MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by Atreiden | 2025-05-20 20:16:19+00:00
Every time we see something like this happen in the news, it should give us pause.

Not because this is a reflection on the quality and reliability of the AI models of today or tomorrow, but because it is documenting for us, in real time, the beginning of an epic period of collective cognitive decline. We are using these models to think, to write, and even to take actions on our behalf, whether or not they're better than what we could come up with ourselves. Most of the time, it is known to the user that the output is inferior to their best effort.

But we are losing our ability to apply our 'best effort'. Nobody wants to think. Nobody wants to take a long time to do ANY task, especially in the late stage capitalist word we inhabit. You are disincentivized from putting in almost anything above the bare-minimum effort.

We've already begun to stop thinking, and the outputs we're getting from AIs are notably, and often comically, inferior to the output from even a somewhat educated Human. What happens when the outputs become better than most people can come up with, period? We're seeing it.

The time will come when we CANNOT reasonably, and in a Timely Manner, dispute the machine. And for 99% of the world it will become the new truth. Our collective faculties of critical thinking will atrophy. I think that this is a hugely under-discussed AI doom risk scenario.
by ankit219 | 2025-05-20 20:17:55+00:00
You can read this for a comprehensive deep dive. https://arxiv.org/pdf/2502.01637

At a very high level, instead of having embeddings at the input layers, this method keeps the embeddings at the layer level. That is every transformer layer would have its own set of learnable embedding vectors that are used to modify the processed hidden states flowing through the network. Mostly, the embeddings are precomputed and stored separately. They are queried at inference time and has very low latency, so you can get comparable performance with half the RAM. (i am not exactly sure how 3n is doing it, but talking it in a general sense).
by alpaca128 | 2025-05-20 20:17:57+00:00
How is the requirement to use a computer and maybe pay a cloud subscription in the long term more accessible than other kinds of art? Which individuals are gatekept exactly? Before you bring up disabled people (as often happens when the term accessibility is used), know that many of them are not happy to be used as a shield for this without ever being asked and would rather speak for themselves.

I've tried AI image generation myself and was not impressed. It doesn't let me create freely, it limits me and constantly gravitates towards typical patterns seen in training data. As it completely takes over the actual creation process there is no direct control over the small decisions, which wastes time.

Edit: another comment about a different meaning of accessibility: the flood of AI content makes real content less accessible.
by kjkjadksj | 2025-05-20 20:18:04+00:00
And the book publishers tried to ruin that too. Get people to buy ereaders -> let massive libraries only have 5 “copies” of an ebook -> people shrug and pay $5 from the kindle store instead of waiting.

Basically priming a generation against libraries.

And then the ebook readers have these invented gripes why paper books no longer work for them and they must engage with the walled garden system in order to read. Some of it is truly pedantic stuff like “book too heavy.”
by dmonitor | 2025-05-20 20:18:05+00:00
People aren't looking forward to companies playing the "how much sawdust can you put in a rice crispy before people notice the difference" experiment on the entertainment industry. The quality of acting, scripting, lighting, and animation in the film/television industry already feels second rate to stuff being made before 2020. The cost cutting and gutting of cultural products is becoming ridiculous, and this technology will only be an accelerant.
by Ancapistani | 2025-05-20 20:18:57+00:00
I wonder if there's an opportunity here to abstract away these subscription costs and offer a consistent interface and experience?

For example - what if someone were to start a company around a fork of LiteLLM? https://litellm.ai/

LiteLLM, out of the box, lets you create a number of virtual API keys. Each key can be assigned to a user or a team, and can be granted access to one or more models (and their associated keys). Models are configured globally, but can have an arbitrary number of "real" and "virtual" keys.

Then you could sell access to a host of primary providers - OpenAI, Google, Anthropic, Groq, Grok, etc. - through a single API endpoint and key. Users could switch between them by changing a line in a config file or choosing a model from a dropdown, depending on their interface.

Assuming you're able to build a reasonable userbase, presumably you could then contract directly with providers for wholesale API usage. Pricing would be tricky, as part of your value prop would be abstracting away marginal costs, but I strongly suspect that very few people are actually consuming the full API quotas on these $200+ plans. Those that are are likely to be working directly with the providers to reduce both cost and latency, too.

The other value you could offer is consistency. Your engineering team's core mission would be providing a consistent wrapper for all of these models - translating between OpenAI-compatible, Llama-style, and Claude-style APIs on the fly.

Is there already a company doing this? If not, do you think this is a good or bad idea?
by heliophobicdude | 2025-05-20 20:19:02+00:00
I've been let off the waitlist. So far, I'm impressed with the Instant Edits. It's crazy fast. I can provide a big HTML file and prompt it to change a color theme and it makes careful edits to just the relevant parts. It seems to be able to parallelize the same instruction to multiple parts of the input. This is incredible for refactoring.

I copied a shader toy example, asked it to rename all the variables to be more descriptive and it edited just the variable names. I was able to compile and run in shader toy.
by somat | 2025-05-20 20:20:42+00:00
> it could be the phrase "total number of kittens"

There is this minimalism present in math culture, while I sort of understand it, when tossing and mixing formulas it helps to have everything as small as possible. but later, when it is published it really sucks for readability, "Okay here is an item doing some heavy lifting in this formula what is it for? hell if I know some joker labeled it 'φ' "

I like to joke, If you think programmers are bad at naming thing you should see the mathematicians, they take a perverse pride in their inability to name things.

The worst are programs derived directly from a math paper, if your variable holds the correlation coefficient call it that. we have thousands of years of language and labels we can use to share our ideas with others. don't encrypt it and call it "rho".
by AStonesThrow | 2025-05-20 20:21:23+00:00
Okay but "640" is a completely fictitious number for installed RAM in any given PC.

PC memory was nearly always sold in powers of two. So you could have SIMMs in capacity of 1MiB, 2MiB, 4, 8, 16MiB. You could usually mix-and-match these memory modules, and some PCs had 2 slots, some had 4, some had a different number of slots.

So if you think about 4 slots that can hold some sort of maximum, we're thinking 64MiB is a very common maximum for a consumer PC, and that may be 2x32 or 4x16MiB. Lots of people ran up against that limit for sure.

640MiB is an absurd number if you think mathematically. How do you divide that up? If 4 SIMMs are installed, then their capacity is 160MiB each? No such hardware ever existed. IIRC, individual SIMMs were commonly maxed at 64MiB, and it was not physically possible to make a "monster memory module" larger than that.

Furthermore, while 64MiB requires 26 bits to address, 640MiB requires 30 address bits on the bus. If a hypothetical PC had 640MiB in use by the OS, then only 2 pins would be unused on the address bus! That is clearly at odds with their narrative that they were able to "borrow" several more!

This is clearly a typo and I would infer that the author meant to write "64 megabytes" and tacked on an extra zero, out of habit or hyperbole.
by Sohcahtoa82 | 2025-05-20 20:22:06+00:00
> Which means 100% of the money goes to the owner.

As more jobs get automated, this is becoming more and more inevitable anyways.

There have been massive strides in computer vision and planning in the past few years. I think in 5-10 years we'll have robots that can handle nearly any manual labor task.

In 10-15 years, we could be facing skyrocketing unemployment. We'll either see the collapse of society as the economy collapses, or we'll need to increase taxes on the owners to fund UBI.
by Ancapistani | 2025-05-20 20:22:08+00:00
I agree, and the problem is that "value" != "utilization".

It costs the provider the same whether the user is asking for advice on changing a recipe or building a comprehensive project plan for a major software product - but the latter provides much more value than the former.

How can you extract an optimal price from the high-value use cases without making it prohibitively expensive for the low-value ones?

Worse, the "low-value" use cases likely influence public perception a great deal. If you drive the general public off your platform in an attempt to extract value from the professionals, your platform may never grow to the point that the professionals hear about it in the first place.
by poobear22 | 2025-05-20 20:22:27+00:00
I liked what I saw. I would love for you to have a simple filter so I could just examine, say Ruy Lopez games (I know this is more complex for your back end). Right now, you present my chess games, but I may only be interested in a particular opening. If you allowed a filter option of just a few moves, that would simplify what I want to look at. Otherwise, I need to do a fair amount of work to identify the types of games I want to analyze.

So, if you could support giving me a tool to see where I go wrong in my commonly played openings, that would be great.
by lxe | 2025-05-20 20:23:14+00:00
I've been doing AI art since 2022 and I'm still both disappointed and not quite surprised that this still is a pervasive view of what it takes to create anything high quality using AI.

If you take any high quality AI content and ask their creator what their workflow is, you'll quickly discover that the complexity and nuance required to actually create something high-quality and something that actually "fulfills your vision" is incredibly complex.

Whether you measure quality through social media metrics, reach, or artistic metrics, like novelty or nuance, high quality content and art requires a good amount of skill and effort, regardless of the tool.

Standard reading for context: https://archive.org/details/Bazin_Andre_The_Ontology_of_Phot...
by rglover | 2025-05-20 20:23:33+00:00
> you almost never carefully check to see that it is working (because that would be expensive)

I don't know about you, but I test everything thoroughly, whether I wrote it myself or used an LLM.

I think you're nitpicking over language here when what I said is clear. It can and does work with the proper amount of attention and effort, but that doesn't mean that it will just magically work with a one-shot attempt (though simpler code certainly can—e.g., "write me a debounce function").

As a software tester, you seem to be personalizing what I'm saying as encouraging developers to be a burden to you. Instead, I'm looking at it purely from a productivity standpoint. If your own team is just willy nilly dropping code that maybe works on your lap (with limited to no testing of their own), it might be time to find a new team. Being a tester in that type of environment will always be stressful, irrespective of how the code is written.
by celticninja | 2025-05-20 20:23:55+00:00
Yeah sure, but it doesn't take away from the fact that the Russians do not use pallets for logistics and therefore struggle with logistics as a result.

So I stand by my statement that his assessment is not wrong, even if it isn't as outcome changing as some may hope. It is however one of the many straws heaped upon the camel's back.

As for the transformer issue, I would imagine that these are somewhat related. Their train based logistics are inefficient, so Ukraine doesn't need to stop the trains running. If they did the russians may find a more efficient solution.
by mazurnification | 2025-05-20 20:24:00+00:00
First of all this were USSR-Japan skirmishes not war, second they did not have to worry about Japan as was shown by Soviet–Japanese Neutrality Pact of April 1941, third if they were worried about Japan then "spending" army on invasion of Poland, Finland, Baltics, Bessarabia were counter productive, fourthly at the time of Ribentrop Molotov pact Britain ceased following appeasement strategy as shown by declaring war to Germany at 3-rd of September 1939 as fulfillment of security guarantees given to Poland in March of 1939.

It is totally ahistoric to pin any actions of USSR on fear or just reaction to external events. If WWII was continuation of WWI (in my and many opinion it was) both Germany and USRR were revanchist powers that wanted to reverse outcome of WWI. Many forgot that Russia later USSR lost WWI badly. Plus Stalin after very, very, bloody consolidation of power in 30ties was ready (in fact it was imperative for regime stability) to start outward aggression/expansion.

Furthermore historian believe that Stalin knew that confrontation w/ Germany is inevitable but (more popular opinion) was estimating it will happen one year later at least or (less popular, even fringe opinion) was amassing forces to attack Germany and was cough by Nazis w/ "pants down". Either scenario would be explanation for initial successes of Operation Barbarossa.

Fun fact - last train with grain from USSR to Germany crossed border few minutes before start of Operation Barbarossa.

In summary - Soviets and Nazis were allies till 1941 - both parties know it was tactical alliance not unlike USSR - GB/USA against Germany and at the very end Japan. Note that after WWII there was cold war between former allies - not unlike like hot war between former alliance parties of Nazis and Soviets.

Second fun fact: Orwell's "oceania was always at war with eastasia" from 1984 is direct reference to how alliances were changing during WWII.
by AdmiralAsshat | 2025-05-20 20:24:23+00:00
I already gave Google my payment info, though, because I use Google Wallet. And I actually find that more secure, because IIRC the credit card number that is stored in Google Wallet is a virtual credit card number, not the real number that is printed on the physical card (which Rakuten Kobo would store).

Even when I buy books from Kobo, I never stored my credit card with them. I always bought gift cards and loaded the balance onto my account. That would occasionally get cumbersome, since the only vendor for those cards in the US used to be Wal-Mart, until they discontinued their relationship. Now I think Kobo might sell them directly out of Amazon.com--but either way, for the odd $2 and $3 purchases that I do on impulse buys (because a book may be on sale), just having it go through Google Wallet is much easier.
by TOGoS | 2025-05-20 20:26:49+00:00
I wrote a paper on REBOL back in college. It is very interesting, but the syntax is definitely weird. You might think of the function call syntax as being sort of Forth-like, but with the tokens in reverse order. So like a Lisp, but without required parentheses. e.g. in the example

send friend@rebol.com read http://www.cnn.com

`read` knows that it takes one argument, and `send` knows that it takes two, so this ends up being grouped like

(send friend@rebol.com (read http://www.cnn.com))

(which I think is valid syntax; that AST node is called a 'paren').

Weirdly, the language also has some infix operators, which seem a bit out-of-place to me. I have no idea how the 'parser'[1] works.

[1] 'parsing' happens so late that it feels funny to call it that. The thing that knows how to treat an array as a representation of an evaluatable expression and evaluate it.
by whizzter | 2025-05-20 20:27:08+00:00
I've used Tiled but not used Ogmo, but reading the bulletpoints the main upsides seems to be a more project focused approach (perhaps enabling more direct loading), in general though it doesn't seem to be too different (most listed features are in Tiled).

If you're starting fresh maybe try both before integrating on a coded workflow, but either will probably serve just fine for 2d games.
by cadamsdotcom | 2025-05-20 20:27:38+00:00
“It’s like giving your computer a brain”

Agree with the sentiment but trust in software is at an all time low and you have to work against that.

An example success is the developer of Superwhisper. Crazily responsive online, always polite, explains features with blog posts and videos, has a fan base of creators on youtube who fill in gaps in the docs and talk about creative & cool uses for the tool, and where possible the software provides local only ways to get work done.

If going closed source (which is fine) you could completely copy their strategy.
by mrguyorama | 2025-05-20 20:28:23+00:00
The amount of dollars the US gives to school districts does not tell you how much the US spends on education, because only a portion of that money actually goes to pay for the school or teachers. The rest goes to nonsense like obscene administrator salaries, which have seen the same stupid growth as CEO salaries.

Why are Teacher salaries still so low and teacher:pupil ratios continuing to get worse if we spend so much on education? Why is it that literally the primary thing that education tax dollars should be spent on, educators, is not what it is spent on?

Consider that one of the best states in the US for education, supposedly new jersey, pays it's teachers a MEDIAN of $82k. Starting is above $50k according to teachers.

In pretty much every state, the median teacher wage is equal or within 5% of the state's "living" wage.

Most places require a college degree for teachers. If they don't, that's scary in other ways. But why the hell am I spending $40k on a college degree to make barely living wage for the rest of my life? You know who does that? People who aren't very smart. Gee, I wonder why we struggle to find good teachers.

40% of our nation's teachers have a second job. That's funny, because I assure you that damn near any teacher that actually does their job works twice as hard as most other professional jobs. You don't actually get any time in your day to grade student work most of the time, so you have spend your own personal time to do your job. Every single piece of homework your child brings home is at least an hour of grading for that teacher, and that's just a niche subject or small class size. Good teachers are also running their departments, designing lesson plans, building entire portfolios of tests and work, and none of the promises of technology have done anything to improve these parts of the job. Digitized grade books are pretty good, but now they mean teachers have to deal with the worst parents bitching about their kids getting a bad grade because they didn't study, which is not something the teacher can help.
by cestith | 2025-05-20 20:29:03+00:00
I mentioned Haxe by name, and Eta is essentially Haskell on JVM.

There is an OCaml-Java. NetRexx targets the JVM. For Prolog there are JIProlog and TuProlog at least.

Red basically is REBOL. Yes, Red targets IA-32, ARM, JVM, AVM2, x64, and the CLR.

I’ve seen some experiments for running Perl on the JVM. Rakudo can target the JVM for Raku, which is Perl’s sister language.

For Ada, gnat can target the JVM. https://docs.adacore.com/gnatvm-docs/jgnat_ug.html

For Forth there are a number of implementations. JVMForth, jForth, Misty Beach Forth, HolinJ Forth, bjforth, and xforth at least.

I’ve seen a couple different Java libraries for SNOBOL-style matching but I’ve never seen a SNOBOL tool that targets the JVM.

MUMPS has M4J.

Rust is interesting. There are JVMs written in Rust. There’s support for the JNI for Rust for interoperability. I’m not aware of a JVM target for Rust, though. However, Rust still uses LLVM as its primary code generator. As I mentioned, there are LLVM IC to JVM compilers.

Basic isn’t really a single language. For something like MS Visual Basic, there’s Jabasco. There’s JVMBasic. MBC transpiles Basic to C or C++, so you could use clang to put its output on the JVM. PuffinBASIC is a Basic interpreter written in Java. GLBasic compiles to C++, so again with LLVM all things are possible here. BCX Basic also outputs C or C++. There’s something just called “BASIC Compiler” that is both written in Java and compiles its source to JVM bytecode. The basgo compiler outputs Go code, so anywhere you can target golang code you can target Basic code with basgo, including the JVM. I’m sure there are a lot more. These are different versions of Basic on the source side, some of them similar to one another.

Nimlvm is a Nim compiler to LLVM intermediate code. So once again, as a chain of steps it can be done.

Speaking of chaining translators/transpilers/compilers, did I mention there’s a WebAssembly to JVM compiler? There are actually more than one. Chicory is one and asmble is another. There’s something called “Happy New Moon with Report”. There’s also a WASM written in Scala called Swam. I’m sure I’m missing some.

So the huge and growing list of languages that target WASM can also be chain-translated to target the JVM. That includes C, Rust, Nim, TypeScript, C++, Forth, Go, F#, Lua, Zig, and more. https://wasmlang.org/

So if it targets the JVM, it can run on the JVM. But also if it targets WebAssembly, C, C++, LLVM IC, Lua, Go, and more it can also through other tools target the JVM. Or if it has an interpreter that runs on the JVM because it’s written in Java, Scala, Clojure, or some other language you can get it there. If you really want to get exotic and esoteric, there’s an x86 emulator in WASM out there and you could probably run that on one of the JVM WASM interpreters.
by TOGoS | 2025-05-20 20:29:26+00:00
The square brackets aren't really analogous to Lisp's parentheses; REBOL / RED use parentheses for the same purpose, if you need them. The square brackets are more like square brackets in Factor or Joy; they are 'quotations' around a list of words (or other syntactic structures; basically they make a list that is not evaluated immediately).
by Workaccount2 | 2025-05-20 20:29:48+00:00
I mean that in that I don't think it lived up to what Google envisioned. People have extremely hostile views towards ads but have a full expectation that everything is just an account creation away, if not outright just given away.

30% of people who use Google don't view their ads. It's hard to call a business where 30% of people don't pay successful. The news agencies picked up on this years ago, and now it's all paywalls.

This doesn't even get into the downstream effects of needing to coax people into spending more time on the platform in order to view more ads.
by CSMastermind | 2025-05-20 20:30:37+00:00
I pay for OpenAI Pro but this is a clear no for me. I just don't get enough value out of Gemini to justify a bump from $20 / month to $250.

If they really want to win they should undercut OpenAI and convince people to switch. For $100 / month I'd downgrade my OpenAI Pro subscription and switch to Gemini Ultra.
by th0ma5 | 2025-05-20 20:30:48+00:00
No, I've played with all the reasoning models and they just make the noise and weirdness even worse. When I dig into every little issue, it's always something incredibly bespoke. Like the actual documentation that's on the internet is out of date for the library that was installed and the API changed, the way the one library works in one language is not how it works in the other language, just all manner of surprising things. I really learned a lot about the limits of digital representation of information.