MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by jeroenhd | 2025-05-10 19:54:35+00:00
> All that said, I think Tesla and the EV industry as a whole will need to do a lot to bring down their repair costs

It's not just Tesla, and it's not just the EV industry either. It's not even recent. My ten year old car has some scratches in a plastic body panel and minor bumper damage thanks to me backing into something. Stupid, I know, but that thin piece of formed plastic should not cost me €700 and the bent plastic bar should not be costing anywhere near €300 to order. The mechanic is expensive enough already. Luckily I don't care about a bit of visual damage, but it's still infuriating.

More and more cars are cheaply produced, with maintenance as an afterthought, and that leads to flimsy, difficult to replace, specialised components, often non-modular to save on production cost.

The cost for cheap manufacturing is blindly passed onto insurance and now a kid on a bike can bankrupt their family by accidentally hitting a Tesla. It's ridiculous. But it's hardly a Tesla-only problem, and it's been going on for years.
by nickpsecurity | 2025-05-10 19:55:06+00:00
Let me add to that. It requires a universe with specific laws that remain stable and encourage optimization. Then, a planet hospitible to life. Then, specific creatures with biological machinery more complex than anything humans have created. The machinery has plenty of reliability and adaptation baked in.

Godless evolution suggests randomness produced all of it overtime. Yet, that's never worked in anything we've built. Even our GA's required laws, an environment, a computer, software, and fine-tuning. Pre-existing or by intelligent design (human inventors). Without these, it produced no results.

So, I'll correct you by saying empirical data suggests evolution didnt produce this. We're seeing God's design skills in adaptive, resilient, complex, self-replicating systems. His work is truly beautiful to behold. Humans still can't produce something similar from scratch. Actually, they can't even be sure how the existing design works.
by Netcob | 2025-05-10 19:55:22+00:00
I don't think LLMs are mature enough as a technology to be blindly used as a dependency, and they might never be.

The big question is, how do you train LLMs that are useful to both humans and services while not embarrassing the company that trained them?

LLMs are pretty good at translating - but if they don't like what they're reading, they simply won't tell you what it says. Which is pretty crazy.

LLMs are pretty good at extracting data and formatting the results as JSON - unless they find the data objectionable, then they'll basically complain to the deserializer. I have to admit that's a little bit funny.

Right now, if you want to build a service and expect any sort of predictability and stability, I think you have to go with some solution that lets you run open-weights models. Some have been de-censored by volunteers, and if you find one that works for you, you can ignore future "upgrades" until you find one that doesn't break anything.

And for that it's really important to write your own tests/benchmarks. Technically the same goes for the big closed LLM services too, but when all of them fail your tests, what will you do?
by keithwhor | 2025-05-10 19:55:29+00:00
Quick follow up:

I anticipate alignment issues as well. Anthropic is building MCP to make the Anthropic experience great. But Anthropic's traffic is fractional compared to ChatGPT - 20M monthly vs 400M weekly. Gemini claims 350M monthly. The incentive structure is all out of whack; how long are OpenAI and Google going to let an Anthropic team (or even a committee?) drive an integration spec?

Consumers have barely interacted with these things yet. They did once, with ChatGPT Plugins, and it failed. It doesn't entirely make sense to me that OpenAI is okay to do this again but let another company lead the charge and define the limitations of the end user experience (because that what the spec ultimately does, dictates how prompts and function responses are transported), when the issue wasn't the engineering effort (ChatGPT's integration model was objectively more elegant) but a consumer experience issue.

The optimistic take on this is the community is strong and motivated enough to solve these problems as an independent group, and the traction is certainly there. I am interested to see how it all plays out!
by api | 2025-05-10 19:55:40+00:00
TSLA has never traded in line with fundamentals. If the price wasn't rational then, why should it be rational now?

Also note that the CEO has close ties with government, so some people might be betting on Federal contracts or some kind of bailout.

I have a hypothesis that the reason Musk went all-in on Trump was because Trump would keep BYD out of the North American market. There's been whispering for years about BYD building plants in NAFTA nations or perhaps even in the USA (like Toyota and Nissan did), and even with significantly higher costs BYD would probably annihilate Tesla. A higher-end US-market mid-priced BYD EV with 300+ miles of range that undercut the model S would be deadly.

If we had global free trade with no tariffs China would absolutely dominate this sector as well, at least for mainstream vehicles.
by robocat | 2025-05-10 19:55:44+00:00
> And this is just a tip of the iceberg.

My teeth were 3D scanned at very high resolution by my dentist the other day. He is leading edge and is now doing it for all patients (was previously only patients with replacement needs). I assume the information is going to some US provider somewhere.

Iris scanning and lots of other biometrics like capillaries can be done from a distance (e.g. iris scan at airport security in NZ).
by fc417fc802 | 2025-05-10 19:56:04+00:00
You've cherrypicked the phrase "public good" and applied an out of context definition that doesn't fit. The thing being discussed was public utilities. Those are a sort of public good in the same sense that public parks, public libraries, and free education are all public goods.

The local electric utility isn't "non-excludable" (unless you ignore criminal law) but it is certainly a public utility, a natural monopoly, and public good by most metrics. The vast majority of jurisdictions regulate it accordingly.
by renegat0x0 | 2025-05-10 19:56:23+00:00
I recently tried to integrate Gmail in my app [0], and I poured too much time on it. I decided it is not worth to support Gmail.

Gmail to SQLite describes 6 steps to get credentials working, but it is not true for me. After 6 steps:

- that Google said that my app was not published, so I published it

- Google said that app cannot be internal, because I am not a workspace user

- for external apps

- then it said I cannot use the app until it is verified

- in verification they wanted to know domain, address, other details

- they wanted to have my justification for scopes

- they wanted to have video explaining how the app is going to be used

- they will take some time to verify the data I provided them

It all looks like a maze of settings, where requiring any of users to go above the hoops required by Google is simply too much.

Links:

[0] https://github.com/rumca-js/Django-link-archive
by garylkz | 2025-05-10 19:56:27+00:00
From an end user perspective, the whole "proof that you are human" thing is nothing but hassle.

Back then the "select all boxes with traffic light or something" is already ambiguous enough, now they even started to generate AI images for that and to be honest, I can't even get it right like 40% of the time...

... And the actual bots are able to do that better than me. What an absurd time to live in.
by toomuchtodo | 2025-05-10 19:56:28+00:00
> “This is a hollowing out of this demographic of mid-career workers, who in reality do the bulk of the work,” said Simplicity chief economist Shamubeel Eaqub. “That’s the jaws of death closing, and then we have labour market problems.”

> The high cost of living, along with wages, job conditions and difficulty finding employment were among the reasons given for moving by those spoken to by the Guardian. Many did not want to leave, but felt they were left with no option after struggling to get by.

The labor market is not paying workers enough to retain them. Pay them more, or they will leave.
by keeda | 2025-05-10 19:57:37+00:00
Having a separate research division being an anti-pattern is an interesting topic! I remember getting into a related discussion almost a decade ago with a professor who left academia to join Google, his point being product-driven R&D was strictly "better" than "bluesky" R&D because (IIRC) the work is more directly related to market needs.

My contention was that this ignores the transformative potential of long-range theoretical research. For instance, somehow very few consider Xerox PARC to be an anti-pattern.

From what I hear in the last few years even MSR has changed its ways to steer its research more in line with needs of product divisions, and I actually consider that a loss. Who knows what paradigm-shifting inventions like GenAI are being steered away from?

> Look at how much Microsoft spends on R&D for the last 25 years, compared to the amount Google spends, in absolute terms and as a fraction of revenues.

Hmm, at the risk of relying on sycophantic bots, AI overviews suggest most recently Microsoft spent 13.2% of revenues vs 14.8% for Google (and 30% for Meta!) Of course even a single % point is in the millions at their scale, but there are a ton of confounding factors including differing product margins and payscales (and CEO obsessions like Metaverse!) At least at a quick glance MSFT and GOOG seem comparable.

The problem here is how "R&D" is defined. Unfortunately, even day-to-day product development is lumped in with R&D. I've done "R&D" in academia, private research firms, and big tech, and they are all poles apart. "Actual" R&D is very researchy, often based in discovering new aspects of reality, whereas "product" R&D is just regular product development. Which could be considered discovering new aspects of the market I suppose. They are both valuable but on very differnt timelines.
by gotoeleven | 2025-05-10 19:57:54+00:00
Thats not what they mean by harm here. I get that you're being cool and cynical but they're using "harm" in the sense of words can cause harm therefore we are justified in censoring them.

Google would be fully justified, I believe, in having a disclaimer that said "gemini will not provide answers on certain topics because they will cause Google bad PR." But that's not what they're saying. They're saying they won't provide certain answers because putting certain ideas to words harms the world and Google doesn't want to harm the world. The latter reason is far more insidious.
by Kon-Peki | 2025-05-10 19:58:44+00:00
TSLA is in the S&P 500, which guarantees a certain level of demand.

It has met all the criteria for removal (there are 20-30 changes every year, even profitable companies get removed) but obviously won’t be until Musk angers Trump enough for them to have the political cover to do it. When that happens, look out below.
by pbhjpbhj | 2025-05-10 20:00:42+00:00
Personally, as copyright is a non-natural right, we should limit it for films/tv/shows such that whatever price it is sold for, then it is made available for any distributor to sell for after a very limited monopoly period (1 year from release, say, reflecting the current market in which films go from cinema to TV streaming platforms in a few weeks). This would apply to all distributors over X users and/or Y revenue (taking in at least the top 5 streaming platforms).

This way, the public can access copyright works, and producers of works can be paid, but distribution is opened up. Creators still get paid, distribution isn't monopolistic.

Netflix can argue "this show is worth £5 per viewer" and only sell rights at that price, but they pay tax on that price, and crucially the rest of the catalogue then needs to add up so if viewers are paying £8 per month then the rest of the catalogue is marked down accordingly. There will be manipulation, but if it doesn't reasonably add up then apply the sort of penalties in the EU of 20$ gross profit fines; strike off directors for copyright abuse (can't be directors of media companies again).

I can't see that this would harm income for creators, only for distributors (who aren't needed, they're just duplicating using monopolistic practices), and it seems it would have broad appeal.

So, yes, I agree.
by rochav | 2025-05-10 20:02:13+00:00
I think operating under the assumption that AI is an entity bring itself and comparing it to dogs is not really accurate. Entities (not as in legal, but in the general sense) are beings, living beings that are capable of emotion, of thought and will, are they not? Whether dogs are that could be up to debate (I think they are, personally), but whether language models are that is just is not. The notion very notion that they could be any type of entity is directly tied to the value the companies that created it have, it is part of the hype and capitalist system and I, again personally, don't think anyone could ever turn that into something that somehow ends up against capitalism just because the AI can't directly want something in return for you. I understand the sentiment and the distrust of the mental health care apparatus, it is expensive, it is tied to capitalism, it depends on trusting someone that is being paid to influence your life in a very personal way, but it's still better than trusting it on the judgment of a conversational simulation that is incapable of it, incapable of knowing you and observing you (not just what is written, but how you physically react to situations or to the retelling, like tapping your foot or disengaging) and understanding nuance. Most people would be better served talking to friends (or doing their best trying to make friends they can trust if they don't have any), and I would argue that people supporting people struggling is one way of truly opposing capitalism.
by al_borland | 2025-05-10 20:02:28+00:00
I wondered this with things like FaceID. In my head, every time it unlocks it’s tweaking and tuning the what it knows to be the user, so it can adapt as a person ages, goes through weight changes, etc. However, in practice this may not be the case, since there is an easy backup and a person can re-register pretty easily.

On the topic of eyes, my dad recently had surgery on his eyes and they did one at a time, for obvious reasons. That could be a way to transition. Register both, have surgery on one, let it heal, register the healed eye, have surgery on the other, then register that. Always using the good and registered eye to authenticate. But this isn’t realistic. It requires way too much forethought and planning, when people’s minds are elsewhere.
by tptacek | 2025-05-10 20:02:46+00:00
You'll never get a satisfactory answer, but there's presumably:

* some coefficient of meme-stockery (trading in expectation of other people's memetic interest in the stock, like GME) and

* some other coefficient of Tesla's long term vision (gigafactories, their distribution system, their place in the market for power delivery, &c).

Neither of these would be especially sensitive to Tesla's recent performance; Tesla only has to stay viable for both those payoffs to remain plausible.
by mschuster91 | 2025-05-10 20:02:59+00:00
> Children are sponges of information

... and, crucially, they lack the knowledge to filter bullshit and truth.

LLMs cannot say they don't know something, they will hallucinate instead, and I'd argue that is even worse for children.

> and often their parents and various information outlets don't provide them with enough to satisfy their curiosity

FFS the solution isn't feeding AI slop to our children like we do for geese in foie gras, the solution is to properly staff schools, train teachers and to reduce working hours for parents so that they have time and mental energy to, well, parent their children.

And I'd even go further and say that persistent spreaders of lies and propaganda like Alex Jones should be forced to have age checks like porn sites. It's bad enough these people can poison the minds of dumbass adults, but they should be kept as far as possible from our children.
by wunderwuzzi23 | 2025-05-10 20:03:11+00:00
Your comment reminds me that when I first wrote about MCP it reminded me of COM/DCOM and how this was a bit of a nightmare, and we ended up with the infamous "DLL Hell"...

Let's see how MCP will go.

https://embracethered.com/blog/posts/2025/model-context-prot...
by _raz | 2025-05-10 20:03:12+00:00
Idk, I'm kind of agnostic and ended up throwing it in there.

Regurgitating the OAuth draft don't seem that usefull imho, and why am I forced into it if I'm using http. Seems like there are plenty of usecases where un-attended thing would like to interact over http, where we usually use other things aside from OAuth.

It all probably could have been replaced by

- The Client shall implement OAuth2 - The Server may implement OAuth2
by sgnelson | 2025-05-10 20:03:31+00:00
I'm still reading through the article, but as a teacher, I'm highly skeptical of the results of this meta study. My own observations do not support that ChatGPT et al improve learning performance and especially thinking.

As you can imagine, discussing AI in education is a huge topic. But seeing a study like this that just says "Yep, it's all good." I'm stupidly skeptical of this sort of meta-study. I very much believe the jury is out, and especially in terms of long term performance. I don't care if my students are able to use ChatGPT to "do better" in my classes if the results are short-lived.

A short review of my experiences; my bias, I am very much skeptical of the generative LLM's on the whole. I do fear it will become a crutch rather than a teaching tool. But I also use them, and I think it's amazing technology. I see it as a tool that will be used. And as it's a tool, like all tools, it can be used for good or bad.

For every amazing anecdote I have of a student using ChatGPT to do something amazing or using it as a personal tutor (and I have seen this and it's awesome.), I also have anecdotes about students relying on nothing but ChatGPT output, taking it as gospel, and imo, losing their research problem solving capabilities. I've taken to calling it the "Death of Research." "Why bother reading or looking for anything, ChatGPT will just give it to me."

I will say that I deal with STEM education, work mostly at a Community College in a trade, and as such, I'm exposed to a very different cohort of students that tend to be less computer literate, and are different in many ways than your traditional students. But I also work with high school students, who are very computer literate, and ironically, these are the students I see the problems with.

I'm not trying to say "AI Bad." But I sure don't buy the argument "AI Good."
by safetybox | 2025-05-10 20:03:44+00:00
I managed to spend one night in custody in a prison instead of the police department.

The furniture had an uncanny resemblance to the furniture in the run-down public school I went to.

And the drawing on the walls unmistakably resembled the writing on the public school toilets, too.

And it occurred to me. It's the same people. And their hand writing and stick men had not improved.
by keithwhor | 2025-05-10 20:04:23+00:00
In the grand scheme of things I think we are still very early. MCP might be the thing which is why I'd rather try and contribute if I can; it does have a grassroots movement I haven't seen in a while. But the wonderful thing about the market is that incentives, e.g. good customer experiences that people pay for, will probably win. This means that MCP, if it remains the focal point for this sort of work, will become a lot better regardless of whether or not early pokes and prods by folks like us are successful or not. :)
by traviscline | 2025-05-10 20:05:12+00:00
Thanks for this, I’ve been feeling similarly.

I’m working on some Go programs/tools with the explicit goal of describing existing servers in a language neutral manner to try to get some sanity into the mix.

I was reenergized to pick this back up because Google is working on a version so I want to get these tools ready.

Open to ideas and input, have been noodling on it for a bit now, lots not in form to share but figured I’d share early:

https://github.com/tmc/mcp
by csours | 2025-05-10 20:06:12+00:00
Remember the time that Florida fought the federal government for access to socialized medicine?

https://www.flgov.com/eog/news/press/2024/florida-becomes-fi...

> "Today, the DeSantis administration received U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA) approval of its Canadian Prescription Drug Importation Program. The Agency for Health Care Administration (AHCA) submitted this first-of-its-kind plan to safely import cheaper drugs from Canada to the FDA nearly 37 months ago, and after filing a lawsuit against the FDA due to delays, has finally received approval. This approval will save Florida up to $180 million in the first year."
by bgnn | 2025-05-10 20:06:14+00:00
All good answers here. I have one addition: Zero interest rate regime we had since the financial crisis meant the money supply was cheap. It was enough to just hype yourself to the investors to get money, and Tesla did exactly that and got incredible valuation. That cheap money supply dried out, but the high valuation of Tesla became in itself to keep its outlook good, so it's self sustaining so far in a fragile state. Exactly how fragile is it, nobody would know, but typically you need good profits and earnings to be a stable investment. In a world with a lot of viable alternatives and heating up competition, Tesla needs like a monopoly in a technology or market (be it autonomous driving, be it banning all electric cars in Western hemisphere except Teslas by presidential decree) to not be a ticking time bomb.
by mschuster91 | 2025-05-10 20:07:46+00:00
Tesla's entire way of conducting business is new.

No other auto maker before them (to my knowledge) has built their own grid of gas stations, no auto maker went to the efforts that Tesla did to vertically integrate, no auto maker completely ignored the "classic" model of independent dealerships to sell and service their cars... it makes sense that they're about the first ones (at least in America) to change how the financial side works as well.
by freejazz | 2025-05-10 20:08:00+00:00
Once again you are just talking about "left" and "right" not engaging with anything I discussed while accusing me of being in denial of "right wing populism" which is facially not the case.

I don't "not believe" in right wing populism, I disagree with your assertions of how it functions and what its goals are and how that relates to your notion that populists want the same thing regardless of whether they are "left" or "right" and that it's just "different paths."

>It's because most people on the left are not aware that there even is a right wing populism.

This isn't even remotely true. What "left"ist stuff are you reading?