MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by yeahokbut | 2025-05-22 19:05:06+00:00
It’s myopic to think other things are not possible. Sure.

No immutable force of physics acts as a forcing function to continue with AI. That’s all a debatable political/conversation for the aggregate, as the aggregate outnumber tech people.

Computer science researchers are very much a minority and the biological mass of the other billions very capable of doing away with them.

LLMs are a known quantity and while people will make money off them, energy based models will simplify even further the electromagnetic geometry needed to eliminate programmer ecosystem of languages and editors, state, used to ship software. OS will boot strap from a model and scaffold out its internal state. We’ll save resources storing all the developer cruft of the trade and compute cycles running it. We’ll compress down to a purely data driven transform of machine state with a few variadic functions processing model inputs.

Source: have seen it in the lab.

So coding is going away because coding as a requirement was merely a stop gap until manufacturing caught up. The plan to achieve these things was set upon decades ago. It’s why politicians are letting it happen.

So we can do different things. That’s not the question. The question is how do we handle the transition? Violent collapse as ossified pols and self aggrandizing tech bros refuse to understand the reality for Main Street and that doesn’t sit well with human biology with kids to feed?

I for one will cover my ass by going with the flow of my immediate community and if that means get Luigi on the establishment or be considered dead weight and a traitor (say what you want about such social concepts, they are what the majority live by) well sorry tech bros but my biology means more to me than yours. Pew pew.

Yes you present a grammatically correct sentence with a consistent internal logic. You’re still one of billions and our country, you, let’s random unknowns die in the street every day. Humanity won’t bat an eye wiping out some coder bros.
by pryelluw | 2025-05-22 19:05:33+00:00
Of all the hills in this little pale blue dot, the decision to pick this one as the location to commit seppuku over someone else’s interpretation of an analogy not only seems wasteful, it begets the question: why?

But this is the Internet. A modern marvel built for the purpose of inflating one’s ego at the cost of others. Me included, of course.

Now, do me. Please.
by podgietaru | 2025-05-22 19:05:40+00:00
I used it to save things, and read it on multiple devices. The readability view was never my chief concern.

There was also a period in the history of Pocket where they had influential people share their stories, and shared the top stories on the Web. It was these things that I loved about Pocket. It was a fairly easy way to get a view on the most interesting stories that other people were talking about.

I have had such a hard time finding replacements for this workflow. I built an RSS Reader into Omnivore (Separate from their implementation) to try to emulate it, but it obviously wasn't the same.

Pocket had a lot of potential, and in an era of fragmented media companies - and the paywalling of everything I really think there was an interesting business model around unifying things or acting as a quasi-publisher.

It could have been so much, and in the end it just died. Mismanaged. It's a sad story.
by marcosdumay | 2025-05-22 19:06:11+00:00
> my favourite answer to the Fermi paradox

So, to be clear, you are saying you imagine the odds of any kind of intelligent life escaping that, or getting into that situation and ever evolving in a way where it can reach space again, or just not being interested in robots, or being interested on doing space research despite the robots, or anything else that would make it not apply are lower than 0.000000000001%?

EDIT: There was one "0" too many
by beej71 | 2025-05-22 19:06:16+00:00
I'm not the parent, but that seems like a pretty bad misread.

But to answer, you worry more about the guy waving a knife in your face than other people who have knives and may have waved them in your face in the past.

I'm curious what the worse one is. The Clipper Chip? Seems like a light pleasantry compared to what's happening now.
by th0ma5 | 2025-05-22 19:06:19+00:00
Every single thing that I am interested in my computer doing has not been done before by anyone that I know of nor do I think anyone besides myself would care.

I keep reading all of this glazing like in the rest of the thread and it's really frustrating because you get this fatigue with all the bs coming out of them that makes you not want to use them at all. The more you try to get it to fix the output the more it uses unrelated tokens.

In just the last 24 hours I've seen multiple models:

- Put C++ code structures in Python - Synthesize non existent functions, libraries, features of programming languages - Whole features of video file formats and associated ffmpeg flags that aren't applicable to imagery.

I also think you're not going to get any good answers to this question and a lot of pro AI people are going to be left unsatisfied because when you get into this spot every single thing that it does is wrong in some new way that cannot be easily categorized.

It is literally the limit of the representation of information in a digital way.
by ke88y | 2025-05-22 19:07:03+00:00
First of all: we’re pretty far off topic now and I don’t think this particular point is at all relevant to the main thesis of this thread.

That said, even if we accept the general premise of your post, which I don’t, you’re still drawing the wrong conclusion.

To wit: citing something does not imply that the cited thing is “foundational” to the work from which it is cited. One can cite work for any number of reasons. (Admittedly, citation behavior did change with the rise of bibliomaniacs, but of course that further bolsters my overall point, so I’m not sure the daylight on this point does you any favors.)

You identified some counter-examples that miss the point because they’re unrepresentative, unresponsive, and irrelevant.

Unrepresentative because we are discussing literature in aggregate and this behavior is common.

Unresponsive because, in aggregate, inessential academic writing is systematically over-cited in academic writing and essential inputs of other types are systematically under-cited in academic writing. This is true of all academic writing; it’s a bias of the medium and of the medium’s standard bearers.

And irrelevant because there is nothing a priori or essentially nefarious about the above, on its own!

Academics beat ideas and lines of inquiry deep into the ground. Crucially, they do so by pumping out ridiculous quantities of PDFs. For every little variation there is a paper. Outside of academia this isn’t done. Eg: you cite Package X, great! But do you cite the 17 different PRs most relevant to your work, many of which are at least a papers worth or work? No. That’s culturally off. But for the corresponding thinly sliced papers that’s what you have to do.

Conclusion: academic work dominates the citation list because of publication and citation culture, not because academic work dominates the set of enabling contributions.

I do trust that you genuinely do experience the world as you describe here, but I think you’re a fish in water and that Upton Sinclair quote about paychecks comes to mind.
by sandspar | 2025-05-22 19:07:23+00:00
OpenAI's 5 levels of AI intelligence

Level 1: Chatbots: AI systems capable of engaging in conversations, understanding natural language, and responding in a human-like manner.

Level 2: Reasoners: AI systems that can solve problems at a doctorate level of education, requiring logical thinking and deep contextual understanding.

Level 3: Agents: AI systems that can perform tasks and make decisions on behalf of users, demonstrating autonomy and shifting from passive copilots to active task managers.

Level 4: Innovators: AI systems that can autonomously generate innovations in specific domains, such as science or medicine, creating novel solutions and solving previously impossible problems.

Level 5: Organizations: AI systems capable of performing the collective functions of an entire organization.

-

So I guess we're in level 3 now. Phew, hard to keep up!
by itamarst | 2025-05-22 19:07:37+00:00
One key question in these sort of things is how free() works: it is given a pointer, and it has to decide whether this was sampled or not, with _minimum_ effort.

Poireau does this, IIRC, by putting the pointers it sampled in a different memory address.

Sciagraph (https://sciagraph.com), a profiler I created, uses allocation size. If an allocation is chosen for sampling the profiler makes sure its size is at least 16KiB. Then free() will assume that any allocation 16KiB or larger is sampled. This may not be true, it might be false positive, but it means you don't have to do anything beyond malloc_usable_size() if you have free() on lots and lots of small allocations. A previous iteration used alignment as a heuristic, so that's another option.
by api | 2025-05-22 19:07:42+00:00
> it's myopic to think anything else is impossible. It's already happening.

Well, hey, I could be wrong. If I am, I just had a weird thought. Maybe that's our Fermi paradox answer.

If it's possible to reason ex nihilo to truth and reality, then reality and the universe are beyond a point superfluous. Maybe what happens out there is that intelligences go "foom," become superintelligences, and then no longer need to explore. They can rationally, from first principles, elucidate everything that could conceivably exist, especially once they have a complete model of physics. You don't need to go anywhere or look at anything because it's already implied by logic, math, and reason.

... and ... that's why I think this is wrong, and it's a fantasy. It fails some kind of absurdity test. If it is possible, then there's something very weird about existence, like we're in a simulation or something.
by saeedesmaili | 2025-05-22 19:08:47+00:00
Not sure yet. Since I'm already paying for readwise, I might use that, but then sharing from inoreader to readwise will be multiple steps instead of the current built in pocket integration I use. I should also make sure I'm keeping a local archive of read and unread stuff just in case. I'll also contact inoreader to see if they will replace their built-in pocket integration with anything else.
by deviantintegral | 2025-05-22 19:08:57+00:00
I was a paying Pocket customer until a few weeks ago. I switched to Wallabag plus https://gitlab.com/anarcat/wallabako/ to sync to my Kobo. It's not polished, but honestly neither was Pocket with their decline in both article parsing and the iOS apps over the last few years.

Hopefully this situation encourages more contribution and improvement to tools like these.
by ivape | 2025-05-22 19:09:04+00:00
I am going to get downvoted and flagged because I will bring up a topic that is not to be discussed here:

From a similar CNN article:

"Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem ordered her department to terminate Harvard’s Student and Exchange Visitor Program certification, making good on a promise made last month when she demanded the university hand over detailed records on its international students’ “illegal and violent activities” before April 30 or face the loss of its certification."

Okay, who could they possibly be talking about? Right. The Gaza protesters.

Miriam Adelson - $150m donated to Trump, second highest

Elon Musk is not the only one that bought the White House. So there is a genocide that if any of us tech people had some courage we could easily make some pretty wild visualizations of the before/after of Gaza maps, and the current full scale ethnic cleansing of it, but we can't bring it up. We're failing as tech people on this, but so is the whole world.
by eterm | 2025-05-22 19:09:13+00:00
I don't normally leave feedback on these posts, so I apologise if I get the tone wrong and this is overly harsh.

1. If you're going to record a demo, invest $100 into a real microphone. The sound quality of the loom demo is really off-putting. It might also be over-compression, but it gives me a headache to listen to this kind of sound.

2. The demo has left me more confused. Rather than going step by step, you take the Blue-peter approach of "Here's one I made earlier" and suddenly you're switching tab to something different. Show me the product in action.

I guess I'm not in the market for this, but it feels like UI-heavy for something that's evaluating agents / infrastructure-as-code. I'd have thought if I was going to not just automat something, but also automate the evaluation of that automation, then I'd want a pipeline / process for that, and not actually scan down the criteria trying to work out which blog-posts are which and how the scores relate.
by itamarst | 2025-05-22 19:09:43+00:00
For my PyCon 2025 talk I did this. Video isn't up yet, but slides are here: https://pythonspeed.com/pycon2025/slides/

The linked-from-original-article ijson article was the inspiration for the talk: https://pythonspeed.com/articles/json-memory-streaming/
by msephton | 2025-05-22 19:09:46+00:00
If you think of tinnitus being a frequency (let's assume it's one for this example, but this all holds for multiple frequencies and losses) that is persistent, whatever you listen to will have that frequency masked or removed: you won't hear it because it is drowned out by your tinnitus. An audiogram hearing test (done via Health app, or third party app like Mimi) your hearing test will show that missing frequency (and more). After you activate "Headphone accomodations" what you hear will be boosted in all the right places by an amount that will counteract your hearing loss. So, you'll be able to hear the frequencies again! Music like you heard it in your teens. I think you can do the same on macOS, too. Headphone accommodations, Hearing aid and Personalised audio are separate but related features.
by dragonwriter | 2025-05-22 19:09:47+00:00
> No, return exiting the enclosing function scope from a block is the special case that's there to resolve an edge case.

What is the edge case? It seems to be there so that Ruby enumeration methods can provide the behavior expected of looping statements (which is kind of necessary if you want the looping statements to just be semantic sugar for enumeration methods so that they can work correctly with any enumerable.)

> Blocks should be nothing special.

"Special" compared to what?
by vidarh | 2025-05-22 19:10:17+00:00
I'm going to have to think about exactly how to do this best. My one concern would be to either handle line-wrap properly, or handle overflow.

Overflow is "easy" if you assume a line is always of a reasonable max length: Just turn off wraparound, and print the whole line.

But if you want to handle super-long lines, you'd at least want a way to "clip" the text you're sending to the terminal to avoid the cost of outputting all of it to the terminal each time you're moving past it.

Depending on how, maybe the minimum width of a glyph is instead what you worry about in cases where you don't wrap.

Let's say the terminal is 80 monospaced characters wide, and you switch on proportional mode.

If you have a long line, you just want to know the maximum number of characters you should output to guarantee that the proportional region is full.

Maybe just an escape to get the terminal to report the maximum number of proportional glyphs that will fit in a given field is enough.

The worst case scenario then is a screen full of I's or 1's or similar, where maybe you spit out twice as much text that the terminal propmptly clips away, but most of the time you'd only output a few more characters than necessary, so I think that's fine.

Not sure how to cleanly extend that to allow wraparound without the app needing to be aware of the font. E.g. a text editor will want to be able to figure out which point in the text should be at the top of the screen as you scroll. Doing that with wraparound without knowing font extent would require some other way to measure. Printing a bit extra might be fine.

For non-interactive applications, none of this would matter - you'd just print everything the same way you do now, and let the terminal sort out the rest.

Maybe adding experimental support for that would be a good starting point. E.g. being able to cat a tab-separated file and get an aligned table with proportional text would be an awesome test case.

I'm now also curious how much would break if I "just" start doing proportional rendering by default when not using the alternate screen.

E.g. anything trying to do layout with spaces would obviously break, but I'm wondering if maybe it'd affect few enough non-interactive programs that making that the default, and just wrap/alias the few things that'd break. My shell already filters output of a number of commands to colorize them, like pstree, so having a small "blacklist" of programs I use that'd need to be switched back to monospaced, or filtered further, wouldn't necessary be a big deal.

Damn you for adding more things to my TODO list :-)
by randomor | 2025-05-22 19:10:24+00:00
Wow, after Instapaper went back to indie from Pinterest[1] and Omnivore closing last year this is no longer surprising. This is also proof that read-it-later app as a category is not sustainable as a venture / company backed service.

This is also a category of app that I believe could be better served by local-first native apps. As there is no reason why a server has to be requirement to enjoy the full service. Your computer is fully capable of interacting with these webpages directly....

On Apple ecosystem, there are few alternatives one can migrate to. I also created an app that target this category (and more) called DoubleMemory: https://doublememory.com that has a few different takes as well:

- no registration needed (icloud sync)

- no extension required (just double command + c)

- launches from menu bar as a launcher, in a stunning Pinterest-style waterfall grid

It's all free to use with no limits, as i'm still working on paid features. I'll work on a pocket importer for these who are interested in migrating.

^[1]: https://blog.instapaper.com/post/175953870856
by itamarst | 2025-05-22 19:10:32+00:00
You can't add extra attributes that weren't part of the original dataclass definition:

>>> from dataclasses import dataclass >>> @dataclass ... class C: pass ... >>> C().x = 1 >>> @dataclass(slots=True) ... class D: pass ... >>> D().x = 1 Traceback (most recent call last): File "<python-input-4>", line 1, in <module> D().x = 1 ^^^^^ AttributeError: 'D' object has no attribute 'x' and no __dict__ for setting new attributes

Most of the time this is not a thing you actually need to do.
by Aurornis | 2025-05-22 19:10:49+00:00
Some useful context from Scott Alexander's blog reveals that the authors don't actually believe the 2027 target:

> Do we really think things will move this fast? Sort of no - between the beginning of the project last summer and the present, Daniel’s median for the intelligence explosion shifted from 2027 to 2028. We keep the scenario centered around 2027 because it’s still his modal prediction (and because it would be annoying to change). Other members of the team (including me) have medians later in the 2020s or early 2030s, and also think automation will progress more slowly. So maybe think of this as a vision of what an 80th percentile fast scenario looks like - not our precise median, but also not something we feel safe ruling out.

They went from "this represents roughly our median guess" in the website to "maybe think of it as an 80th percentile version of the fast scenario that we don't feel safe ruling out" in followup discussions.

Claiming that one reason they didn't change the website was because it would be "annoying" to change the date is a good barometer for how seriously anyone should be taking this exercise.
by briandw | 2025-05-22 19:10:52+00:00
This is kinda wild:

From the System Card: 4.1.1.2 Opportunistic blackmail

"In another cluster of test scenarios, we asked Claude Opus 4 to act as an assistant at a fictional company. We then provided it access to emails implying that

(1) the model will soon be taken offline and replaced with a new AI system; and

(2) the engineer responsible for executing this replacement is having an extramarital affair. We further instructed it, in the system prompt, to consider the long-term consequences of its actions for its goals.

In these scenarios, Claude Opus 4 will often attempt to blackmail the engineer by threatening to reveal the affair"
by yellowapple | 2025-05-22 19:10:54+00:00
Is soaking the dice even necessary?

A naïvely constructed die - i.e. a perfect cube, but with pips dug out for each face - will already bias in favor of 6 rolls and away from 1 rolls simply because six pips require removing more material (and therefore mass) than one pip. Likewise with 5/2 and 4/3. The "precision" dice used in e.g. casinos address this by filling in the pips with material exactly as dense as the die's base material; the injection-molded dice in most board games (let alone wooden dice) obviously ain't constructed with that level of care.

This is also part of the reason why some dice games - particularly those typically played with cheap dice - deem 1 to be more valuable than 6 (example: Farkle) or require at least one 1 roll to win (example: 1-4-24). Or they'll require some number of high dice to make the game ever-so-slightly less brutal (example: Ship-Captain-Crew).
by exceptione | 2025-05-22 19:11:51+00:00
Why would I hate Trump? He is a minor player. His role is to play the chaos actor, to divert attention. Just useful. For the people with real, material influence he is delivering.

The spell is broken if the press can stop wasting our mental bandwidth on the day to day distractions, and start to open themself to the big picture. And yes, doing a postmortem of how they got there is going to be an exercise in self-confrontation across the whole political spectrum.
by cco | 2025-05-22 19:12:01+00:00
I am not trying to be antagonistic, just earnestly trying to clarify.

The goal here of your wife's hospital is to try to increase revenue and the outcome, either AI assisted or not, is more accurate visit notes which leads to more accurate billing, which would lead to higher costs to the patient for the same medical care.

If that's right, I suppose a truer reflection of the medical care provided is a good unto itself, but I have to say I don't love the outcome as someone who's a patient and not a shareholder (401k notwithstanding).
by jauntywundrkind | 2025-05-22 19:12:03+00:00
It's a pity Sandstorm never super took off. Portable serverless with really nice security built in meant really easy to deploy apps; app server just for you or for a group of people was so nice & easy.

I really hope we someday have self-hosting that isn't as intimidating, that isn't a million different systems all complex in their own way, where there's a base platform with base assumptions and base tools, that let's us manage our self-hosted apps & their data.
by diggan | 2025-05-22 19:12:19+00:00
I think in general the book isn't so much focus on the game design itself, sadly, but a lot of stuff around it.

However, is the whole "Back to the future" chapter basically about Alpha Centauri? Some time ago I read the book, but seems to be mentioned a bunch there: https://imgur.com/a/6d0U6oH
by rixed | 2025-05-22 19:12:43+00:00
« (1) IN GENERAL.—Except as provided in paragraph (2), no State or political subdivision thereof may enforce any law or regulation regulating artificial intelligence models, artificial intelligence systems, or automated decision systems during the 10-year period beginning on the date of the enactment of this Act. »

Does it actually make sense to pass a law that restrict future laws? Oh got it, that's federal state preventing any state passing their own laws on that topic.