MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by godelski | 2025-04-16 01:20:32+00:00
The same generation process is also used for... well... generating anything. They are compression functions so you are learning an intractable data distribution (you can't write down the equation) and then turning it into something you have a bit more control over. Images were/are a great test platform for this since we humans can visually identify the outputs and verify that we've accurately learned a good generating function. But this process can be applied to any data and truthfully, variants of it are used all throughout since and have been for decades (arguably at least a century, but statistics really benefited from computers).

For just the domain of image generation there's still a lot of useful things. Want to do any upscaling? The processes can help there as you're learning a more complex transform than something like a bicubic interpolation (yeah, there are more advanced algorithms, this is just an example). Same is actually true for downsampling. We can even talk about rotating images, which is a classic problem in old videogames. There's also typical photo editing. This is done widely, most notably by Hollywood. Even if your AI only gets you 70% of the way there it can still be helpful (if the first 70% isn't trivial). It is also directly used in compression algorithms. It is much cheaper to share an encoder and decoder structure which can be computed locally and then transmit a smaller signal. The transmission is not only typically the more expensive part but usually also the bottleneck and has the largest chance of data corruption.

Yeah, I agree, most people are using the tech in weird ways and there's a lot of weird hype around malformed images that are obviously malformed if you looked at it with more than a passing glance (or not through rose colored glasses). But there are a lot of useful applications to this stuff. Ones that could far more benefit the world and personally I'm left wondering "why isn't even a small fraction of the investment that's going into status quo image generators and LLMs going into these other domains?" I'm guessing because image generators and LLms are easier to understand? But it is a shame.
by o11c | 2025-04-16 01:20:35+00:00
The whole point of section names is that they mean something. If you give it a name that matches `.rodata.*` it will be part of the existing read-only LOADed segments, or `.data.*` for (private) read-write.

Use `ld --verbose` to see what sections are mapped by default (it is impossible for a linker to work without having such a linker script; we're just lucky that GNU ld exposes it in a sane form rather than hard-coding it as C code). In modern versions of the linker (there is still old documentation found by search engines), you can specify multiple SECTIONS commands (likely from multiple scripts, i.e. just files passed on the command line), but why would you when you can conform to the default one?

You should pick a section name that won't collide with the section names generated by `-fdata-sections` (or `-ffunction-sections` if that's ever relevant for you).
by quantadev | 2025-04-16 01:20:37+00:00
It was actually just yesterday when I decided youtube shorts are no longer a fun way to kill time. There's a lot of amazing stuff to watch, but it's no fun any more, because anything you see that seems amazing is likely to be AI Generated which, for me, ruins it. You're not watching videos of reality, you're basically looking at digital art at this point.

Photos, Videos, and Audio are longer "proof" of anything. Any 10 year old kid can generate basically anything he wants. I love AI, but it's sad to be living in a world where now 'Authenticity' itself is permanently dead.
by DavidPiper | 2025-04-16 01:20:53+00:00
Not OP, but it seems to me the middle ground is making observations of evidence and making conclusions based on that - the scientific method, if you will.

> How so? You've piqued by interest.

To paraphrase Tim Minchin: Is non-mathematical knowledge so loose of a weave that every morning we are struck by the decision of whether to leave our house via the front door or by the window on the second floor?

Jumping out of an upstairs window to leave my house in the morning is a pretty weird place :)

EDIT: I suppose you could make a mathematical argument for the front door, but I'd be inclined to see it as a scientific argument that might need to use mathematics as its language to quantify the reasoning.
by JohnMakin | 2025-04-16 01:22:42+00:00
Not saying they’re compromised by foreign agents, although, I wouldnt put that out of the realm of possibility - but that either they and/or theyre tooling/setup is pwned

this is exactly what you save a zero day for, and something gives me the vibe about some of these guys that they dont take opsec very seriously, probably would not even need one
by duxup | 2025-04-16 01:22:59+00:00
I lived in a crappy part of town when I was young. Local homeless guy I recognized, I'd give him a few bucks once in a while. I didn't know him, but everyone recognized him.

Someone mentioned to me "he's just gonna spend it on booze" (there wasn't really any evidence for that but they assumed). A friend of mine made an insightful comment "Considering his life so far, maybe he actually could use a beer more than us." (We were going to a local bar)

Someone wants some skittles or something, fine by me. The idea that we should tell someone they can't have a treat because they're poor, I agree that seems cruel.

Folks who really want to get those folks help / get them out of the system, they're not sweating skittles.

My wife works in the school system and one of the poorer kids told her that sometimes their aunt and uncle come over and take their food. THAT is a problem, not skittles.
by SamBam | 2025-04-16 01:24:03+00:00
I don't quite understand, probably because my math isn't good enough.

If you're treating -1~1 as a normal distribution, then it's centered on 0. If you're working out the answer using a Monte Carlo simulation, then you're going to be testing out different values from that distribution, right? And aren't you going to be more likely to test values closer to 0? So surely the most likely outputs should be far from 0, right?

When I look at the histogram it creates, it varies by run, but the most common output seems generally closest to zero (and sometimes is exactly zero). Wouldn't that mean that it's most frequently picking values closest to -1 or 1 denoninator?
by mdaniel | 2025-04-16 01:25:10+00:00
Unless the system that wishes to consume tree-sitter grammars has access to a linker, it being written in C, and then compiled to machine code, gravely limits the places it can be consumed. That's in contrast to any one of the hundreds of grammar compiler compiler systems that allow targeting a platform of choice without mandating a platform of choice. I do see that tree-sitter alleges to emit wasm, but I am not deep enough in that ecosystem to know if it means "wasm for the browser," or "wasm for extism[1]," or "wasm, but if you already have WASI" or what

1: e.g. https://github.com/1Password/onepassword-sdk-go/blob/v0.2.1/...
by pyjarrett | 2025-04-16 01:26:15+00:00
FASTBuild[0] is super fast for large projects and comes with distributed builds and caching out of the box. It requires a bit of effort to set up, but it supports globbing sources, there's no separate generate build step, and it can also make Visual Studio solutions.

[0]: https://www.fastbuild.org/docs/home.html
by skissane | 2025-04-16 01:26:17+00:00
> the very first time I allowed it to look at my codebase, it hallucinated a missing brace (my code parsed fine), "helpfully" inserted it, and then proceeded to break everything.

This is not an inherent flaw of LLMs, rather it is a flaw of a particular implementation-if you use guided sampling, so during sampling you only consider tokens allowed by the programming language grammar at that position, it becomes impossible for the LLM to generate ungrammatical output

> When it does this, I feel the hallucinations can be off the charts -- inventing APIs, function names, entire libraries,

They can use guided sampling for this too - if you know the set of function names which exist in the codebase and its dependencies, you can reject tokens that correspond to non-existent function names during sampling

Another approach, instead of or as well as guided sampling, is to use an agent with function calling - so the LLM can try compiling the modified code itself, and then attempt to recover from any errors which occur.
by permo-w | 2025-04-16 01:26:26+00:00
literally any service with a free trial--i.e. literally any service--has this "problem". it's an integral part of the equation in setting up free trials in the first place, and by no means a "trap". you're always going to have a % of users who do this, the business model relies on the users who forget and let the subscription cross over to the next month or simply feel its worth paying
by myko | 2025-04-16 01:26:44+00:00
I'm shocked by this perspective, and I'm deep into the LLM game (shipped 7 figure products using LLMs). I don't feel like anything has been revolutionized around communication - I can spot AI generated emails pretty easily (just send the prompt, people). On the learning front I do find LLMs to be more capable search engines for many tasks, so they're helpful absolutely.
by ericwood | 2025-04-16 01:26:50+00:00
I have a hard time being sold on “yea it’s wrong a lot, also you have to spend more time than you already do on code review.”

Getting to sit down and write the code is the most enjoyable part of the job, why would I deprive myself of that? By the time the problem has been defined well enough to explain it to an LLM sitting down and writing the code is typically very simple.
by Vegenoid | 2025-04-16 01:27:32+00:00
> If you end up using the legal system to remediate undesired transactions, what's the point of cryptocurrencies in the first place?

Agreed, but there is already a very similar case where "code is law" was tested, and failed: https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/pr/man-convicted-110m-c...

It turns out that once a financial system becomes big enough, the US will apply its finance laws to it. Finance laws are designed to prevent sudden unexpected transfers of wealth from one (wealthy) unwilling party to another based on unanticipated loopholes.
by ryandrake | 2025-04-16 01:28:24+00:00
Imagine if your compiler just randomly and non-deterministically compiled valid code to incorrect binaries, and the tool's developer couldn't really tell you why it happens, how often it was expected to happen, how severe the problem was expected to be, and told you to just not trust your compiler to create correct machine code.

Imagine if your calculator app randomly and non-deterministically performed arithmetic incorrectly, and you similarly couldn't get correctness expectations from the developer.

Imagine if any of your communication tools randomly and non-deterministically translated your messages into gibberish...

I think we'd all throw away such tools, but we are expected to accept it if it's an "AI tool?"
by orionblastar | 2025-04-16 01:28:38+00:00
Explain Flappy Bird. The programmer was a nobody, and the code was sloppy, but the game was addictive and free with ads.

I used to work as a programmer analyst at a law firm, it didn't matter if my coworkers code was shit because I fixed it for them. I debugged their spaghetti code and made it work fast without memory leaks. I was often told that I had to do it because nobody else could. Until I got sick and went on short-term disability, they had to hire a contractor at $100/hr to try to do what I did, and even then, they couldn't do just as good a job as me.
by daeken | 2025-04-16 01:29:23+00:00
I wrote a fiction book, which has sold virtually nothing (maybe $50 gross, against an out-of-pocket cost of ~$4k). Both of these would piss me off if they happened to me or my author friends; I also don't think they should be illegal.

I am an author, a digital artist, a programmer, and an extremely amateur musician. None of those things have demonstrated to me why copyright law is necessary, a net positive for the world, or ethical.
by sterlind | 2025-04-16 01:29:52+00:00
I had the (self-inflicted) problem of modeling systems of linear equations in C#. `x` is a Sym, `x+2` is an Expr, `[2x,3y]` is a TermVector, etc. I wanted the comforts of NumPy, so adding an Int to a SymVector should make an ExprVector by broadcast, you should be able to multiply two IntMatrixes together but not two SymMatrixes (since that's not linear), etc. It would have been a lot of wrapper code to write.

Instead, I implemented a minimal set of primitives, and wrote a set of derivation rules (e.g. "if you have X+Y, and Y supports negation, you can derive X-Y by X+(-Y)"), and constraints (operator overloads mustn't have ambiguous signatures, no cycles allowed in the call tree), and set up a code generator.

250 lines of Prolog, plus another 250 of ASP (a dialect of Prolog), and I had a code synthesizer.

it was one of the most magical experiences of my entire career. I'd write an optimized version of a function, rerun synthesis and it would use it everywhere it could. I'd add new types and operators and it'd instantly plumb them through. seeing code synthesis dance for you feels amazingly liberating. it's like the opposite of technical debt.
by modal-soul | 2025-04-16 01:29:52+00:00
I like this article a lot more than the previous one; not because of length.

In the previous article, I was annoyed a bit by some of the fluffiness and redefinition of concepts that I was already familiar with. This one, however, felt much more concrete, and grounded in the history of the space, showing the tradeoffs and improvements in certain areas between them.

The section that amounted to "I'm doing all of this other stuff just to turn it into HTML. With nice, functional, reusable JSX components, but still." really hit close to how I've felt.

My question is: When did you first realize the usefulness of something like RSC? If React had cooked a little longer before gaining traction as the client-side thing, would it have been for "two computers"?

I'm imagining a past where there was some "fuller stack" version that came out first, then there would've been something that could've been run on its own. "Here's our page-stitcher made to run client-side-only".
by tptacek | 2025-04-16 01:30:00+00:00
You're giving the game away when you talk about the joy LLMs are robbing from you. I think we all intuit why people don't like the idea of big parts of their jobs being automated away! But that's not an argument on the merits. Our entire field is premised on automating people's jobs away, so it's always a little rich to hear programmers kvetching about it being done to them.
by ericwood | 2025-04-16 01:30:18+00:00
It’s totally valid to see a new piece of tech, try it, say it’s not for you, and move on. With LLMs it feels forced-fed, and simply saying “eh I’m good, no thanks” isn’t enough. Lots of hype and headlines on how it’s going to take our jobs and replace us, pressure from management to adopt it.

Some new trends make perfect sense to me and I’ll adopt them. I’ve let some pass me by and rarely regretted it. That doesn’t make me a luddite.
Show HN: Container-focused, generics based Go configuration
by telpis | 2025-04-16 01:30:26+00:00
Hey HN!

I built a Go library for convenient parsing of env + flag pairs. At the time, I needed a dependency-free solution — so bringing in Viper or other "heavy lifters" wasn’t an option.

Along the way, I came across a few lesser-known libraries that might’ve worked, but by then the project was nearly done. Plus, this one seems to be the only config lib that’s built on generics and reflection-free.

If that sounds interesting, I’d love for you to give it a try and share your feedback: https://github.com/atelpis/enflag

Thanks!
by Duanemclemore | 2025-04-16 01:30:50+00:00
Agreed. I wasn't particularly hooked, didn't use it very much already. As an architect, designer, and professor I had ig, and for the last five years basically only for work. But the feeling of freedom in its absence these past few months has been palpable.

Early fb reconnecting with people I hadn't seen since high school was okay. The blog / Google Reader era happening at the same time was the real golden age for me. And it's been all downhill since.
by mdaniel | 2025-04-16 01:31:26+00:00
All of them? Firefox 137 on macOS Intel

After watching it sit there for 5-10 seconds before loading the section 'data-framer-name="Join"' I decided to inspect the element after it did load to see what it was doing. That's when I spotted all the JS and data attributes implying it was likely built with one of those drag-and-drop site builders, which explains why it may be behaving in an unexpected way for you. It also explains why it may default to "fade in on scroll" behavior, if my experience is any indication, because marketing folks _love_ that shit
by Aachen | 2025-04-16 01:32:04+00:00
https://qalculate.github.io can do this also for as long as I've used it (only a couple years to be fair). I've got it on my phone, my laptop, even my server with apt install qalc. Super convenient, supports everything from unit conversion to uncertainty tracking

The histogram is neat, I don't think qalc has that. On the other hand, it took 8 seconds to calculate the default (exceedingly trivial) example. Is that JavaScript, or is the server currently very busy?
by progmetaldev | 2025-04-16 01:32:07+00:00
I am sympathetic to what you are saying, but as far as using animation to attract business, you are in the lowest percentage of people that would make a purchase (as well as being on HN, you are probably far below a tenth of a percent for a customer). I also try to prevent large carousels and animations on websites for accessibility, but when it comes to those who convert to customers, the animations are going to win out by a ton. I know you know this, too, but I'm just saying it so you know you're heard, but businesses need to sell.

The number of people that are able to handle accessibility, while also being capable of creating a captivating presentation to drive sales, is extremely low. This isn't an attack on anyone, I wish things were more black and white, but until those with accessibility needs are driving revenue more you are at the mercy of the government and ADA (if you're in the US or anywhere else similar concerns are legal).
by ryandrake | 2025-04-16 01:32:54+00:00
I would accept mistakes and inconsistency from a human, especially one not very experienced or skilled. But I expect perfection and consistency from a machine. When I command my computer to do something, I expect it to do it correctly, the same way every time, to convert a particular input to an exact particular output, every time. I don't expect it to guess, or randomly insert garbage, or behave non-deterministically. Those things are called defects(bugs) and I'd want them to be fixed.
by AlotOfReading | 2025-04-16 01:33:54+00:00
As far as I'm aware, the FTC's collections are unencumbered, so they just go into the general fund along with things like taxes. That's used to finance the basic and ongoing operations of the federal government. Collections by other agencies are sometimes earmarked by Congress to do things like set aside x% of collections to fund further enforcement actions or divert a bit into something like the SEC's whistleblower fund.
by throwaway150 | 2025-04-16 01:35:39+00:00
I'll be brutal. There is nothing brutal about what you said. It's just an ordinary fact that not all tools are going to be useful to everyone. Heck, I can bet that 90% of the tools that come on Show HN are not useful to you. They aren't useful to me either. The value of Show HN posts is in that many of these tools are useful to many, not that these tools aren't useful to some (which is really an obvious thing to say). So I don't understand what's "brutal" about what you said and why you even need to say something as obvious as this!
by seabird | 2025-04-16 01:35:42+00:00
I'm primarily an embedded firmware developer. Gas/electric power products. Ada codebase, so it's off the beaten path but nothing academic by any stretch of the imagination. I have a comprehensive reference manual that describes exactly how the language should be working, and don't need an LLM to regurgitate it to me. I have comprehensive hardware and programming manuals for the MCUs I program that describe exactly how the hardware should be working, and don't need and LLM to regurgitate it to me. I actually really specifically don't want the information transformed, it is engineered to be the way it is, and to change its presentation strips it of a lot of its power.

I deal with way too much torque and way too much electrical energy to trust an LLM. Saving a few minutes here and there isn't worth blowing up expensive prototypes or getting hurt over.
by danabramov | 2025-04-16 01:37:37+00:00
>you shouldn't use ViewModels as that will ties your backend API to the client.

It doesn’t because you can do this as a layer in front of the backend, as argued here: https://overreacted.io/jsx-over-the-wire/#backend-for-fronte...

Note “instead of replacing your existing REST API, you can add…”. It’s a thing people do these days! Recognizing the need for this layer has plenty of benefits.

As for HTMX, I know you might disagree, but I think it’s actually very similar in spirit to RSC. I do like it. Directives are like very limited Client components, server partials of your choice are like very limited Server components. It’s a good way to get a feel for the model.
by zdragnar | 2025-04-16 01:38:12+00:00
Investors seem to be starved for novelty right now. Web 2.0 is a given, web 3.0 is old, crypto has lost the shine, all that's left to jump on at the moment is AI.

Apple fumbled a bit with Siri, and I'm guessing they're not too keen to keep chasing everyone else, since outside of limited applications it turns out half baked at best.

Sadly, unless something shinier comes along soon, we're going to have to accept that everything everywhere else is just going to be awful. Hallucinations in your doctor's notes, legal rulings, in your coffee and laundry and everything else that hasn't yet been IoT-ified.
by SuperNinKenDo | 2025-04-16 01:38:41+00:00
I agree with your overall point, but funnily enough, I kind of feel like both responses would piss me off a little in most cases. People delivering the second response often can't help projecting the fact that they really don't give two damns, and they often have an impatience that betrays that they're just trying to get you to shut up, so the whole thing feels fake in addition to being unhelpful. Would probably still prefer it to someone saying I was an idiot, but I'm not even entirely certain of that
by lelandbatey | 2025-04-16 01:38:50+00:00
The point is that there's a pretty big publicly published document informing the world of their intent. It's called a contract, and they said "this will be the rules by which we abide."

It's a very hard battle to say "wow, I didn't intend to have my contract say that, despite writing that and publishing it." You'd have to have a lot of auxiliary material explicitly stating the opposite of what your contract actually said, or you'd have to convince others that what the contact actually says is so difficult to understand that there was no way to anticipate that the contract allows what it does. And even then, I don't know if that'd pass because "I didn't think of that at the time" is commonly not accepted as a way to get out of breach of contract.