025-04-24 21:19:23+00:00
> So much potential for the AI transformation and although it is the prime topic for many many people apparently it even hasn't started yet.

Hasn't happened yet you say, but yet they have the best model right now, with rumors about "claybrook" circulating on webdev arena being even better than their already-the-best-in-the-market SOTA model.

If Google have not even started yet, and they're currently way ahead of the pack, then this sounds like a good thing to me.
by fkyoureadthedoc | 2025-04-24 21:19:34+00:00
No I don't think people are saying Biden was the better option. At first, as I recall, people were fairly outraged that they were left with two bad options.

The general tone very quickly shifted to Kamala's brat summer, Kamala is bae type shit.

Even after the fact nobody was questioning Kamala's qualifications. Why, at the 11th hour, were we left with demented grandpa and someone that couldn't win a primary the first time? Whose fault was this? What consequence did they suffer?

The dialogue was mostly around trying to figure out who to blame for people not voting for Kamala. Men? Black dudes? Mexicans? Misogynists? Anyone but whoever was actually responsible for the situation? Idk what it's like now though, I haven't used Reddit in months.
by fragmede | 2025-04-24 21:19:54+00:00
the unaltered question is as follows:

A father and his son are in a car accident. The father dies at the scene and the son is rushed to the hospital. At the hospital the surgeon looks at the boy and says "I can't operate on this boy, he is my son." How can this be?

to spoil it:

the answer is to reveal an unconscious bias based on the outdated notion that women can't be doctors, so the answer that the remaining parent is the mother won't occur to some, showing that consciously they might not still hold that notion, but they still might, subconsciously.
by dzaima | 2025-04-24 21:20:10+00:00
Tail handling is not significant for loops with tons of iterations, but there are a ton of real-world situations where you might have a loop take only like 5 iterations or something (even at like 100 iterations, with a loop processing 8 elements at a time (i.e. 256-bit vectors, 32-bit elements), that's 12 vectorized iterations plus up to 7 scalar ones, which is still quite significant. At 1000 iterations you could still have the scalar tail be a couple percent; and still doubling the L1/uop-cache space the loop takes).

It's absolutely a significant contributor to code size (..in scenarios where vectorized code in general is a significant contributor to code size, which admittedly is only very-specialized software).
by bsder | 2025-04-24 21:20:26+00:00
1) Because Apple never had any volumes even remotely large enough to move the needle.

The Commodore 64 moved way more units than anything Apple ever did until the iPod and the PC dwarfed even the stuff Commodore did. Apple doesn't even move a half-million laptops in a year today. Everybody caters to Apple's low-volume stuff solely in the hope of getting access to the iPhone volumes.

China's current "supply chain expertise" is a result of massive, long-term support from the Chinese government. And I say that with envy! There is nothing in particular stopping that from being formed here in the US other than that long-term support. We have all the pieces, but nobody is going to take the risk to expand significantly beyond their current demand without guarantees from the government (and that's just smart business).

2) Because nobody in the US wants to manufacture

Everybody in the US wants to be "fabless" because that optimizes profit. The problem is that somebody has to do actual manufacturing, at some point. As we found out with Covid, "fabless" translates to "last in the queue" when things go wrong.

Nobody in the US wants to do the capital outlay and risk to do physical manufacturing. See: the current grief with Intel or the Chinese-owned steel mills in the UK. By contrast, if those were Chinese companies, the Chinese government would be pouring money into them as they would regard them as a strategic asset.
by hayst4ck | 2025-04-24 21:20:51+00:00
It is a liberal value/value that curious people hold to take people they disagree with in good faith and treat what they say as true/treat it as if they honestly believe what they are saying.

Unfortunately, once someone proves themselves to be bad faith there is a responsibility to no longer do that.

Unfortunately, doing that directly results in conflict and the possibility of losing, which explains the general state of reality -- "the good guys" avoiding necessary conflict.
by pvtmert | 2025-04-24 21:21:17+00:00
This is true in mid-sized startups. I actually witnessed it three times during my _short_ period of experience (7 years of different startup contracts) with different startups.

Firstly, it does not have to be immediate or deliberate. The cycle happens approximately through period of 6-months. The followers per-se does not have to actually _follow_ or loyal to the main person. The said main person is generally the CTO or an engineering manager.

Essentially, one way or another, the company needs to hire a CTO to fill their technical gaps and propel their growth. The company looks for an experienced and preferably startup experience in a certain field. There are already very limited number of folks satisfying these conditions. In which, mostly will already be working somewhere.

From the available ones, company hires 1 person, the CTO. CTO identifies several gaps in tech stack and hires couple of _senior_ folks, with of course, recommendations/references. (now called staff engineers mostly, as the seniority sort of lowered at the 5-6 years mark).

After couple of months later, the senior folks hire couple of mid-level folks because there are too much work to do. Since the senior engineers were busy both with design _and_ the implementation, they need to focus more on the design and make big-picture decisions, cannot be bothered with bug-fixes anymore. Therefore, they need some mid-level engineers to cleanup things and keep the lights on...

After 6 to 9 months period, the newly hired folks become 7 or greater in the numbers. As now they are the majority in the organization's technical hierarchy, they can easily push-out _older_ members which are not part of their circle and let more folks from their circle in.

As you guessed, this is a pyramid scheme in employment, as the lower level folks look up to people who hired them (created a position/opening).

Even if the actual scheme is not intended initially, usually this is what happens. It doesn't even have to be a grand plan to take-over, the unconscious biases and past relationships always prevail, causing the same cycle to repeat.

Also another perspective is the people whose boss (CTO) has just left. These folks also leave over time not just they blindly follow their CTO or loyal to them, but because the _new_ CTO changes how things work, maybe a new tech stack people are not familiar with. In turn, it stagnates peoples' carreers, causes confusion and even takes them one step back. (i.e. An engineer on a promotion path now has to re-prove their skills to a new manager/CTO)

I think for all the cases, I did not find this approach useful in the business sense. Because in all cases, it took the startup at least a year to adapt into a new CTO and the tech stack. As the new CTO always assures X is better than Y, all the problems are there because Y is older, and X is the new paradigm. Just to be replaced by Z when the next CTO arrives after several years...

So the moral of the story is, people don't need to be loyal, the incentives make them so.
by jones1618 | 2025-04-24 21:21:33+00:00
Impossible prompts:

A black doctor treating a white female patient

An wide shot of a train on a horizontal track running left to right on a flat plain.

I heard about the first when AI image generators were new as proof that the datasets have strong racial biases. I'd assumed a year later updated models were better but, no.

I stumbled on the train prompt while just trying to generate a basic "stock photo" shot of a train. No matter what ML I tried or variations of the prompt I tried, I could not get a train on a horizontal track. You get perspective shots of trains (sometimes two) going toward or away from the camera but never straight across, left to right.
by AutistiCoder | 2025-04-24 21:21:35+00:00
I got ADHD so here's the short and sweet as explained to me by (ironically) ChatGPT:

they essentially subjected various LLMs including GPT and DeepSeek-R1 to the prisoner's dilemma and changed the circumstances to see if those models would adapt, or would stick to using an existing solution.

the LLMs adapted.

Notably, these LLMs aren't actually programmed to do that, making this adaptability most impressive.
by briannotbrain | 2025-04-24 21:21:51+00:00
The original, well-known version of the riddle starts "A man and his son..." so that it appears to present a paradox if your instinctive assumption is that the surgeon must be a man. The op's prompt alters this so that there is no potential paradox, and it tests whether the model is reasoning from the prompt as written, regardless of the presence of the original riddle in its training data.
by globular-toast | 2025-04-24 21:21:53+00:00
Yes, I was taught to do it staggered, but I think this was dying out at the time and I believe that by the time I wrote any letters of my own I didn't do the staggering. My theory is it's because of the prevalence of printed labels. I haven't seen it for a long time now.

Now that I'm reminiscing a bit, it was also fairly common at the time for people to order a batch of sender labels that they could affix to the envelope. My grandparents had particularly distinctive golden metallic labels which meant you could instantly tell who it was from (if you didn't already recognise the handwriting).
by zamalek | 2025-04-24 21:23:26+00:00
Not even microblogging, jut blogging in general. ActivityPub could be a replacement for RSS readers. I consider a platform that allows you to mix microblogs, blogs, podcasts, videos, and livestreams/events the "endgame" - all of which can be done with ActivityPub (albeit with different projects today). Unfortunately this is not the type of project that I would find interesting at all to write.
by drodgers | 2025-04-24 21:23:49+00:00
o3 handles this perfectly by writing a solver using numpy: https://chatgpt.com/share/680aab8e-cf9c-8012-9f48-301ef62948...

The polynomial has no closed-form factorisation, so the only practical way to get its zeros is numerical root-finding. I have supplied an interactive table (“Zeros of P(z)”) just above that lists all 100 roots to full machine precision (real part, imaginary part, and magnitude). You can sort or filter it as needed. Reliability notes • Computed with numpy.roots, which first companion-matrixes then uses QR; typical error is ≈10-12 ulp for coefficients of this size. • Condition number is modest (coefficients range from O(1) down to 1/97!), so the results should be accurate to at least 10 significant figures. • All roots are simple (pairwise distinct to >10 σ): no evidence of multiplicities. If you need higher precision (e.g. 30+ digits) let me know and I can rerun the solve with mpmath’s arbitrary-precision eigen-solver.
by selkin | 2025-04-24 21:23:56+00:00
This review is as naive as Wynn-Williams portrays herself in her memoir (which I enjoyed!)

In the book, Wynn-Williams described herself as a wide-eyed, almost helpless person, which doesn't align with her pre-Facebook career as a lawyer in the a diplomatic corps. And when at FB, she was in the rooms where it happened, and had a job enabling some of it. She could've quit, but did not.

She was one of the titular careless people at the time, and excuses it now by pointing at others who were even more careless. It's not atonement, it's whitewashing.
by nickff | 2025-04-24 21:26:07+00:00
The US auto industry got hurt because the 'big three' operated like an oligopoly, with the United Auto Workers (UAW) acting as the coordinating organization (and reaping most of the 'monopoly rents'). The Japanese were able to disrupt the oligopoly because they weren't beholden to the UAW; many studies were done, and some found that the American companies' costs were simply higher than the Japanese's (due to both direct labor costs, and other costs related to their CBA), so the Japanese could either make cheaper cars, or higher quality cars for the same price as the big three.
by DyslexicAtheist | 2025-04-24 21:26:19+00:00
>> people who kept posting as if nothing changed typically were extremely low-value posters

absolutely not, ... these were (and are) always there. instead it was Facebook management decisions choosing to amplify exactly this. Let's not blame a minority of (misguided) content creators for the shortcomings of Zuck and his sycophant senior managers.
by const_cast | 2025-04-24 21:26:41+00:00
In Zuck's defense, it's not just him, it's the entire American school of business.

They never learn. GM, GE, RCA, you name it. They always want to make more money now now NOW. They don't understand they're taking on a metaphorical loan. They don't understand the interest they have to pay.

It's the ultimate greedy algorithm. Just make the decision that makes the most money right now, every time, over and over and over again. Don't look at anything else.
by minimaxir | 2025-04-24 21:27:54+00:00
As usual for AI startups nowadays, using this API you can create a downstream wrapper for image generation with bespoke prompts.

A pro/con of the multimodal image generation approach (with an actually good text encoder) is that it rewards intense prompt engineering moreso than others, and if there is a use case that can generate more than $0.17/image in revenue, that's positive marginal profit.
by armedin | 2025-04-24 21:27:55+00:00
Shoot, I forgot to add the FAQ section. Thank you! The components are built with Framer Motion and MUI (just for the sx prop). You will have access to the raw code, github repo and the npm package. If the component needs to be modified heavily, you can use the raw code. There's still more work that needs to be done to handle the full customisation via the npm package. I didn't use tailwind strictly because existing solutions all tend to use tailwind and shadcn, leaving other developers who don't use tailwind with not many options.
by giancarlostoro | 2025-04-24 21:29:01+00:00
> the only issue "redoing" the request is that people at the old address can block it, so be sure to talk to them first.

That's so strange, especially when you consider that for legal purposes, if you receive mail at someone's home, you are now a "resident" and it is harder for police to kick you out. Why would anyone willingly want your mail to come to your address.
by xnx | 2025-04-24 21:29:25+00:00
> how do you look at it from a product standpoint?

From what I can tell, (I don't use ChatGPT) Google has every feature OpenAI has, and then a lot more included in other Google products.

Google may not have as many distinct paying AI customers because they get it for free (e.g. college students) or as part of another subscription.
by johnea | 2025-04-24 21:29:54+00:00
This was such a laugh!

I have to wonder if the whole exercise was a prime example of a brit "taking the piss" 8-)

> the US, Canada, and a few other countries don’t follow the standard international paper sizes, even though I had written about it earlier

I literally laughed out loud at this 8-)

And the outrageous expectation of obtaining... stamps!

It was just too funny.

For unfamiliar muricans: The success, according to british cultural standards, in the humiliation of the intended victim is increased, when the victim replies while being completely unaware that they are actually being mocked.
by gruez | 2025-04-24 21:30:20+00:00
>What's the conflict? I can call something reckless without the recklessness itself making me particularly opposed to it.

see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chekhov's_gun

If you start off a sentence with "Some cracks started to form in this when", and then describe a situation using negative adjectives (ie. "reckless"), it's fair for most assume that the "recklessness" was your justification for the aforementioned claim. If that detail is irrelevant to your argument, then you shouldn't include it.

As for the object level question of whether taking such a bet is "reckless" at all. It's entirely impossible to tell without knowing the bet amount, and his finances at the time. Musk was recently able to take a $40B hit to his finances when he was forced to buy twitter (after trying to back out), with seemingly little consequence, so it's unclear whether an absurdly large bet would actually be "reckless".

>Also it's not just that he didn't share the reward, it's that he forced a whole lot of extra difficult work and then also didn't share the reward.

Bosses telling non-equity owning subordinates to work harder is hardly a phenomenon limited to Musk.
by somerandomqaguy | 2025-04-24 21:30:57+00:00
Trying to dig your keys out of your pockets when it's extremely cold and having mittens on is not fun. Double the fun if it's night time, because the sun sets at 4:30 on those kinds of days.

Also it not being possible to lock yourself out of your car is neat.

It's not a must have but it's really nice.

Source: Canada
by daft_pink | 2025-04-24 21:31:20+00:00
I understand they have previously done that though before almost exclusively to non us persons for actions taken outside our borders. But I’m shocked this question doesn’t seem to be litigated as it seems blatantly wrong that they could do this to any documented or undocumented us resident living within our borders and even more of a stretch for Venezuelan citizens living within our country undocumented to be deported to their non home country.
by awkwabear | 2025-04-24 21:32:10+00:00
This definitely happens on other platforms as well but there is a key difference in noting that twitter is now privately owned by a single person who has shown themself to be insecure and prone to lashing publicly at critics.

I think twitter is uniquely concentrated in its influence by its owner and willingness to do things so blatantly, other platforms need to at least pretend to not steer things so directly as not to upset shareholders.
by philipkglass | 2025-04-24 21:32:56+00:00
Llama 3.3 worked but (as you said) struggled before arriving at the correct answer. The newer Gemma3 solved it efficiently:

% ollama run gemma3:27b-it-qat >>> Unscramble the following letters to form an English word: "M O O N S T A R E R" The unscrambled word is **ASTRONOMER**.
by jchw | 2025-04-24 21:33:27+00:00
Maybe those two issues are connected, though. For some jobs, it seems like people cheating job applications and interviews with LLMs are making it hard for companies to actually fill jobs even when there are tons of applicants. In other cases, it may just be that the wages the employers are willing to pay doesn't overlap with the wages the prospective employees are willing to work for. I suspect it's partially both.

Right now, the unemployment rate seems to be relatively low, despite people reporting widespread difficulty applying to jobs. Not 100% sure what this suggests. I think we can reasonably conclude the application process for software developers in particular is hopelessly broken. (Or at least, moreso than it was before.)
by hnuser123456 | 2025-04-24 21:33:30+00:00
The surgeon could be the cousin's mom or dad. The cousin's dad didn't die in the crash, his cousin did. The question "how is this possible?" implies there is some sort of contradiction when there isn't any at all. It has nothing to do with sexism, and to say it does reflects a bias in the reader causing them to "spidey sense" a cultural bugaboo when it's utterly irrelevant in this scenario.
by nonrandomstring | 2025-04-24 21:33:55+00:00
You total chaos machine!

Give a wrong time. Stop a traffic line!

I've mentioned it too often and sound like a stuck record, but Jaroslav Hasek's Svejk has it perfected [0]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Good_Soldier_%C5%A0vejk 11;rgb:0000/0000/0000