MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by tayo42 | 2025-05-21 04:41:19+00:00
> The design was in my head, and with hindsight I could see all its flaws. I was therefore able to create a much more efficient and effective design based on that learning. All the mistakes had been made, so I was able to get this version of the code right the first time.

I feel like you need to be careful with this. Ive seen a lot of times the rewrite ends up being more complicated then the original, even stuck in some rewrite hell and never takes off. I think its called the "2nd system effect"
by jc4p | 2025-05-21 04:41:25+00:00
Thank you so much!! While the transcription is technically in the API it's not a native part of the model and runs through Whisper separately, in my testing with it I often end up with a transcription that's a different language than what the user is speaking and the current API has no way to force a language on the internal Whisper call.

If the language is correct, a lot of the times the exact text isn't 100% accurate, if that's 100% accurate, it comes in slower than the audio output and not in real time. All in all not what I would consider feature ready to release in my app.

What I've been thinking about is switching to a full audio in --> transcribe --> send to LLM --> TTS pipeline, in which case I would be able to show the exact input to the model, but that's way more work than just one single OpenAI API call.
by godelski | 2025-05-21 04:42:03+00:00
It's worth noting that Moxie is the same Moxie of Signal.

He's also an anarchist. I don't think he's in it for the money. It's also worth noting that several multibillion dollar organizations use the underlying software too. I'm saying he's highly experienced and has created a successful business. Even without VC funding!

So there's a difference:

Is your intent to build a high quality product that will make money?

Is your intent to make high income by selling a product?

Personally, I'd argue it's the job of the engineer to focus on the product. The money is the domain of the business people. I'd also argue that the former option is better for society and we're in a bad situation if the latter situation is dominating. The contention between business people and engineers is healthy. It creates balance. Our job is to make the product the best it can be, their job is to sell it. If we don't do our job they're more than happy to sell garbage as long as people will buy it. And remember, VCs don't care about you or the company past their exit. That's not healthy for something if you really care about the product. But it's fine if you care more about the money.
Show HN: Waiting for YC Interview? I Created the YC AI Interview Call
by TaskNinja | 2025-05-21 04:43:01+00:00
Hello everyone!

You applied for the YC Summer 2025 batch and now waiting for your interview?

I created the YC AI Interview Call using official YC interview guides and authentic YC questions!

Try our (un)official YC AI Interview and receive a detailed feedback report, including a score—4 / 5 or above means you pass!

Our AI will call you directly on your phone to conduct a realistic YC interview.

Plus, get access to 100+ YC interview questions and insider prep materials.

Now available in the US, Korea, Japan! Tell us in the comments which country we should add

Try it now https://www.ycinterview.xyz/
by JackedLisp | 2025-05-21 04:43:46+00:00
Very impressed by Rainer König's Org-Mode tutorial series on YouTube. He manages to keep most episodes under 15min. As you progress the knowledge keeps building slowly. Highly effective. His paid courses are likely even better. During the 1st series He only touched init.el a few times. Opting instead for using Customize functionality. He used the default theme, if you can all it that. Toolbar on and menu bar and he used them during the sessions.

System Crafters tends to mostly do live streams for more a couple of hours. You learn a lot watching them. But many people don't have the patience for that.
by int_19h | 2025-05-21 04:44:03+00:00
The catch is that "does as good as X" is pretty much never representative of real world performance when it comes to LLMs.

In general, all those scores are mostly useful to filter out the models that are blatantly and obviously bad. But to determine whether the model is actually good at any specific thing that you need, you'll have to evaluate them yourself to find out.
by rashunain | 2025-05-21 04:44:42+00:00
Read current affairs of 21 May 2025 in English to improve your performance in the general awareness section of the government exams and become a government officer. Daily Current Affairs are very important for the preparation of the government exams like SSC CGL, SSC CHSL, RRB NTPC, SBI PO, UPSC, State PSC, Defence exams.
by huimang | 2025-05-21 04:45:02+00:00
You didn't make anything, aside from whatever lyrics, if any, you wrote yourself.

The song is adequate. The beat, drop, and chords are not that complicated, you could've learned how to do that yourself and not be chained to suno or whatever.

I would be delighted if a friend took the time to personally write and produce a song about me. I would not care at all if I realized it was just auto-generated stuff being pumped out "5x per week". The former I would cherish, the latter would be disposable junk to be listened to once and then forgotten about.

It's slop because it doesn't mean anything or has any value, not because it's literally sloppy.

---

"listening to their same 20-40 artists who would be in billboards list each month"

That's a you problem, quite literally a skill issue. There are so many indie artists making wonderful music that's leagues better than whatever hyper-distilled swill is on the radio at the moment.

---

"tell me it has hurt the abundance and diversity of songs out there"

Actual artists who make music composition and production their career ARE hurt when they can't find jobs/gigs/commissions because of things like suno. These tools are predicated on wholesale theft of music produced by humans.

But you can generate disposable songs at breakneck pace that don't mean anything, so it doesn't matter.
by ChuckMcM | 2025-05-21 04:46:20+00:00
This is pretty cool. I believe it was Bob Metcalf at PARC who had a device in his office that was hooked up to the 3Mbs Ethernet cable and would essentially do the same thing. He built and installed it to get a feel for how much of an issue "collisions" would really be on the network. At the time, the idea that you could just back off when you detected a collision and re-transmit was considered heresy of the highest order and the "experts" all believed that once you got to a certain small number of clients the wire would be overwhelmed with collisions and the network would be unusable. His gizmo proved that wasn't the case.
by dedup | 2025-05-21 04:47:43+00:00
From the individual incentive standpoint, it's not immediately clear who would make a decision to establish such a pipeline and subject their organization to short-term competitive disadvantage. A CEO of a public company can't really say "our R&D is 2x our peers because we're building a pipeline".

What I suspect is going to happen is something like the regional pilot situation, where one toils for pennies at lower levels and then gets to comfortable compensation numbers 10-15 years later.
by dlubarov | 2025-05-21 04:48:41+00:00
Hamas' feelings about the case aren't really relevant to jurisdiction, partly because the ICC doesn't recognize Gaza as a state, and partly since Hamas hasn't accepted the ICC's jurisdiction. The latter would require Hamas to accept ICC jurisdiction over crimes committed by themselves, not only by Israel, so I don't think that would happen regardless of the statehood matter.

Libya, Yemen, and China are a bit different since they used to be unified states. It's great that there's a vision for a unified State of Palestine, but I don't think it makes any sense for the international community to pretend that exists today. In reality the current State of Palestine is represented only by the PLO, which has never controlled Gaza, not is it supported by most Gazans.

China is an interesting comparison though. Hypothetically if the PRC wanted to join the ICC, would the ICC understand that as including Taiwan, regardless of what the ROC or the people of Taiwan wanted? If so, that seems like a bad situation made possible by China's leverage, and not something the international community should try to replicate with Palestine.
by lucyjojo | 2025-05-21 04:50:15+00:00
that is an issue but then.

it is probably better to try matching an implementation to a spec you know works, and debug that. than trying to match an implementation to an "in your head" spec which might not be correct in the first place. debugging the spec then the implementation seems to make more sense than debugging both at the same time.

a more vicious issue could be, does your model... models... enough reality for it to be relevant. because you can end up with a correct spec, a correct implementation, but in the end the cow wouldn't be round enough. but i don't know... i have too little experience in the domain.
by Arnavion | 2025-05-21 04:50:31+00:00
This stopped being much of a problem when MaybeUninit was stabilized. Now you can stick to using &MaybeUninit<T> / &mut MaybeUninit<T> instead of needing to juggle *T / *mut T and carefully track converting that to &T / &mut T only when it's known to be initialized, and you can't accidentally use a MaybeUninit<T> where you meant to use a T because the types are different.

It's not as painless as it could be though, because many of the MaybeUninit<T> -> T conversion fns are unstable. Eg the code in TFA needs `&mut [MaybeUninit<T>] -> &mut [T]` but `[T]::assume_init_mut()` is unstable. But reimplementing them is just a matter of copying the libstd impl, that in turn is usually just a straightforward reinterpret-cast one-liner.
by AuthorAI | 2025-05-21 04:50:47+00:00
I discovered this problem when I noticed that all AI-generated long-form content exhibited the same pattern of degradation around page 60, regardless of context window size. After detailed analysis, I identified four key failure modes:

1. Structural repetition: Systems fall into rigid pattern loops (identical paragraph structures repeated 30+ times) 2. Verbatim recycling: Same phrases appear across different contexts 3. Character voice homogenization: All characters speak/think identically 4. Plot stagnation: Same revelations repeat without progression

These failures occur because LLMs don't truly "remember" what they've written - they operate on a sliding window of recent text, creating an illusion of memory that breaks down in longer works.

My approach uses a multi-model orchestration architecture rather than a single LLM:

- Memory Management System: Structured database of narrative elements outside the generation process - Character Consistency Layer: Specialized NER system with contextual validation - Non-Autoregressive Pattern Analysis: Prevents structural repetition - Dynamic Prompt Generation: Evolving instructions based on accumulated context

The most counterintuitive finding was that quality actually improves with length in our system (measured against standardized publishing metrics). This inverts the traditional degradation curve.

I'd be interested in hearing from others working on LLM coherence issues, particularly at extended context lengths.

What approaches have you tried?
by ars | 2025-05-21 04:51:34+00:00
No they would not. If you imagine running a computer chess engine on 143,000 humans, it's not even remotely close to the amount of compute you need to win.

Humans don't win by calculation the way computers do. When you have multiple humans working together on chess they don't add up to an ultra-smart human. You are simply as smart as the smartest human in your crew, and that's it.
by hiAndrewQuinn | 2025-05-21 04:52:39+00:00
Actually, no, that's not clear to me either. While profit is certainly always what private enterprises aim for, it's also possible they will simply fail at it. Companies go bankrupt all the time. Those investments might simply be lost as other, better, cheaper options become available.

Nowhere should give us more confidence in this outcome being not just possible but likely, over the next 5-10 years, than the rapid growth of locally runnable models. There the fixed cost really is market rate silicon and the ongoing variable costs simply market rate electricity. So I don't even think you were being excessively metaphorical with that. That is actually where the price will head.
by DerekL | 2025-05-21 04:53:13+00:00
I disagree that it needed a chunky pixel mode most of all. What you're asking for is a machine that can draw a scene byte by byte with the CPU, then just display that. But if your hypothetical Amiga is doing most of its graphical manipulation with the CPU, then it has failed as a platform. The main idea of the Amiga is to handle media data using specialized chips that are much faster than the CPU for certain tasks.

What an upgraded Amiga really needed was two things. The first is a fast blitter that could also horizontally stretch or shrink a bitmap by some fractional amount. The second was some sort of “flipper” device (or new blitter feature) that could reflect a bitmap across a diagonal line (or rotate by 90 degrees).

Here's how you'd use these for a third-person shooter. Store the wall bitmaps flipped along the diagonal; each line of those bitmaps correspond to a vertical slice of the wall. For each vertical line in the scene, find the correct wall tile and row, and blit that line of pixels into a scratch space, squishing it and shifting it by the correct amount. Then use the flipper to copy that to the screen.
by sReinwald | 2025-05-21 04:53:51+00:00
It seems the core concept of contextual integrity is still not landing.

It's not a question of surprise that public data can be scraped - I'm well aware of how the internet functions, thank you. The point, which you seem determined to evade, is about the fundamental ethics of systematically doing so and the vast difference in impact and expectation between, say, a server's own moderation logs or incidental screenshots, and a third party, globally indexed, permanent archive. The former serves limited, often known functions within that specific community; the latter is a privacy-invasive data trawl weaponizing the 'public' label. Just because a thing is technically possible doesn't grant a free pass to ignore privacy implications or users' reasonable expectations of how their contributions will be used and disseminated.

Your attempt to dismantle the 'public park' analogy only underscores your misunderstanding of it. The scenario isn't about someone yelling (an exceptional event, often a public nuisance, that might indeed attract specific attention or recording). It's the equivalent of someone systematically planting listening devices by every park bench, transcribing every casual, low-expectation conversation - like my dinner plans with my girlfriend, or a vent about my boss - and then publishing it all online, forever, simply because the park itself is 'public' and it was a technically possible thing to do. The ethical chasm between observing a public spectacle and conducting mass, indiscriminate surveillance of every day, semi-private interactions within a public space shouldn't be this difficult to grasp. One involves a specific event; the other is a dragnet.

As for flagging, I didn't touch your comment. I have never flagged a single comment on this site. Perhaps others simply disagreed with the quality, relevance or the dismissive tone of your contribution.
by parisidau | 2025-05-21 04:54:09+00:00
As an update, they briefly unblocked our account (after admitting it was a bug/issue on their end), and we transferred our money to OFX. But then they locked the account again, and haven't usefully responded beyond sending us some tips on trying different browsers, or operating systems... (yes, this makes no sense).

They've said they'll provide a final response/compensation offer, but that hasn't come, and they've locked down the account again.

Don't use Wise.
by alephnerd | 2025-05-21 04:54:35+00:00
I don't disagree with the EU's laggardness around changing economic tides, but if just about every major economic bloc and country is initiating trade barriers against China to protect their domestic industries, at some point the common denominator is China.

And as I mentioned elsewhere, much of this overproduction would go away were Chinese consumers able to dip into their savings if China's social safety net was expanded and the CCP's Reaganesque opposition to "Welfarism" was toned down.
by Gustomaximus | 2025-05-21 04:55:04+00:00
> There is no untapped source of demand anywhere in the world.

What about global growth and development? There are ~billion living in poverty + general low income for even more.

If India and other high population poor countries achieve what China did over the last ~50 years, while China continue to export while transitioning towards a consumption/service economy, there is another engine for global growth. I'm sceptical this will happen, but the potential source of demand is sitting there.
by mbs159 | 2025-05-21 04:56:05+00:00
Europeans don't just dislike capitalism. They've been indoctrinated into thinking that if a business makes money, it must be cheating.

Those are some big assumptions about 750 million people. Would love to see the data on this.

> In America, a 20-year-old can drop out of college, code an app in his dorm, and become a billionaire. In Europe? Good luck.

Assuming that's the case with you, right? And if not, then why not if it's so simple? Everybody knows that these cases are extremely rare, but they do happen both in the US and in the EU.

> The ultimate proof that Europe's system is broken? Its smartest people leave. Engineers, doctors, entrepreneurs, they all flee to the U.S., Switzerland, or Singapore, where they're allowed to keep what they earn.

Again, would love to see the data on this. Based on my own personal anecdata, one of the reasons why IT engineers don't move to the US despite being offered to do so is because they enjoy the other benefits of living in the EU, like high-speed rail, free health-care, free higher education, being car independent, childcare benefits and having more days off.
by javafactory | 2025-05-21 04:56:45+00:00
Your point is valid. In real-world work, tests should focus on parts that are difficult to verify, and if everything passes on the first try, it's often a sign that something deserves a closer look.

That said, what I wanted to highlight in the example was a contrast — tools like Cursor and other general-purpose models often fail to even generate simple tests correctly, or can't produce tests that pass. So the goal was to show the difference in reliability.
by protocolture | 2025-05-21 04:57:32+00:00
https://www.datacenterdynamics.com/en/news/microsoft-cancels...

AI seems like it is speedrunning all the phases of the hype cycle.

"TD Cowen analysts Michael Elias, Cooper Belanger, and Gregory Williams wrote in the latest research note: “We continue to believe the lease cancellations and deferrals of capacity points to data center oversupply relative to its current demand forecast.”"
by javafactory | 2025-05-21 04:58:40+00:00
1. Im sorry. i it was typo on path, i fixed it so you can see now.

2. from now, i only allow to use gpt-4o, because the requests involve relatively long context windows, which require high-quality reasoning. Only recent high-performance models like GPT-4o or Claude Sonnet are capable of reducing the manual workload for this kind of task.

___

but still, if user want to use other models , i can make adapter features for various models
by doctorpangloss | 2025-05-21 04:59:03+00:00
On the other hand, take one look at the way they caption a video in their dataset, and you have seen like 90% of the "secret sauce" of generative art. All this supposed data and knowledge, and anyone who has worked 1 day on Imagen or Veo could become a serious competitor.

The remaining 10% is the solution to generating good hands, of course. And do you think YouTube has been helping anyone achieve that?
by hiAndrewQuinn | 2025-05-21 04:59:46+00:00
>LLMs are not going to allow you to do advanced programming if you couldn't already do it by hand.

This is simply false. I have empirically already seen many people get LLMs to write code they couldn't do by hand in any reasonable time frame. ("Let me take a 3 month course on Python and then get back to writing this pandas script by hand" is not a reasonable time frame when your competition can pump it out for you in 30 seconds.)

Some of these people go on to learn how to code themselves, but others are perfectly happy with treating the results they're currently getting as a black box. LLMs are a force multiplier on general productivity moreso than they are on programming ability specifically.

>[I]t would be economically very valuable, and you can bet that functionality is not going to be casually enabled in LLMs

But nothing else in the world works like this. An economically very valuable thing is, almost by definition, something with a lot of demand for it. That's like saying Excel would be so valuable if only it could do math, so of course Microsoft isn't going to put a calculator into its spreadsheet program.
by two_handfuls | 2025-05-21 05:00:12+00:00
Ok, so I pay for what I use instead of the flat monthly fee of a subscription.

How do I know it's cheaper? Surely, that would depend on how much I use it? Yet your website confidently claims a $10/mo cost instead of $200/mo.

I'm sure you're aboveboard, but the website sure makes this proposition look too good to be true!
by vgatherps | 2025-05-21 05:02:01+00:00
Yes, this is the case that I ran into as well. You have to zero memory before reading and/or have some crazy combination of tracking what’s uninitialized capacity or initialized len, I think the rust stdlib write trait for &mut Vec got butchered over this concern.

It’s strictly more complicated and slower than the obvious thing to do and only exists to satisfy the abstract machine.
by doctorpangloss | 2025-05-21 05:02:36+00:00
IMO, this is a misconception. For example, in the case of social media display ads (i.e., not the typical Google text ad), most campaigns are "saturation," they only work if the creatives are seen 100+ times by the intended audience and look more or less exactly the same, which is kind of the exact opposite theory that benefits from being able to create unlimited personalized creatives.
by Arnavion | 2025-05-21 05:03:04+00:00
>I’ve also dealt with pain implementing similar interfaces in Rust, and it really feels like you end up jumping through a ton of hoops (and in some of my cases, hurting performance) all to satisfy the abstract machine, at no benefit to programmer or application.

I've implemented what TFA calls the "double cursor" design for buffers at $dayjob, ie an underlying (ref-counted) [MaybeUninit<u8>] with two indices to track the filled, initialized and unfilled regions, plus API to split the buffer into two non-overlapping handles, etc. It certainly required wrangling with UnsafeCell in non-trivial ways to make miri happy, but it doesn't have any less performance than the equivalent C code that just dealt with uint8_t* would've had.
by kstrauser | 2025-05-21 05:03:57+00:00
If I were the user, I would’ve been unsatisfied with that answer. They had logs showing that yes, someone did appear to access their notes. No one seems to have corrected the misunderstanding at the time, which might’ve turned them back into a happy Roam user.

Don’t do that. Things like this are an opportunity to overcommunicate. Explain in detail to the user, who’s smart enough to use the tools to reveal the information in the first place. Write up a FAQ entry explaining this for the next person so you can point them right to it. Don’t just reply to say basically “you didn’t actually see that” and leave it at that.