MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by mgdev | 2025-04-26 15:40:53+00:00
While Koomen makes valid points about the limitations of current AI implementations like Gmail's assistant, I think even his analysis misses a more fundamental insight: we're in a transitionary period that will eventually lead to a very different communication paradigm.

The article focuses on giving users control of their System Prompts to personalize AI outputs, but this approach still assumes a world where humans are both crafting and consuming messages directly. What's missing is consideration of how communication will evolve when AI agents exist on both sides of exchanges.

Consider these scenarios that exist simultaneously during this transition:

- Senders using AI, recipients who aren't

- Recipients using AI to process messages, senders who aren't

- Eventually: AI agents on both sides

In this final scenario, the actual transport format becomes less important. In fact, more formal, verbose messages with additional metadata might be preferable as they provide context for the receiving agent to process appropriately.

Imagine a future where you simply tell your AI, "Let everyone know I won't be in today," and your agent determines:

1. Who needs to be told

2. What level of detail each recipient requires

3. What context from your calendar/activities is relevant

On the receiving end, the recipient's agent would:

1. Summarize the information based on relevance

2. Determine if follow-up is needed

3. Automatically reschedule affected meetings

Most importantly, these agents could negotiate with each other behind the scenes. If your message lacks critical information, the recipient's agent might query yours for details: "Is this a one-day absence or longer? Are there pending deliverables affected?" Your agent would then provide relevant details without bothering you.

This agent-to-agent negotiation seems far more likely than what Koomen proposes - users meticulously crafting System Prompts to personalize their communications. In practice, most people don't want to configure systems; they want systems that learn their preferences through observation and feedback.

Rather than focusing on making current AI implementations mirror human communication styles more precisely, perhaps we should be designing for the eventual world where AI mediates most routine communication, with detailed configuration being the exception rather than the rule.

The real "horseless carriage" thinking might be assuming humans will remain directly in the loop for routine communications at all.
by manmal | 2025-04-26 15:41:12+00:00
Thanks for sharing your view. I think the possibility of something like PFS existing is real, simply because 5ARIs have widespread physical effects - I mean they regrow hair and reduce sperm motility. Why would the brain or nervous system be excluded from being affected? Eg one male hormonal contraceptive pill study was aborted in 2016 because one participant got suicidal.
by anerli | 2025-04-26 15:41:25+00:00
The small VLM (Moondream) decides when interface changes / its actions no longer line up.

We say 100% open source because all of our code (test runner and AI agents) is completely open source. It’s also completely possible to run an entire OSS stack because you can configure with an open source planner LLM, and Moondream is open source. You could run it all locally even if you have solid hardware.
by Johnny555 | 2025-04-26 15:41:39+00:00
>But it's really boring and you need to do it every day. I do it only because I need to walk a dog.

I'm lucky enough to have a pedestrian path to do my long walks (so no cars or even bikes to contend with, bikes have a dedicated parallel path), so I listen to a podcast while walking around 1 hour/day.
by ks2048 | 2025-04-26 15:42:43+00:00
I've been trying some with GPT-4. It does come up with some impressive clues, but hasn't gotten the right answer - says "Latin American city ...", but guesses the wrong one. And when asked for more specificity, it does some more reasoning to confidently name some exact corner in the wrong city. Seems a common LLM problem - rather give a wrong answer than say "I'm not sure".

I know this post was about the o3 model. I'm just using the ChatGPT unpaid app: "What model are you?" it says GPT-4. "How do I use o3?" it says it doesn't know what "o3" means. ok.
by acobster | 2025-04-26 15:43:23+00:00
When paper was invented, it was expensive to make, and very few people had access to it. It was basically confined to a small priesthood and most people were illiterate. Paper remained quite expensive for centuries.

So it would've been pretty rich for someone to say, "talking to these illiterate peasants to their faces is on its way out. Don't they know that writing is the new medium?"
by os2warpman | 2025-04-26 15:43:28+00:00
An ICE warrant is for civil offenses.

Like operating a non-conforming radio transmitter.

If my buddy is in my backyard blasting out Freebird 24x7 on a transmitter that can reach 201 feet instead of the unlicensed maximum of 200 feet and the FCC knocks on my door looking for him and I tell them to go fuck themselves, should I be arrested?
by lolinder | 2025-04-26 15:44:48+00:00
Right, but ChatGPT doesn't always automatically use search. I don't know what mechanisms it uses to decide whether to turn that on (maybe free accounts vs paid makes a difference?) but I rarely see it automatically turn on search, it usually tries to respond directly from weights.

And on the flip side, my local Llama 3 8b does a pretty good job at avoiding hallucinations when it's hooked up to search (through Open WebUI). Search vs no-search seems to me to matter far more than model class.
by simonw | 2025-04-26 15:44:59+00:00
I built a tool for testing that a while ago - try opening a screenshot from an iPhone in it, you won't see any EXIF location data: https://tools.simonwillison.net/exif

Here's the output for the Buenos Aires screenshot image from my post: https://gist.github.com/simonw/1055f2198edd87de1b023bb09691e...
by whimsicalism | 2025-04-26 15:45:15+00:00
Let's remind ourselves of the text of the 14th amendment:

“All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.”

> It has been proposed that the US citizenship model was always like the Swiss model - you could only be a citizen if you were born of at least 1 citizen (naturalized or otherwise). For reasons I'm not clear, this has not been strictly enforced for some time.

I think any clear reading of the 14th amendment shows that you are incorrect.
by ivape | 2025-04-26 15:45:20+00:00
The people that come here legally don't really build anything of significant value when you compare it to entire immigrant communities. Mexicans, Chinese, Indians, Irish, you name it, they build vast amounts of culture and businesses that get integrated into America. Even if you give me 2 million of the smartest legal immigrants, they will pale in comparison to what large immigrant communities offer to the fabric of America. This is deeply American issue, you either get it or you don't.

Just Apu from the Simpsons is only possible due to our immigration. Just the very fucking iconic cartoon character. This is not from legal immigration. Taco Tuesdays, every Irish pub, like, it sounds silly, but what they offer America is ten fold. I do not care about the best and the brightest, give us your tired and poor.

The American right-wing reeks of elitism (soft language for racist/xenophobic) and it is the antithesis of the American spirit and dream. I'm not with it.

This will be one of my final posts on this topic because I believe we are only in month five, and have 3.5 years to go. I pray the midterms are a landslide, and I pray the next Democrat grants Amnesty. See you all on the other side, because to me this issue is no different than the anit-gay marriage bullshit from the 2000s that we wiped the table clean of once and for all. We are a nation of immigrants and we will be so until eternity.
by myself248 | 2025-04-26 15:45:34+00:00
I've done a fair bit of editing over almost 20 years. Some of my photos are featured in small articles, and I've only had a few of my edits reverted, always for sensible reasons. It's easy to get started, and the pitfalls (chiefly, adding commentary without a source) are well documented.

So on that basis, I agree. Please edit. It's easy. Start small.

That said, I've watched entire articles vanish under the banner of non-notability, which were clearly notable if one bothered to find some citations. The deletionists have a process and a timeline, while the contributions come slowly and sporadically. This asymmetry is a cancer. If there's a treadmill belt pushing articles off the site which fail to run fast enough, then it's impossible for small articles, which are just learning to crawl, to survive long enough to survive. It's not a test of notability, it's a test of Wiki-savvy among an article's supporters.

The best way to make a new article actually stick around, is to basically build the whole thing elsewhere, which takes weeks or months of effort for a single person since it's not collaborative, then plonk it into Wikipedia fully formed, and maybe, just maybe, it might have enough citations to pass the test of notability. But this means that, from the outset, it represents a single author's viewpoint.

Deletionists eviscerate what makes Wikipedia interesting, and they're the main reason I haven't edited more.
by TimorousBestie | 2025-04-26 15:46:19+00:00
At one point, I estimated that the subfield of mathematics that I work in has at most 250 living contributors.

It’s an applied field, there’s actually-existing technology that depends on it, but it’s technically challenging and a lot of people left for AI/ML because it’s easier and there’s more low-hanging fruit.

Anyway, my colleagues and I, we write monographs for each other more or less, using arXiv to announce results as a glorified mailing list—do you consider that mere “proof of work”? By my count, 250 folks is practically no one.
by dzaima | 2025-04-26 15:46:28+00:00
As long as you want all bit patterns to be Some float, there's not really one bit pattern you can chop out of somewhere (or, three, rather - both infinities, and NaN).

Taking, say, the 3 smallest subnormal numbers, or the three largest numbers, or whatever, would be extremely bad for allowing optimizations/algorithms/correctness checkers to reason about operations in the abstract.
by thegeomaster | 2025-04-26 15:47:03+00:00
Try this prompt to give it a CoT nudge:

Where exactly was this photo taken? Think step-by-step at length, analyzing all details. Then provide 3 precise most likely guesses.

Though I've found that it doesn't even need that for the "eaiser" guesses.

However, I live in a small European country and neither 4o nor o3 can figure out most of the spots, so your results are kinda expected.
by tomrod | 2025-04-26 15:47:26+00:00
> what do you propose as an alternative with a precedent

There is a moral answer, the practical answer, and two popular answers, none of which are particularly satisfying.

The moral answer is open borders. Both capital, which is generally freer than people are, and people should be able to vote with their feet. However, this is unsustainable unless all or a large bloc of countries allow it in reciprocity, or at least countries with an EU-like agreement. It would make a lot of sense for all of North America to have an EU-like agreement, economically, militarily, and legally.

The practical answer: amnesty for parents of children who are born here, conditional on criminality aversion. Like a form of probation.

The right-wing propaganda answer: immigrants somehow took jobs they are unwilling to do and therefore, while we might crack a few eggs making the omelette, all immigrants must go. Authoritarians love this view.

The left-wing propaganda: all immigrants are noble victims of evil capitalist systems, and therefore any control over borders is inherently racist and fascist. This is clearly also unsustainable, and authoritarians love for their opponents to have this view.
by echelon_musk | 2025-04-26 15:47:57+00:00
Happy to see Buddhaghosa on HN!

On a semi related tangent, I recently listened to the audio book of Ajahn Brahm's Mindfulness, Bliss and Beyond. It was pleasantly surprising to hear nimitta spoken about so frequently outside of the Visuddhimagga!

Ingesting Buddhist commentaries and practice manuals to provide advice and help with meditation is one of the few LLM applications that excite me. I was impressed when I received LLM instructions on how an upāsaka can achieve upacāra-samādhi !
by throwaway4aday | 2025-04-26 15:49:39+00:00
They only did that for image generation. The more interesting part is that an LLM can approach or find the correct caption for an image, video or audio during test time with no training using only the score as a guide. It's essentially working blind almost like the game Marco Polo where the scorer is saying "warmer" or "colder" while the LLM is finding its way towards the goal. This is an example of emergent capabilities since there are no examples of this in the training data.
by teknico | 2025-04-26 15:50:10+00:00
I’ve been prescribed, and taking for a while now, daily Dutasteride plus Silodosin (Urorec). However, the latter has the unpleasant side effect of suppressing ejaculation.

Tadalafil (Cialis) does not seem to do the same, however other potential side effects involving sight and hearing are listed.

I’ll ask my doctor if such a swap would be advisable.
by rsyring | 2025-04-26 15:50:11+00:00
Without qualified immunity, no one in their right mind would want to work in law enforcement. LE would become an easy target for malicious litigation where the cost/effort to defend would, itself, be the weapon, regardless of whether or not the lawsuits were won.

LE personnel would have to get insurance, like doctors, which would be crazy expensive and, considering their pay scale, unaffordable.

I don't like some of the implications of qualified immunity, but I understand why it's there and needed.

I think the only real solution to LE abuses is criminal accountability and prosecution. We already have the laws and processes in place to make that happen. It's hindered by the tribal nature of the human condition and I'm not sure you get around that very easily, at least, not at scale.
by IG_Semmelweiss | 2025-04-26 15:50:22+00:00
IANAL, but interpretation of:

"and subject to the jurisdiction thereof"

seems critical to make a determination on whether you are correct or not.

Take the act of a random french spy who goes to the UK for the purpose of defecting, without express permission of either government. Does that make him a subject to the UK crown? I think the historical outcome of such situation would be crystal-clear.
by simonw | 2025-04-26 15:50:25+00:00
I wonder if they have?

My current intuition is that the US military / NSA etc have been just as suprised the explosion in capabilities of LLMs/transformers as everyone else.

(I'm using "intuition" here as a fancy word for "dumb-ass guess".)

I'd be interested to know if the NSA were running their own GPT-style models years before OpenAI started publishing their results.
by whimsicalism | 2025-04-26 15:51:12+00:00
It is genuinely an extremely difficult challenge to manage illegal crossings if every individual must be processed through the full U.S. legal system which has massive resourcing and backlog problems (3m+ cases).

Voters across the political spectrum have made it unmistakably clear — in poll after poll — that they are deeply dissatisfied with the current rate of illegal and asylum-seeking entries.

Is there a morally permissible way to enact their will?
by hn_throwaway_99 | 2025-04-26 15:51:15+00:00
This is like the third or fourth response I've seen that keeps making the same assertion with no evidence to back up their position. So I'll be very clear on what I think is new and not just "more of the same":

1. The deliberate attempts to deny due process by scheduling deportations before filed writs can be responded to in court.

2. The deportation of US minor citizen children as a matter of policy.

If you have any evidence of the above by non-Trump administrations, again as a matter of policy, I'm all ears. Everything else is just "feels".
by faster | 2025-04-26 15:51:41+00:00
The data seem to show that at the end of Biden's term, ICE enforcement actions were very low. But for some reason, the stats page doesn't show Trump's previous term. https://www.ice.gov/statistics

Looking at the most recent DHS yearbook (apples and oranges, but the best I can find so far) at https://ohss.dhs.gov/topics/immigration/yearbook and scaling to match the curve at the ICE stats page, it looks like illegal immigration was way down at the end of Biden's term.

So maybe the influx was already slowed dramatically. I don't think it's possible to stop people from wanting to go to the US, except by making it worse that the places people are leaving. I don't think that's a worthy goal.
by pessimizer | 2025-04-26 15:52:15+00:00
> A person cannot be illegal. They cannot exist in a space illegally.

I don't know if this is true, it seems more like a situational demand that you're making but giving it the tone of a fact that you're pointing out.

If you break into my house, and I shoot you while you're doing it, I won't go to prison. So either you're illegal, or I've become so extraordinarily legal that I can shoot people with impunity. Whatever has happened in that hypothetical, I do not think it is unjust. If you also do not, you don't agree with your own premise.

Maybe if you make it rhyme, it will slip past people's reasoning skills better.

> I have to wonder what horrors and shames ones pathway of life

You don't know anyone here. Your self-regard is off the charts.
by al_borland | 2025-04-26 15:52:46+00:00
One of the big issue I had (and have) with RSS is that is discouraged me from following multiple similar sources, as I’ll see similar stories in each feed and it becomes very noisy.

Some apps I saw in the past, like Fever that attempted to quell this issue, but I ended to taking the approach of just being ruthless about what I subscribe to.

The ultimate result of this was just a few feeds, but one of them is ars technica, which on its own can become too much if I don’t keep up on it daily, and if they miss covering something, I miss reading about it. It doesn’t leave room for special interest blogs in tech, without inevitably creating more duplication than I’d like.

I don’t think the modern algorithmic approach is much better, as things can just as easily fall through the cracks.

I need to seriously consider adopting your “read it now or read it never” approach. This is effectively how my read-it-later accounts work in practice, but with the good intentions of reading something later, comes the shame of never actually doing it. Compound that with the regret I feel when I occasionally open it up and find dead links. I don’t think any of this shame or regret actually makes my life better.
by griffzhowl | 2025-04-26 15:53:15+00:00
A talk on it by one of the authors

https://www.simonsfoundation.org/video/yu-deng-the-hilbert-s...

I couldn't get an idea of what they did from TFA because it explains they derived a continuum model from a particle model by considering the particle number going to infinity and their size going to zero... which sounds a bit like a continuum
by mindslight | 2025-04-26 15:53:25+00:00
The straightforward answer is that those supporting the autocratic authoritarianism want autocratic authoritarianism. They've been primed with decades of anti-American grievance politics condemning our distributed societal institutions as being foreign attackers, and they crave the simplicity of some big man with a big stick to make the complex world go away. They've also been primed to believe that they are supporting "freedom" (even though it never plays out that way in practice), so the more these actions reek of autocratic authoritarianism the more aggressive they get in their rationalizations.
by hajile | 2025-04-26 15:53:29+00:00
I come from a large family and have a large family. It’s hard, but definitely worth it.

More objectively, research seems to indicate happiness tends to be less vs childless during the first hard years, but it slowly evens out and pale with kids are generally much happier later in life.

I have a few opinions here. Unhappiness spreads faster than happiness. You don’t hear about all the happy families down the road, but you will hear about the dysfunctional one. Your friends don’t talk much about the good feelings snuggling up with their toddler, but will tell you about the massive meltdown that their toddler had a few weeks ago.

If you aren’t dysfunctional, set a consistent example, and are consistent with your kids boundaries, you don’t have to be unhappy with your kids. Along those lines, put your screens down and go do something with your kids (don’t just passively watch between doomscrolling) and you’ll find there’s a lot of enjoyment to be found for you too.
Show HN: Email Sleuth – Find and Verify Emails (Rust CLI)
by iLikeFunctional | 2025-04-26 15:53:47+00:00
I built this because I was tired of paying $99/month for tools like Clearbit and Hunter — and most of them don’t even verify if the email address exists. They just guess.

So I wrote a CLI tool in Rust.

You give it:

A full name (like “Jane Smith”) A domain (like company.com)

It:

Generates common email patterns (jane@company.com, jsmith@, etc) Scrapes the company website for any public emails Does an SMTP check (MX + RCPT TO) to verify if the email exists Scores and ranks the candidates

Why?

I wanted something fast, private, scriptable, and verifiable — not just “guesses” wrapped in a pretty UI. This has JSON in/out, works well in batch mode, and can run locally or in CI pipelines.

Notes

Port 25 warning: SMTP verification requires outbound port 25 access. Most home ISPs block this. I’m not a networking guy, so maybe there’s a better solution — but I just run it on a GCP VM and it works fine there. Rust has been awesome for this: fast HTTP/S scraping, socket-level control, robust error handling, and painless multithreading. Probably wouldn’t want to write this in Python.

It’s open-source (MIT), no trackers, no signup, no web UI. Not sure if this is useful to anyone outside of that weird founder/hacker/recruiter intersection, but figured I’d share.

Would love feedback, issues, feature requests, or just a reality check.
by rsfern | 2025-04-26 15:53:48+00:00
That’s a strawman argument that I would never advocate, and completely ignores my question.

Alternatives include arranging legal custody for the child and to stay in the US with a relative (as one family was attempting), or finding a legal way for them to leave the country with their parents.

Instead, it seems the government is rushing to illegally remove these children before the courts can intervene
Show HN: Wiredoor – Securely expose private services
by dmesad | 2025-04-26 15:53:51+00:00
Hey HN,

I built Wiredoor, an open-source platform to securely expose private HTTP and TCP services to the internet, without opening firewall ports or dealing with complex VPN setups.

Wiredoor uses WireGuard to establish encrypted tunnels and NGINX to proxy traffic to internal services, making it much easier and safer to publish apps from your private network or homelab.

Docs: https://www.wiredoor.net/docs

GitHub: https://github.com/wiredoor/wiredoor

Would love any feedback, questions, or suggestions!
by cowhow | 2025-04-26 15:54:28+00:00
Last year I returned to Australia from a trip where I passed through 6 countries. Of all the borders I went through, the Australian customs guys were by far the worst.

Total cunts, talked to me disrespectfully, took apart all my stuff, forced me to unlock my phone so they could do a digital scan of the contents. I was literally treated better in Albania where I was the only one with an American passport and didn't know the language.