MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by AbstractH24 | 2025-04-06 17:44:14+00:00
The AI/semiconductor trade has popped, but I don’t think tech companies basing their business model on it has.

What I think you are suggesting is that it’s possible for companies to move on from AI hype without a dotcom-level correction. More akin to the way the metaverse and NFTs did. And maybe you aren’t wrong.

I was a pre-teen in 2000, so while I remember the hype, froth and general ridiculousness of the late 1990s (was just explaining Priceline for groceries to someone yesterday), I don’t remember the particulars of how big it got or quickly it ended.

As a product with use cases AI seems more comparable to the internet than the metaverse and NFTs though.
by raincom | 2025-04-06 17:44:53+00:00
If the USD ceases being the reserve currency, inflation goes up. Fed's neutral rate of interest 2% = the floor of inflation rate. For the third world countries, the natural interest rate = Fed's interest rate (or American inflation rate) + the local inflation rate. That's why third world countries pay more interest rate s in their own currencies; that's why they want to borrow in USD.
by zzzeek | 2025-04-06 17:44:58+00:00
so if Simone.org here paid someone to help build this website of theirs, where the posts ends with "Sign up for Kōdō Simone" and a short blurb why the blog is valuable, that would be illegal, right? Because they paid someone to create an advertisement. This post claims that "community networks" are fine but where is the line between that and a paid advertisement - if I paid someone to print my business cards vs. paid them to put the card on a board? or to put up flyers around town for my band? "advertisement" is so vague I just dont understand this proposal.
by wrs | 2025-04-06 17:45:03+00:00
The equalization thing may be theoretically true, but in a cumulative 25 years of managing at big companies, I’ve never seen anyone get equalized down, just get slower raises. You’re definitely better off getting overpaid at the beginning. If the offer is 25% high, it might take five years to equalize. And the present-value premium of money isn’t zero anymore!
by Spooky23 | 2025-04-06 17:45:24+00:00
If you’re Tesla, the answer is going to treat it as a driver assistance tech… turn off the automatic feature and throw an alarm. Hopefully the driver has time to reorient, if not, his problem.

If you’re Waymo, you’ve built in a higher standard of sensor and diagnostics, at the expense of the aesthetic.

That’s always been the issue with Tesla… they push 99% solutions for 99.99% problems.
by nyrikki | 2025-04-06 17:46:32+00:00
There are multiple aspects and opportunities/limits to the problem.

The real history on this is that people are copying OpenAi.

OpenAI supported MQTTish over HTTP, through the typical WebSockets or SSE, targeting a simple chat interface. As WebSockets can be challenging, the unidirectional SSE is the lowest common denominator.

If we could use MQTT over TCP as an example, some of this post could be improved, by giving the client control over the topic subscription, one could isolate and protect individual functions and reduce the attack surface. But it would be at risk of becoming yet another enterprise service bus mess.

Other aspects simply cannot be mitigated with a natural language UI.

Remember that dudle to Rice's theorm, any non-trivial symantic property is undecidable, and will finite compute that extends to partial and total functions.

Static typing, structured programming, rust style borrow checkers etc.. can all just be viewed as ways to encode limited portions of symantic properties as syntactic properties.

Without major world changing discoveries in math and logic that will never change in the general case.

ML is still just computation in the end and it has the same limits of computation.

Whitelists, sandboxes, etc.. are going to be required.

The open domain frame problem is the halting problem, and thus expecting universal general access in a safe way is exactly equivalent to solving HALT.

Assuming that the worse than coinflip scratch space results from Anthropomorphic aren't a limit, LLM+CoT has a max representative power of P with a poly size scratch space.

With the equivalence: NL=FO(LFP)=SO(Krom)

I would be looking at that SO ∀∃∀∃∀∃... to ∀∃ in prefix form for building a robust, if imperfect reduction.

But yes, several of the agenic hopes are long shots.

Even Russel and Norvig stuck to the rational actor model which is unrealistic for both humans and PAC Learning.

We have a good chance of finding restricted domains where it works, but generalized solutions is exactly where Rice, Gödel etc... come into play.
by fuzzfactor | 2025-04-06 17:47:19+00:00
The Beach Boys said it well in the early 1960's;

"Well I saved my pennies and I saved my dimes

For I knew there would be a time

When I would buy a brand new 409."

Not just any Chevy that was more commonly within reach for a teenager, but a "4-speed dual quad positraction 409" that you really had to save every penny you could get for years:

https://davidsclassiccars.com/chevrolet/529110-1962-impala-s...

How are today's teenagers supposed to get the idea that they will ever be able to actually afford the cheapest new Chevy that's made now, or drive anything at all after gasoline, taxes, maintenance, insurance and stuff have risen as bad or worse than the cost of the car itself?

At least until after college and see what kind of car loan might not be unthinkable any more, but only once they have gotten lucky enough to land a professional position with well above-average pay, which are only going to become harder to come by over the next few years.
by pjdesno | 2025-04-06 17:48:17+00:00
Navarro is still a professor emeritus at UC Irvine.

That's just an honorary title, and at most places can be revoked for sufficient damage to the university's reputation. This would seem to be the case, especially because at least one of the books with the fake economics expert seems to have been written while he was still an active faculty member there.

His association with Irvine has been mentioned on national news, and although folks in academia may not realize that the general public thinks "professor emeritus" means he's still associated with the university, they're going to learn really quickly. Plus the "fake expert" thing is just so embarrassingly stupid...
by gjsman-1000 | 2025-04-06 17:48:27+00:00
Outside of Hacker News or niche companies still supporting IE, progressive enhancement is completely dead.

Even for my own projects, I don’t care anymore; there’s a warning to turn it on with a <noscript> tag, and the whole page is otherwise hidden.

HN had the eulogy (with some kicking and screaming that it was premature) back in 2013. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6316516
by drzaiusx11 | 2025-04-06 17:48:41+00:00
i have many personal connections to my remote colleagues, but i don’t see how that’s required or relevant for going beyond “transactional” work. i could be off base, but i think you mean working the minimum that is required for getting “the job done”. depending on your intended work life balance, this may or may not be a desirable outcome. obviously employers want more, but that doesn’t mean they’re entitled to it. most things in life are transactional, at least from my experience. ymmv
by gnabgib | 2025-04-06 17:49:21+00:00
Discussion (33 points, 21 hours ago, 24 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43596641

Related Meet Bex, Kawasaki's Rideable Robot Goat (2022) (39 points, 4 months ago, 24 comments) https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42454994
by otterley | 2025-04-06 17:49:33+00:00
Hence my use of the word “most.”

Investors do hold some cash, but they generally prefer not to hold a lot of it because inflation reduces its value. $44B sounds like a lot of money, and it is, but it’s only around 8% of the $632B of assets they hold. (Not sure where you got your much bigger figure; mine is from their consolidated balance sheet reported in their 10-K report for Dec 31, 2024.)
by luckylion | 2025-04-06 17:49:40+00:00
I assume that airplanes would have to offer much more value for that to be accepted, but they are mostly a luxury while cars are a necessity - life as we know it in much of the Western world would come to a screeching halt without cars, but it continues mostly unchanged without planes.

I don't think I agree that workplace accidents are that different. It's not primarily the workers who die who benefit from those machines that kill them - I'd say the workers _are_ someone else.

It's just that we've gotten used to that, and we feel like the number is steady and low enough that it's easily outweighed by the gigantic benefits we get from industrialization. My assumption is that it's the same way for cars and car-related deaths, but we haven't extended it to self-driving cars yet.

Individually, everybody sees the benefit, but once integration of FSD hits the commercial side and consumer prices are being reduced as a direct consequence, deaths become work-place accidents. Like a truck with a human driver killing an "innocent" pedestrian - it's accepted because we really want the trucks.
by twalkz | 2025-04-06 17:49:46+00:00
> It notes that interactions with enemies need to be improved, since they will often appear fuzzy, and that because its current context length is 0.9 seconds of gameplay (9 frames at 10fps), it will forget about objects that go out of view for longer than this.

Checking out the actual video in the tweet was more impressive than this description setup for me. Definitely more “tech demo” than “game”, but pretty impressive.

Side note —- what an irritating way to put an article together: - Don’t actually embed the tweet in question that contains the demo video, or even mention there’s a video - Focus on a few negative replies to the tweet from random people - The biggest piece of media on the page is a screenshot of a tweet from Tim Sweeney without any context of who he is, or that it’s a reply to the tech demo…

But I guess I clicked on the link, read the article, and gave a bunch of ad impressions, so I’m part of the problem!

Link to video of demo: https://x.com/geoffkeighley/status/1908593030141202635?s=46&...

Link to the demo to try yourself: https://copilot.microsoft.com/wham?features=labs-wham-enable...
by stephc_int13 | 2025-04-06 17:49:58+00:00
I fully agree on this.

Computer Vision has turned out to be a very tough nut to crack and that should have been visible from anyone doing serious work in the field since at least 15 years ago.

In any case, any safety critical system should be build with redundancy in mind, with several sub systems working independently.

Using more and better sensors is only a problem when building a cost sensitive system, not a safety critical one, and very often those sensors are expensive because they are niche, that can be mediated with mass scale.
by sudosysgen | 2025-04-06 17:50:22+00:00
Human eyes are in many ways far superior to reasonably priced vision sensors. This isn't giving humans superhuman vision, it's changing the tradeoffs human vision has (without changing the cognitive process that it coevolved with to begin, and which is the most important part of why we get into accidents).

There is no affordable vision system that's as good as human vision in key situations. LiDAR+vision is the only way to actually get superhuman vision. The issue isn't the choice of vision system, it's to choose vision itself, and besides the lesson from the human sensory system is to have sensors that go well with your processing system, which again would mean LiDAR.

If humans could integrate a LiDAR-like system where we could be warned of approaching objects from any angle and accurately gauge the speed and distance of multiple objects simultaneously, we would surely be better drivers.
by SoftTalker | 2025-04-06 17:50:42+00:00
At around age 12 took an after school class in programming BASIC on TRS-80 computers. My dad let me use his dial up account at the university where he worked. 300 baud with an acoustic coupler modem and an ADM 3a terminal (one of the first “work from home” setups; certainly none of my friends had anything like that at their houses). Found the colossal cave game and started digging in to how it was programmed.

Later in early high school used paper route money to buy a TI-99/4a. Learned more BASIC and then assembly language on that.
by bumby | 2025-04-06 17:51:07+00:00
It almost belies a need for some sort of standardized testing as well. Self-reporting seems like a weak point that can be gamed.

To your point about luddites, that’s why I think it’s erroneous to use “as good as a human” as the metric. It will need to be much better than a human but those people reluctantly trust it enough to hand over control.
by rybosome | 2025-04-06 17:51:27+00:00
That’s the intention with developer messages from o1. It’s trained on a 3-tier system of messages.

1) system, messages from the model creator that must always be obeyed 2) dev, messages from programmers that must be obeyed unless the conflict with #1 3) user, messages from users that are only to be obeyed if they don’t contradict #1 or #2

Then, the model is trained heavily on adversarial scenarios with conflicting instructions, such that it is intended to develop a resistance to this sort of thing as long as your developer message is thorough enough.

This is a start, but it’s certainly not deterministic or reliable enough for something with a serious security risk.

The biggest problems being that even with training, I’d expect dev messages to be disobeyed some fraction of the time. And it requires an ironclad dev message in the first place.
by UncleEntity | 2025-04-06 17:51:30+00:00
I'm guessing they changed the laws?

I remember being, like, "WTF" when I had to present a vaccination card to attend community college back in '92. Luckily I was just out of the army and had been vaccinated to pretty much everything known to mankind as part of the US's rapid deployment force (aka, the 82nd Airborne) so it wasn't an issue.

Don't even get me started on being forced to be vaccinated for smallpox a second time as an adult... not quite as bad as the Black Death vaccine but it definitely sucked.
by Spooky23 | 2025-04-06 17:51:50+00:00
Blaming the degree is the Trump narrative for damage control that Elon is floating. Navarro is the candidate for scapegoat. This is a dude who went to jail for Trump’s coup by the way — now he’s gonna be the poster child for woke ivory tower academia.

Tariffs as a tool to pivot towards an export focused economy isn’t a bad thing necessarily. But tools only help build things with a plan to guide them. Cooking up some formula with ChatGPT, printing a chart and taking a sweeping action is just dumb. It’s bad policy, bad implementation, bad leadership.

A smart leader would approach Canada and say “your tariffs and subsidy of onions are hurting our farmers”. A tariff is a tool that could neutralize that issue. The problem is, you need a smart leader and articulated vision.
by DisjointedHunt | 2025-04-06 17:52:11+00:00
The whole point of the Senate testimony from the DNI was that Signal was an approved application that comes pre installed on Government issued devices - and yes indeed, for secure comms.

Even Teams flags external participants to a chat. How was a phone number not known to be within the government perimeter allowed to be added with no alarm to a chat thread in an app pre installed and approved by the agency ?

There are more questions than answers here and its clearly suspicious to say the least that a prominent threat vector such as a mistaken phone number could go unnoticed and not trip a single flag. We're not talking about compromised sim cards or anything, a simple fat finger could expose a secure messaging app thread to an external participant and this is approved by the department for years? How many "Mistakes" over the years have gone unreported ?

Waltz or anyone on that thread isn't responsible for IT, so who ultimately didn't secure this vector?
by Brian_K_White | 2025-04-06 17:52:15+00:00
You can't use an appeal to tradition as the argument for revision.

I don't see why anyone should care that publishers have edited in the past anyway, even in this particular discussion where my own argument is for conservation. Publishers have done all kinds of things that this very project itself criticises and pointedly set themselves apart by doing differently. So, it's a weak argument for them.

Aside from that, what any other publishers do, even if it's totally common and even universal, doesn't change the argument that they were making that they wish to suggest that those edits cross a line that fixing typos doesn't cross.
by const_cast | 2025-04-06 17:52:39+00:00
> But at some point a line is crossed: Painting “Read the New York Times” on the side of a barn you own is bread & butter freedom of expression.

Okay, then don't make that illegal.

I don't understand this mentality of "everything is the same as everything else so we can't do anything".

Sure, it's all just scale. But scale matters. Scale is why I can do a science experiment at home and it's cool, but I can't make a nuclear warhead. Seems for just about everything we've been able to find that line and work around it. This "we've tried nothing and we're all out of ideas" approach to society is toxic, and we need to stop.
by idiotsecant | 2025-04-06 17:53:09+00:00
The more distance along your 4th dimension you allow, the more strange geometric effects you will observe. If you let a 4th dimension be very, very, very small (imagine a 2d universe that actually has a third dimension, it's just subatomic in scale) the geometric effects are negligible.A 3d volume can exist in that 2d + 1 tiny dimension, in the technical sense, but not in any macroscopic sense. Your 3rd dimension curls around to where it started nearly immediately.
by JumpCrisscross | 2025-04-06 17:53:29+00:00
> modern economics that has got us into an exponential multi-deca-trillion dollar debt

Are you referring to MMT [1]?

Because it’s not mainstream economics. And it never said you can run deficits without consequence, just that inflation is the limiting result. Which is technically true. But practically useless given the short-term interests of politicians.

Mainstream economics has cautioned against the national debt for decades. Idiots got pitched that economists don’t know what they’re talking about, meanwhile, and so that advice was ignored. Now we’ve gone full circle to blaming the field for the outcome it predicted.

[1] https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Modern_monetary_theory
by patcon | 2025-04-06 17:53:36+00:00
Agreed. Yes, a bit roundabout, but it's pretty wild that we live in a spot in the universe where the distance we need to travel to "confirm plausibility" of a "deep truth of the universe we just heard about" is just to type a few glyphs into a magic box and decide if the person speaking the purported truth has a reputation in the relevant human thought-stuffs.

The world we live in is crazy. To know such a thing so easily at an earlier time, would be unfathomable :)
by af78 | 2025-04-06 17:53:42+00:00
From https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peter_Navarro#Views:

> Navarro's views on trade are considered outside the mainstream of economic thought. ... According to Politico, Navarro's economic theories are "considered fringe" by his fellow economists. A New Yorker reporter described Navarro's views on trade and China as so radical "that, even with his assistance, I was unable to find another economist who fully agrees with them."

> According to Lee Branstetter, economics professor at Carnegie Mellon University and trade expert with the Peterson Institute for International Economics, Navarro "was never a part of the group of economists who ever studied the global free-trade system... He doesn't publish in journals. What he's writing and saying right now has nothing to do with what he got his Harvard Ph.D. in... He doesn't do research that would meet the scientific standards of that community." Marcus Noland, an economist at the Peterson Institute for International Economics, described a tax and trade paper written by Navarro and Wilbur Ross for Trump as "a complete misunderstanding of international trade, on their part."
Creative AIML Datasets
by profsummergig | 2025-04-06 17:53:44+00:00
I just read about how, to train AIML to do sentiment analysis, some projects use Amazon reviews for data.

See, every Amazon review has to be accompanied by a star rating. if the star rating is poor, then the accompanying text is likely to be negative. And vice versa.

Blew my mind.

It's totally self-contained. No need to hire humans in Kenya or India to rate a piece of text to determine and label its sentiment.

I thought this was a highly creative way to approach the "data problem".

I want to learn more about such creative solutions to the "data problem".

Please share what you know about such creative solutions (or your ideas on creative solutions to the "data problem") on this page so we can have a resource to reference.

Thank you.
by xorcist | 2025-04-06 17:54:09+00:00
> Wait until you realize that the EU tariff on American cars has been 4x the US tariff in EU cars for awhile.

That's a simplification beyond what's truthful. Import taxes are different on different types of cars, both in the EU and the US. There's certainly some type of car where the above is true, maybe some type of gas guzzling pickup truck or something, but over the total amount of sold cars it is not. Trade-weighted differences simply aren't that great, which is not a coincidence because a) both the US and the EU are developed economies which are likely to benefit from free trade, b) taxation works in nudging the market what to buy which evens out the differences further, and c) we have had trade agreements where this was an explicit goal.
by jsnell | 2025-04-06 17:54:20+00:00
All of your pro-tariff points are ludicrous in the context of what actually happened, and do not reflect reality.

This is not some negotiation tactic. We know it's not a negotiation tactic, because: there are no stated goals for negotiations; there has been no attempt at negotiating; it would be impossible to negotiate with this many other countries at the same time; each target country feels only a little pain from the tariffs, US feels all of it, so US actually has the least leverage in any hypothetical negotiations. If this was about getting leverage for negotiations, it would be the stupidest imaginable way to go about it.

Tariffs would also be a very peculiar way of trying to do currency manipulation, because the first order effects will have the opposite direction of what you suggest. Import tariffs to reduce imports, which decreases the supply of the currency, which means the currency will appreciate. The USD weakening in response to these tariffs is more about second order effects around political risk (they demonstrate that not only is the leadership unstable and incompetent, but it also has near-dictatorial powers with no functioning checks and balances remaining). This makes US assets less appealing, especially for foreigners, who seriously need to start pricing in the risk of asset seizures. This leads to capital outflows, weakening the currency. If you just wanted those second order effects, there would be much more direct and less damaging ways of achieving it.

Your third point is just utterly irrelevant, because the tariffs do not further that goal. It's like saying that another goal is to turn the moon into cheese.

And as for China, that explanation would have made sense if the tariffs were applied only on China. But they weren't. Clearly that was not the actual goal. In fact, by announcing tariffs on the entire world, your leadership achieved the opposite of driving the rest of the world to cooperate more with China. (See the accelerated talks of a free trade agreement between China, Japan and Korea.)

And these were the best talking points you could find to defend the tariffs?