MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by troyvit | 2025-04-17 19:45:26+00:00
Nuclear families became popular long after our species was considered homo sapiens, and even today they aren't the norm for most of our species, so I don't understand what you mean when you say the ship has sailed.

I'm all for systemic changes, but lets make them more real than a national firewall, which is only treating a symptom, and instead focus on how we can make raising kids economically and socially feasible again.

I never said we should "push" responsibility on "every single person that interacts with kids," however, it wouldn't hurt if families would actually "take" a little responsibility in it. If we had UBI it would be a lot simpler for them to do so, but I'm guessing that's not on many peoples' list of systemic changes.
by ceejayoz | 2025-04-17 19:46:28+00:00
> We can always take the phone away.

Kids are… resourceful.

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/teen-goes-viral-for-tweeting-fr...

Last week, a 15-year-old girl named Dorothy looked at the smart fridge in her kitchen and decided to try and talk to it: "I do not know if this is going to tweet I am talking to my fridge what the heck my Mom confiscated all of my electronics again." Sure enough, it worked. The message Dorothy said out loud to her fridge was tweeted out by her Twitter account.

(And before that, she used her DS, her Wii, and a cousin's old iPod. There's always a friend's house, too.)
by cultofmetatron | 2025-04-17 19:46:39+00:00
I Wouldnt be surprise if this story ends up getting flagged for being "too political."

as a minority who was born in this country, I've had plenty of people tell me not to worry because I'm a citizen. These kinds of things are going to happen more and more because there is a bureaucracy being created to enable this. I've had way too many conversations when he first started talking about this stuff. He was

1. "only going after violent criminals"

2. "only going after criminals"

3. "anyone here 'illegally' is. criminal"

Now we have a hot mic about where he talks about sending out "home growns" to Auschwitz 2.0 down in el salvador.

I'll say it bluntly... I'm scared.

I'm personally waiting to get my passport renewed and then I'm bouncing out of here. The writing is on the wall. Its not safe here in America.
by nancyminusone | 2025-04-17 19:46:58+00:00
At my college, someone got kicked out for yikyacking "gonna shoot all black people a smile tomorrow" and everyone quickly realized exactly how anonymous it really was after the guy was found a few hours later.

Thing is, there was a comma between "people" and "a smile" which made his poorly thought out joke read a lot differently. Dumb way to throw away your education.
by krackers | 2025-04-17 19:47:07+00:00
Just saying "draw a black box" is not sufficient, you need to know the implementation details. If the software saves in a layer-based format, that's no good. If there is alpha channel then it's no good. If there is pre-existing compression artifacts that can leak information. You basically need to know that it does the dumbest thing possible when editing the image. I guess mspaint is probably the best option.
by tantalor | 2025-04-17 19:47:15+00:00
If you force a reload before the rollout is complete, the user will still experience skew, because you haven't finished the rollout. The website will be completely unusable for a significant fraction of users. You might as well turn off the website during the rollout. This is the main concern of skew - how to keep the website usable at all times for all users across versions.

If your rollout times are very short then skew is not a big concern for you, because it will impact very few users. If it lasts hours, then you have to solve it.

After the rollout is complete, then reload is fine. It's a bit user hostile but they will reload into a usable state.
by punkpeye | 2025-04-17 19:48:01+00:00
It is not without rate limits, but we do have elevated limits for our accounts through:

https://glama.ai/models/gemini-2.5-flash-preview-04-17

So if you just want to run evals, that should do it.

Though the first couple of days after a model comes out are usually pretty rough because everyone try to run their evals.
by InsomniacL | 2025-04-17 19:48:15+00:00
> It was argued that this approach allows Google to charge higher prices to advertisers while sending less revenue to publishers such as news websites.

It could depend on how they 'limit the number of bidders'. If they sell seats to be able to bid, then the bids are lower to account for that, and publishers get a share of the bid, not the fee bidders pay. I'm guessing though...
by sksxihve | 2025-04-17 19:48:15+00:00
> The initial funding will be $10 billion, followed by the remaining $30 billion by the end of 2025, the person said. But the round comes with a caveat. SoftBank said in an updated disclosure on Monday that its total investment could be slashed to as low as $20 billion if OpenAI doesn’t restructure into a for-profit entity by Dec. 31.

They might not even get the full $40 billion
by ProjectArcturis | 2025-04-17 19:48:42+00:00
I'm not trying to convince you that illegal immigrants shouldn't be deported. What I would like to convince you is that any time the government takes action against a person, the government should have to prove their case in open court, and the person should have a fair chance to defend themselves.

Is this particular person MS-13? Did he have a legal right to be here? You don't know. None of us do, not for sure.

10 years ago, the idea that the government could sweep people off the streets and deliver them to a foreign prison with no trial or recourse would have been seen as absurd by every part of the political spectrum.
by _mlbt | 2025-04-17 19:48:43+00:00
What is needed is an expedited means of both providing due process and efficient deportation of gang members and other violent criminals that are in this country illegally.

That’s the best way to honor the senseless tragedies of Laken Riley, Rachel Morin, Jocelyn Nungaray, and several others, and to prevent them from happening in the future.
by 1970-01-01 | 2025-04-17 19:48:48+00:00
Buy a new dishwasher. I had an insidious dishwasher that went through its entire cycle, but sometimes refused to make things clean. After weeks of trial and error and a few new parts, I finally determined the control board was popping all the detergent into the tub after just a few minutes in the first cycle and then draining and restarting the main cycle with just water. Everything mechanical was working perfectly, but it was literally being stupid at its job. I just couldn't trust it to not do that again, and decided to scrap it and upgrade on a Black Friday sale.
by HelloMcFly | 2025-04-17 19:49:00+00:00
This is fair, and I agree with all of this. I do think the idea that is pushes towards a more generic story is only true on the assumption that all feedback received is taken, rather than just using it as something to think about. Since I'm not and have no intention of being commercial, the point about human editors or the industry is neither here nor there for me.

I think where I end up on this is that in my limited use, nothing in the end product has felt like anything other than mine because I know how the ideas and words got to the page. BUT: I can't trust that is true for others that use AI, and why I personally hope (perhaps hypocritically) that AI-assisted work should be clearly signed and is not something I want to read. I think a light touch is helpful, anything more is compromising.

Anyway, this all helped me think through things a bit. I think I will continue to use AI as a feedback mechanism, but only after I have "finished" my work so I can consider where I might have done it different as a source of potential learning for the next project.
by palmotea | 2025-04-17 19:49:53+00:00
> I'm dismissing arguments that are designed to appeal to (and manipulate) the emotions of the person listening.

My point is that's pretty much all arguments, except maybe some very obtuse ones no one really cares about.

> Or, in your case, subtlety alluding to me being tolerant of CSAM (which was wildly inappropriate, albeit a great example of why I generally just don't talk to people who use those types of arguments).

That's not what I was doing. I was giving an example to show it's a trade-off driven by priorities and values. But if you want to be super-logical about it, supporting strong privacy-preserving uses of encryption necessarily implies a certain level of tolerance for CSAM, unless you support other draconian measures that are incompatible with privacy. Privacy can be used for good and bad.
by blagie | 2025-04-17 19:49:58+00:00
If you prefer long-form, researched, and academic, Understanding China by Starr is an excellent book. The author teaches at Yale.

It's from 2010, but I don't think the big picture has changed much. China has big-O, a 5000 year history, and the current government, big-O, one century. Details have changed in the past 15 years, but the big picture is pretty similar.

But the edu-tainment here is pretty accurate. I could do a similar hit pieces on China on Taiwan, Honk Kong, Tibet, environmental issues, surveillance,..., and you'd have plenty of reasons to be angry at / hate China.

The point is I could also do similar hit pieces on similar issues from many other countries as well (including the US). Individuals too for that matter -- if I could pick out all the worst, most embarrassing things moments of your life, and only presented those, you'd probably look like a pretty horrible person.

Positives we can learn from in China include that the government aims for:

- meritocracy, actually dating back over a millennium. This contrasts with Western ideals

- broad-based input from citizens (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Whole-process_people's_democra...)

The reality often differs, but the ideals are sound (much like Western ideals / reality of transparency and representativeness).

The Chinese government is also very capable of long-term planning, very much in practice, almost like almost no other government in the world.
by adrr | 2025-04-17 19:50:15+00:00
I am on the purchasing side. Google is very efficient when delivering traffic especially their Max Performance product. Probably the cheapest of all platforms. So they are serving relevant ads to users who engage with the ads. This is win for me and I assume also a win for publishers who get revenue due to higher engagement.

Also users should benefit because they are getting relevant ads. Linear tv is notorious for non relevant ads like all the drug ads for conditions you don’t have. If you’re forced to see ads, wouldn’t you want ads that are relevant?
by dcre | 2025-04-17 19:50:40+00:00
You can get an API key and they don't bill you. Free tier rate limits for some models (even decent ones like Gemini 2.0 Flash) are quite high.

https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/pricing

https://ai.google.dev/gemini-api/docs/rate-limits#free-tier
by SillyUsername | 2025-04-17 19:50:43+00:00
As I mentioned TS/JS was only one issue (semantic vs technical definition), the other is that it didn't know to question me, making it's reasoning a waste of time. I could have asked something else ambiguous based the on context, not a TS/JS example, it likely would still not have questioned me. In contrast if you question a fact, not a solution, I find LLMs are more accurate and will attempt to take you down a notch if you try to prove the fact wrong.
by turtletontine | 2025-04-17 19:50:53+00:00
You’ve nailed the first two stages of enshittification in your story there. Stage 1: bring in users with a genuinely good product they like! Stage 2: once users are locked in, prioritize your business customers (in this case, advertisers) and make things continually worse for your users.

But stage 3 is just as crucial: once the advertisers are locked in, make things worse for THEM just for your benefit. That’s how google makes such obscene margins on adverting. Publishers and advertisers would love an alternative - but google has done an excellent job of preventing that through unlawful monopolization tactics. Hence thus case, and why it’s so important.
by mathattack | 2025-04-17 19:51:08+00:00
My 2 cents...

Microsoft is struggling with too much legacy code base, and the software is embedded in too many places for them to make too much change. It's more cost effective to appease the existing enterprise base and minimize change, than to create a GUI that doesn't suck.

Apple will continue to expand the gap because they're not as beholden to 30 year old code.

Others will create mass-customizable AI driven GUIs (the post-Apple world) though I can't imagine this comes from Microsoft.
by amarcheschi | 2025-04-17 19:51:19+00:00
"Training on copyrighted human content without permission is one kind of issue. But using the outputs of proprietary AI systems to train competing models is another — it's more like reverse-engineering someone else's product, he explained."

Haven't us courts ruled the output of llms can't be copyrighted? I don't see why gathering output from a specific llm to train another model would be deemed different from just learning from books or imitating painting. Alas, tears for VCs that can't have their moat
by andrewla | 2025-04-17 19:51:48+00:00
Straightforward to pose as a decision problem -- you're given a sequence of {0,1} representing a base-2 input (N), output a string of {0, 1} such that there are N 1's. You could make it "N 1s followed by N 0s" to avoid being too trivial, but even in the original formulation there are plenty of "wrong" answers for each value of N, and determining whether a witness is correct requires O(2^b) time, where b is the number of bits in N.
by some_random | 2025-04-17 19:51:50+00:00
Are you not willing to even entertain the notion that communication platforms could influence the way that it's users communicate with each other? That totally ephemeral and private image based social media could promote a different type of communication compared to something like say, HN, which is public and text based? Sure you take your kid skiing, but presumably you make them wear a helmet and have them start off on the bunny hill, I agree that a risk-free world is an insane demand that justifies infinite authoritarian power but there is a line for everyone.
by ClumsyPilot | 2025-04-17 19:52:19+00:00
> One where the market maker is taking up the cost of providing a market

Does a landlord on a literal physical market take 30% of revenue? I find that unlikely.

How did we arrive here, where supposedly ‘efficient’ digital marketplace is a form of rent higher than actually building physical rent, and expenses on wages and materials for a typical business?
by sebastiennight | 2025-04-17 19:52:23+00:00
1. This should be possible, I think for example if you saved your cloned voice in your account with the same name as your HN handle. I'll add this. This should then work for using any voice for a specific user (just use the right username as the voice's name in 11Labs).

2. No navigation by voice commands sadly - it generates a single audio track. I might be able to insert chapter marks for each comment though, so that it'd be possible to "skip" to the next comment!
by pron | 2025-04-17 19:52:45+00:00
Yes, we must parameterise problems to meaningfully talk about classes [1], but interesting algorithms are interesting because they tractably give an answer to some large set of inputs. Their authors may not always know how to meaningfully parameterise the full set of inputs that they solve efficiently, but if they're interesting, then there's some implied set that could be parameterised.

But this is less handwavy than this may sound because SAT solvers don't actually solve "the SAT problem" efficiently. Rather, they make guesses about true/false assignments to particular SAT variables, and the algorithm knows when a guess is successful and when it isn't, because when it makes a wrong guess it backtracks (i.e. it knowingly takes a step that could be said to be "exponential"). Over the entire set of SAT problems of a particular length, every guess will still be right some of the time and wrong (leading to a backtrack) some of the time. Yet the utility of these solvers comes from them making good guesses more than half the time. That means that there must be something special about the set of problems that they can solve with a smaller-than-expected number of backtracks.

Put another way, every solver algorithm could be presented with specific instances, of any size, where the number of backtracks is small or large.

[1]: This makes the notion of circuit complexity a challenging, hence the notion of "uniformity": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Circuit_complexity#Uniformity
by hinkley | 2025-04-17 19:53:14+00:00
I sometimes watch machinists and blacksmiths on youtube.

One of the things I've become more aware of lately is the fact that hardened steel eats through cutting tools like candy, so the solution is to anneal the steel, do most of the shaping, harden it again (temper it for as much as 24 hours in a very smart oven that slowly slowly drops the temps), and then finish the piece with sanding and grinding tools instead of cutting tools.

I wonder if this treatment survives annealing and hardening cycles or if that just destroys the structure.
by cbruns | 2025-04-17 19:53:28+00:00
Pouring the resources of a company the size of Snap into addicting as many kids into their app as deeply as possible is not the same letting them communicate freely. Besides that, I don't know of any parent that would want ephemeral and private communication between their child and a predatory adult. Snap is also doing nothing to shield them from pedophiles, drug dealers, and arms dealers that are using the same app as a marketplace.

The damning part is that these companies know they harm they are doing, and choose to lean into to it for more $$$.

Thanks for your response. Your open source contributions are perhaps less damned than those of an actual Snap employee ;)
by timewizard | 2025-04-17 19:53:30+00:00
> I'm confused how this is a monopoly

An example from the case would be: Google bought Admeld. Then it disabled it's real time bidding feature. This created short term losses for them but gave them long term advantage in market control.

> Even if they play games with the auctions to keep the price up

Then it should be noticed, competitors should form, and the market should move away from this provider. Yet this has not happened because Google keeps buying those competitors.

> and it's not as if anyone is forced to use them.

Technically? Yes. Practically? No.

> that the app store isn't a monopoly, but Google ads are.

Our federal courts are separated into districts. Not all of them use the same precedents and market logic when deciding cases. This is probably why congress passed a law that prevents large companies from removing cases to the district of their choice and instead forces them to hold the case where the prosecutor decides.

The latter point is one reason why this case ended up differently.

> There's other ad companies

Loss leading, exclusive contracts, and price fixing are all crimes that can be committed in that environment. The bar for anti trust isn't "100% market domination." It's actually pretty nuanced. That's a good thing.
by redleader55 | 2025-04-17 19:53:57+00:00
The author states:

> The code is executed using Pyodide in Deno and is therefore isolated from the rest of the operating system.

To me personally, the premise is a bit naive - it assumes that deno's WASM VM doesn't have exploits, that pyodide doesn't have bugs, etc. It might as well ask the LLM to produce javascript code and run it under deno and then it would be simpler.

In the end, the problem is one of risk budget. If you're running this in a VM you control and it's only you running your own prompts on it, maybe it's "good enough". If on the other hand, you want to sell this service to others who will attack your infrastructure, then no - it's not even close to be enough.

Your question is a bit vague because it doesn't explain what "best way" means for you. Cheap, secure, implementable by a person over a weekend?
by neilv | 2025-04-17 19:54:17+00:00
(Since the TikTok post was swapped out with this one, I'll repost my late comment here, since it applies to a lot of companies.)

> As one internal report put it: [...damning effects...]

I recall hearing of related embarrassing internal reports from Facebook.

And, earlier, the internal reports from big tobacco and big oil, showing they knew the harms, but chose to publicly lie instead, for greater profit.

My question is... Why are employees, who presumably have plush jobs they want to keep, still writing reports that management doesn't want to hear?

* Do they not realize when management doesn't want to hear this?

* Does management actually want to hear it, but with overwhelming intent bias? (For example, hearing that it's "compulsive" is good, and the itemized effects of that are only interpreted as emphasizing how valuable a property they own?)

* Do they think the information will be acted upon constructively, non-evil?

* Are they simply trying to be honest researchers, knowing they might get fired or career stalled?

* Is it job security, to make themselves harder to fire?

* Are they setting up CYA paper trail for themselves, for if the scandal becomes public?

* Are they helping their immediate manager to set up CYA paper trails?
by lubujackson | 2025-04-17 19:54:26+00:00
Not exactly the same vibe, but I highly, highly recommend Taiko by Eiji Yoshikawa. It follows Hideyoshi's weird rise to power and has a lot of the same focus of him doing counter-intuitive things and being weirdly convincing while navigating an era of warfare. Plus it is a great read - along with Musashi, by the same author.
by sebastiennight | 2025-04-17 19:54:27+00:00
Hmmm this personal non-profit project is not endorsed or owned by my company at all, so you should rather reach me individually if you have comments regarding it, but otherwise if you have any official communication to send to OneTake Pte Ltd (the company), then yes, that's a valid email.

May I ask why though? It seems oddly off-topic.
by lupusreal | 2025-04-17 19:54:31+00:00
The way some people confidently assert that we will never create AGI, I am convinced the term essentially means "machine with a soul" to them. It reeks of religiosity.

I guess if we exclude those, then it just means the computer is really good at doing the kind of things which humans do by thinking. Or maybe it's when the computer is better at it than humans and merely being as good as the average human isn't enough (implying that average humans don't have natural general intelligence? Seems weird.)
by InsomniacL | 2025-04-17 19:54:47+00:00
> Also it is irrelevant of whether publisher earns 75% or 30% of the total revenue. What matters is how much they are earning compared to the next best alternative.

Not if Google illegally monopolizes the market unfairly hindering 'the next best alternative'.

> Google is not a "monopoly" in this space.

You've made that comment on a post where a judge has ruled "Google is illegally monopolizing"...

> In fact the world has far too many Google equivalents but absolutely no one comes close to Google in generating top dollars for publishers.

They have not been able to compete in a fair market.

This comment has some great examples.. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43719246
by danielbln | 2025-04-17 19:54:50+00:00
Those responses are very Claude, to. 3.7 has powered our agentic workflows for weeks, but I've been using almost only Gemini for the last week and feel the output is better generally. It's gotten much better at agentic workflows (using 2.0 in an agent setup was not working well at all) and I prefer its tuning over Clause's, more to the point and less meandering.