MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by ThrowawayR2 | 2025-04-01 00:35:14+00:00
The article you link to directly quotes him:

"After seeing a brief demo of a grotesque zombie-esque creature, Miyazaki pauses and says that it reminds him of a friend of his with a disability so severe he can’t even high five. “Thinking of him, I can’t watch this stuff and find [it] interesting. Whoever creates this stuff has no idea what pain is whatsoever. I am utterly disgusted. If you really want to make creepy stuff, you can go ahead and do it. I would never wish to incorporate this technology into my work at all. I strongly feel that this is an insult to life itself.”

He's disgusted by the creature, not the computer based technique. While he's on record as disapproving of CGI, Earwig and the Witch, directed by his son, used CGI so his disapproval isn't absolute.
by LorenPechtel | 2025-04-01 00:36:17+00:00
Lanyard to your *belt*?

I hike, a phone falling is a realistic issue. I use a lanyard around my neck, though, not to my belt. A lanyard long enough to reach from your belt to use is likely to let it hit the ground. I've had it slip out a few times and be caught by the lanyard--without hitting the ground.
by bashfulpup | 2025-04-01 00:37:03+00:00
Eh, can you really though?

Let's be real if OAI is losing money on a 200$ subscription with hyper advanced effeciency methods are you really going to save money?

You should also enjoy the free VC money while it lasts. Just like cheap uber rides were great until the vc money dried up.

I've hosted and run a lot of large LLM experiments myself. You are in no way "saving" money doing so. It's also a giant pain to be avoided if possible.

Best thing to do right now is enjoy the cheap AI and when the free money stops use the winning mature open source platform.
by ianbicking | 2025-04-01 00:37:06+00:00
To ground the story in a consistent world: build up secret world lore behind the scenes, and provide that to the LLM as it makes choices. As the story is expanded the lore will expand. But this gets complicated as time progresses, as things that are "true" later in the story aren't earlier in the story (when some events haven't passed), and choices _should_ modify what happens so there isn't "one" truth. An LLM can handle some of that complexity natively, just by how the story is structured and allowing it to put conditionals into the lore. ("If the Snow Queen hasn't been defeated, she will sense when the hero is inside the castle")

You'll also need to keep track of context, so you can place the current passage in the lore. I doubt it will be self-evident. Some of this can probably be shown to the user as well as "metadata" of sorts (like a location name).

You could also pre-build the lore entirely, and then as the LLM expands out choices instruct it to stay within that lore. This is probably easier, but it'll seem less exciting to see it build out those passages. You'll want to include major choices in the lore itself so it can build out some of those conditional parts of the story.

The rhythm is much harder. Pre-building the entire lore will probably make this much easier. I'd probably throw a few queries at Deep Research to get ideas and terms for story structure that I'd want to apply. There's two major issues I see in incrementally created LLM generated stories: never getting to the good parts, and accelerating too fast.

The first is probably worse and more common: the LLM will build up anticipation, but it doesn't know the conclusion and will keep putting off any conclusion. It reminds me of Lost (the TV show)... you can tell the writers didn't have a plan, and only made things worse as they introduced more distractions that couldn't be made into a cohesive reveal. If you already have an outline then it should go forward. Another option is to have the LLM produce conclusions at the same time as it produces choices, and give it criteria for what a good conclusion is. These don't have to be full passages, but will be notes you pass on as the next passage is created.

Going too fast can happen too. If you just ask ChatGPT to write a CYOA story it'll probably stop abruptly when it sees the opportunity to just finish up. I don't have a clear idea here, but I'd try to think about splitting the story into acts, giving those acts clear purposes (as story structure). Then I'd aim for a certain length to each act, but let the LLM decide the exact moment one act moves to the next.
by thaumasiotes | 2025-04-01 00:37:13+00:00
> If I'm making 3 quesadillas a day for picky children to eat at different snack or mealtimes, I don't want to own 3 shredders

I make quesadillas in the microwave. You don't need to grate the cheese; slicing is just as good.

This assumes you're using corn tortillas; I assume flour tortillas don't microwave well.
by wavemode | 2025-04-01 00:37:18+00:00
You're framing this in an extremely slanted way.

> So honey is undeniably aiding in the sale.

First of all, "undeniably" here is hyperbole. At best you could say "possibly, occasionally". You were already brought to site by a content creator, added the item to your cart, and are in the process of checking out. Why would a coupon code aggregator then deserve the commission for that sale?

> It's not "literally doing nothing" to compile and automatically apply/suggest coupon codes.

Even when they don't find a coupon code, they still take the commission for the sale. That is quite literally the definition of getting paid for doing nothing.

> Is it valuable? Objectively, yes, hence the millions upon millions of users.

Well, no. As the investigation revealed, Honey doesn't actually find any coupon code most of the time. In fact, this is intentional - they partner with retailers to limit the coupon codes they provide to shoppers. In other words they are intentionally providing negative value for the end user most of the time (when compared to searching the Web for a coupon code manually).

You clearly either know nothing about the investigation, or are a Honey employee.
by NewUser76312 | 2025-04-01 00:37:42+00:00
I use AI to write 95% of my code, but I wouldn't say I 'vibe code'. Even if I have it generate an entire script (rather than a few functions), I'll give it a quick 30 second read-over before running it. I want to make sure that A) I agree with what the AI produced, that it's a reasonable take on how to solve the problem, and B) sometimes I learn something new from the generated code.

It seems like a waste to not read code in your project, even if quickly. What's the harm? And think of the upside.
by YuccaGloriosa | 2025-04-01 00:38:56+00:00
When I first heard all this about honey I was shocked, remembering seeing Linus plug them. Of all the people to have the potential ability to see through it. The way I see it is that anyone who sponsors things like YouTube videos as widely as they do is generally a piece of s** company. Normally up to something, that makes it worth their while to spaff money on such things. 80 quid razors, AI driven news classifiers, VPNs, meh...
by bizzletk | 2025-04-01 00:39:17+00:00
> It's easy to point to home runs as entertaining, but they a ultimately rather boring. For die hard fans, you want more hits that end up in play, with more strategy, and more opportunity for mistakes and drama. You're not going to get that from home run derbies.

There's a counter-example in Cricket.

The game used to be a 5-day long battle with daily skirmishes and tactical changes required according to the ebbs and flows of the weather, the players, the score each day. Sometimes you could win just by exhausting the other team, sometimes you could gain advantage by changing your play style transiently to force the other team to react. The players all wore white uniforms, national pride was wrapped up the success of the country's team and being a Good Sport was the highest ideal.

Then, the powers that be created a shorter variant, the One-Day Match. The players started wearing brightly coloured uniforms, the crowds grew louder and entire categories of strategy were rendered useless as the game finished in 20% of the time. Viewership increased, cricket became "exciting" and the players sometimes achieved rockstar status usually reserved for sports that more easily captured the Australian sporting imagination like swimming and athletics.

The trend was clear: the entertainment value of short-form cricket games were spectacular. In came a myriad of new sponsorship categories for things like domestic household goods ("It's Australia's Favourite Air"), energy drinks and Sports Utility Vehicles that would appeal to the demographic of viewers who only had a "day's length investment" in the game. They started playing popular music in between game pauses and the Gentlemanliness of the game's spirit gave way to Victory as the highest Ideal.

Then, Cricket had it's "YouTube Shorts" moment -- an even more abridged version of the game that only lasted 20 overs per side was born. This hyper-speed version of cricket favoured fast results, flying balls and fan participation like never before. There was now fireworks and rock music and after-parties and more. It was All Killer, No Filler. The goal was to Smash It Outta The Park as much as possible, and every time they did it, a quick ad-break got to play on TV while the fans in the crowd got to sing Seven Nation Army while cheering on whoever caught the ball this time. The domestic competition is even called the "Big Bash League".

Australian Cricket's archetype went from Twelve Magnificent Fellows in Baggy Green Hats to what feels like a monster truck rally with branded personalised beers, bucket hats, and brand-safe team rivalries. Sometimes they even drive a Ute truck around the stadium at half-time.

What I'm trying to say is that popular demand or the voices of those who claim to interpret it say that Spectacle Isn't Boring. They love the exciting moments, and maybe are only willing to tolerate the slow and strategic sides of the game to get to the next Home Run. This trend towards shallow spectacle seems to be happening to all forms of entertainment and I suspect that baseball is not immune.
by 1659447091 | 2025-04-01 00:40:21+00:00
> It lacks generational fandom, because there is no place for hope in farm teams.

Depends if you are a fan of the Major league team, imo. I enjoyed the Round Rock Express when they were a part of the Houston Astros. I still remember being really excited to see Hunter Pence in Round Rock on his way to the Majors. Lost interest in RR once it became the Texas Rangers farm team thou
by i_am_a_squirrel | 2025-04-01 00:40:24+00:00
It took me about 5 minutes to understand what this is doing.

For anyone else confused, it doesn't listen to you play, it just logs your use of the metronome and provides tabs.

IMO the app would be cooler if it was simply the metronome app on a page. And if you want to track which song you are working on, then just add the ability to label a session. Could have a different mode for people who want it over videos, but usually when I'm practicing, I know the tab and am not watching a video while I practice.
by josephg | 2025-04-01 00:41:06+00:00
Huh? I don't find battery life to be that easy to notice. Most of the time I use my laptop, I'm at home - and I'm only on battery power because I sat on the couch and I'm too lazy to reach over and plug my laptop in. The battery goes flat sometimes on zoom calls, or when streaming. But I don't know how many hours I should expect the battery to last while on a zoom call.

The only way I could tell that my battery life has gone down would be by doing actual tests - but those are notoriously difficult - because I can't use my laptop at the same time. (Or, I guess I can - but I'd need to use it the same way across tests). It sounds like days of work to test my battery life with and without transient background tasks. I don't even know how I'd test that - because I don't know how to turn all that stuff off for the control.

I'm also not going to post an issue on apple's bug tracker that I have an intuition that my battery life is worse than it could be. That'd get deleted instantly.

I hear you that complaining online probably won't help. But can't see how complaining about battery life in feedback assistant would help either. The situation is crappy.
by epolanski | 2025-04-01 00:41:11+00:00
You're completely unaware of the financial shenanigans that US tech does in Europe.

I'll just leave you with the fact that Apple across two decades paid pennies in taxes in Italy (claiming few millions in revenues) because they would have bullshit like Apple Ireland selling Apple Italy iPhones for 1000€s and selling them for 1000€s plus vat.

Meanwhile Apple Ireland was buying those iPhones for the pennies it costs to make them (few hundred $ at best) and thanks to Irish corporate taxes being close to non existent (0.5%) Apple has paid virtually nothing for decades.

If you believe that us European voters love our countries to be subsidized by rich American countries you're out of your mind, but what we dislike is being taken advantage over and over.
by Barrin92 | 2025-04-01 00:41:22+00:00
the people who are qualified to work on the frontier of AI research are people with PhDs from leading universities who spend 80% of their day on arxiv reading CS papers, they don't learn about AI from Ghibli art on twitter. That's bread and circus for the masses. There's no correlation between who consumes that stuff and who builds the technology, if anything, the opposite. Leading edge chip designers at TSMC didn't end up there because they ended up playing graphic intensive video games
by wdr1 | 2025-04-01 00:41:41+00:00
> Don't commit crimes, don't make leaders of people who commit crimes, and you won't have problems.

Not to be disrespectful, but this is naive.

In a perfect world only "real" crimes would be prosecuted.

But almost every despot prosecuted their opponents by claiming they were criminals. Remember Nelson Mandela spent decades in prison as a criminal. The leaders of the KPD & SPD parties were both arrested as criminals during Nazi Germany. Putin has arrested many of his opponents, citing criminal behavior.

Saying "don't commit crimes" overlooks that the "crimes" themselves may not be real.
by Joel_Mckay | 2025-04-01 00:41:57+00:00
It was very similar to the classic banner substitution malware/adware from the early internet.

Most media people have gone back to unique affiliate discount-coupon-codes instead of clickable URL parameters to track lead referrals.

Unfortunately, this also leads to sampling bias, and campaigns spelunking spam statistics. I'd guess on YT irritating people drives engagement in some twisted way. lol =3
by eru | 2025-04-01 00:42:51+00:00
> No. Non-determinism is a key difference between undefined and implementation defined.

Actually, I think that's the difference in the C spec between implementation defined and unspecified. Eg function arguments can be evaluated in any order the compiler feels like, but it's not UB (because the only thing that's allowed to vary is the order, nasal demons are still verboten.)

You are right that it seems like the C standard expects implementation defined behaviour to be deterministic. That's annoying and should probably be fixed.

> If the standard said the words you just said instead of “undefined” how would that make C better? Is there some bad implication I am missing?

A lot better! If you know that eg shifts (or signed integer addition) always produce a value (even if non-deterministically) out of a documented set of valid options, that would make your program much more easy to reason about for the programmer, than UB's nasal demons that fly back in time.

Informally, many people already try to reason about their C programs like this.

See also how eg malloc returns an address, but apart from some basic requirements on alignment etc, the spec doesn't specify what address gets returned: the implementation can pick non-deterministically.
by epolanski | 2025-04-01 00:43:46+00:00
You know you're free to just not use a feature, application, or deny consent?

Privacy is about making access transparent, not by having customers in tiers.

I swear there's a parallel world with lunatics saying they are glad that only XCode can access their file system and processes and they don't want that Vim, VSC, Emacs or IntelliJ crap.
by michaelt | 2025-04-01 00:44:08+00:00
Let's look at the context: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ngZ0K3lWKRc

Presenters: "This is a presentation of an artificial intelligence model which learned certain movements [...] It's moving by using its head. It doesn't feel any pain, and has no concept of protecting its head. It uses its head like a leg. This movement is so creepy, and could be applied to zombie video games. An artificial intelligence could present us grotesque movements which we humans can't imagine."

The screen shows some Silent Hill looking vaguely humanoid, crawling blob. As the presenters say, it's pretty creepy looking.

Miyazaki: "I am utterly disgusted [...] I would never wish to incorporate this technology into my work at all"

IMHO saying Miyazaki outright hates AI is putting words into his mouth. All the clip shows is that a dude that doesn't make zombie horror films doesn't need a zombie horror generator thank you very much.

So yeah, he clearly rejects the product pitch. But judging from Kiki's Delivery Service and My Neighbor Totoro I don't see why you'd pitch him that product.
by bigfishrunning | 2025-04-01 00:44:31+00:00
I'm not the parent poster, but I also like to avoid containers when I can. For instance, if there is a bug in some library or common dependency (think libssl or bash) it's easy to update it in one place rather then make sure a whole bunch of containers get updated. Also, when writing software I find that targeting a container keeps you from thinking about portability (by intrinsically avoiding the "it works on my machine" problem) and results in a more fragile end product.
by scarface_74 | 2025-04-01 00:45:27+00:00
And yet and still without government intervention, Chrome now dominates to the point where Microsoft gave up and now uses the Chromium engine.

Just maybe if the EU spent more time encouraging innovation instead of passing laws, they would have a real tech industry.

Every Mac and Windows user who uses Chrome made an affirmative choice to download Chrome and didn’t need the government to help them make a decision.

Today in the US, even though the average selling price of an iPhone is twice that of an Android where there are dozens of choices and Android is backed by a trillion dollar company, 70% of users in the US choose iPhones.

In every single country, people with more money choose Apple devices using their own free will even though there are dozens of cheaper Android devices to choose from.

Just like people said “no” to ad tracking when given a choice and now the ad tech industry isn’t happy with that choice.
by ggm | 2025-04-01 00:46:47+00:00
Australia implemented protectionist barriers to trade for decades, and built a vibrant, functional domestic construction and manufacturing economy inside those walls. The free market decision delivered consumer goods at lower prices. It would be trivial to observe we've also lost almost all our domestic manufacturing capacity at scale, some of which existed for strategic defence reasons: we paid for Ford and GM to build cars here both to supply domestic vehicle markets and to insure we could make tanks and aircraft. When our price support structure went, ultimately so did Ford and GM.

We still have a shipbuilding, and car assembly plants, and we are much more fully integrated into world free trade. It's a mixed blessing. Living standards have risen in general but also we're now in many ways mutually dependent, and in some aspects "weaker"

Tariffs are contextual. Tariffs are strategic. Trump's economic advisers want a reset to trade balances to favour the USA, and are using tariffs to force change and I think it will make change happen but I am less sure it will be net beneficial to the US industry sectors involved. I am also sure it will come at significant consequences for every economy, and in that process make people reconsider their bilateral trade relationships.

The US is already much less significant to Australia than it used to be, with the rise of Indian and Chinese consumers. The EU was a somewhat difficult market to trade with for us, and may now become considerably more attractive. We trade extensively with the middle east (live animals, grains) and I think will do more.

I don't like the idea the current world trade regime is going to be upset for a single nation's benefit. That aside, I don't have a theoretical problem here, with the current world trade regime having imbalances which need correcting. But the shape of those corrections aren't as simple as "America wins"

I see a lot of write ups which go to the distinction between zero-sum and mutual outcomes. I infer from this there is a strong belief Trump does not actually want any kind of mutual outcome, he only believes in "winners" and "losers" and believes there must be a "loser" and it won't be america as long as he can avoid it. Thats sad, because I think its a narrow view of what negotiation is. It's like he actually does not understand the "art of the deal" at all. Quel Surprise!
by crazygringo | 2025-04-01 00:46:57+00:00
I was skeptical until I saw information confirming it.

It's not obvious that the frequency range used by computers recording on audiocassette would fit into that used by AM or FM radio transmission and reception equipment.

In other words, it's obvious that it would be possible on equipment specifically designed for it.

But I'm quite surprised that it worked without it (presumably) having been designed for. Or maybe they did pick a frequency ceiling compatible with commercial radio intentionally?
by s1artibartfast | 2025-04-01 00:47:02+00:00
I have no problem with bitcoin valuation. It isnt a company intending to create revenue. It is a relatively arbitrary store of value, not an expectation of utility.

Openai would need 15 Billion in profit of 15 billion per year for a P/E of 20 with zero risk, or a 10% chance of 150 Billion profits per year.

Alphabet is about 100B earnings per year. Do you think Open AI has a 10% chance of being bigger than google? it doesnt have a moat, but I guess google doesnt either, it just dominates its market.
by fashion-at-cost | 2025-04-01 00:47:20+00:00
The benefit with the two device approach is when you can not carry both devices for the majority of the time. If i’m not explicitly on call, my work device isn’t with me. Anything anyone says to me will wait until I’m back in the office.

If you have the self control to refuse to ever check Slack and disable all notifications/etc on your personal phone when not on call, this doesn’t apply as much. But for me I default to trying to stay on things and forcing myself to disconnect is a net good, even if it does mean I carry two phones at times. My pockets are large.
by extr0pian | 2025-04-01 00:47:24+00:00
I owned an Onyx Boox Poke 3. It was great for about a year and half, then it started to power cycle after something as gentle as setting it down on a table (and I'm not exaggerating here). They only have a one year warranty on their devices, so after the standard "Do a factory reset", I was told there was nothing they could do. I haven't bought another ereader since.