MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by fragmede | 2025-05-06 00:12:06+00:00
On the right team at a FAANG to a large SaaS, because the places that need all of that kind of work are few and far between. Eg somewhere among the teams that make the Oculus firmware would be close enough to the hardware to need all that sort of work in order to ship to the tight latency specs they're looking for. Or early employee at a startup making a product that's going to need those sort of problems solved on a consistent basis, that's well funded enough that you can have enough time to solve problems like that in ways that aren't a total hack (because we all know those are going to be removed Real Soon Now).
by smitty1e | 2025-05-06 00:12:08+00:00
Job 40:6-14

[6] Then answered the LORD unto Job out of the whirlwind, and said, [7] Gird up thy loins now like a man: I will demand of thee, and declare thou unto me. [8] Wilt thou also disannul my judgment? Wilt thou condemn me, that thou mayest be righteous? [9] Hast thou an arm like God? Or canst thou thunder with a voice like him? [10] Deck thyself now with majesty and excellency; And array thyself with glory and beauty. [11] Cast abroad the rage of thy wrath: And behold every one that is proud, and abase him. [12] Look on every one that is proud, and bring him low; And tread down the wicked in their place. [13] Hide them in the dust together; And bind their faces in secret. [14] Then will I also confess unto thee That thine own right hand can save thee.

https://bible.com/bible/1/job.40.6-14.KJV
by Flundstrom2 | 2025-05-06 00:12:26+00:00
That's great!

Considering the millions of instructions that nowadays are executed just to cope with all layers of abstraction to read a sigle byte from a drive, we really need to start thinking about energy consumption and energy-efficient programming!

When it's too cool, I spin up a kernel build, after a while the room is warmed by the heat of the CPU.
by sfink | 2025-05-06 00:13:18+00:00
Squash. But note that we don't use github PRs, we use Phabricator with support for stacks, so we're likely talking about somewhat different things.

I'm talking about a forge that allows some sort of persistent reviewable unit that can change over time. Phabricator revisions, jj changes, and at least Gerrit has the same thing. There isn't a single unit of review, there are two: the bug and the individual changes. The bug is associated with a stack of changes. An individual change initially corresponds to a commit, but when you rename a variable, you update the commit for that change. jj and I guess git call that squashing, hg calls it amending.

The author does work, useful work, to break down everything that needs to change for that bug into a series of reviewable changes, preferably not breaking the build or tests in the middle of the series, but that's negotiable.

So we may not be disagreeing on anything. If by "commit" you mean one item in a patch stack, then yes we squash. But we do not squash the different changes within a bug, whether or not they change during review. If there's a change that does some refactoring to prepare, then a change to add a new API, then a change to add users and tests of those users, then we review those separately and do not squash for landing.

It is definitely my preferred way of working. I don't want to see a dozen fixup commits, nor do I want to see a giant change that touches everything at once. It's a happy middle ground where the author decides what the reviewer and later debuggers need to look at and what they can skip.
by whynotminot | 2025-05-06 00:13:50+00:00
> These are all activities he is engaging in to generate money through the company he has a stake in. None of those activities have a purpose other than selling the work of his company and presenting it as a good investment which is how he gets money.

So he doesn't enjoy the attention? Prestige or power? Respect?

Are you Sam Altman? Because you're making a lot of assumptions on his psyche right now.
by chris12321 | 2025-05-06 00:13:59+00:00
Thanks, I'll let my team know.

Sorry I meant to say "I've been thinking about building a Once style project" I've just got a couple of not very well fleshed out ideas at the moment.

In terms of licencing it's interesting, I suppose you could have the app phone home periodically, but since it's source available, someone could just remove that call. I guess the main idea is just that it's software for businesses and legitimate businesses generally aren't going to break licence agreements.
by danenania | 2025-05-06 00:15:52+00:00
I think the foundation model companies are actually poorly situated to reach the leading edge of AGI first, simply because their efforts are fragmented across multiple companies with different specializations—Claude is best at coding, OpenAI at reasoning, Gemini at large context, and so on.

The most advanced tools are (and will continue to be) at a higher level of the stack, combining the leading models for different purposes to achieve results that no single provider can match using only their own models.

I see no reason to think this won't hold post-AGI (if that happens). AGI doesn't mean capabilities are uniform.
by tpmoney | 2025-05-06 00:16:04+00:00
Ok, but if you're going to proofread ChatGPT's output and edit it and massage it until you get something that isn't obviously the output of the LLM, how is that different from taking your buddy's homework and changing enough of the text to make it look like you didn't copy it? In either case you have to read what someone else wrote and comprehend it enough to decide what should or shouldn't change.
by marcedwards | 2025-05-06 00:16:56+00:00
Yeah, there’s a few, and I probably should have included more plugins. I don’t mind the built in Ableton vocoder. The built in Logic Pro one is a bit average. I like the XILS 201 plugin, but it’s not as nice as many of the hardware vocoders I tested. I guess it depends what you‘re after and how much vocoder you need.

(Note that the XILS 201 plugin requires iLok. I think iLok sucks.)
by sneak | 2025-05-06 00:17:35+00:00
His name is Joseph Trapanese and I always wondered who worked with them on the album (for basically no credit) because, while I adore Daft Punk, very few pure dance music producers have the traditional-music/composer chops to pull off a film score.

I didn’t know until you pointed it out that he worked on Kosinski’s other film too. There are definitely some huge similarities, especially with the end title tracks.
by furyofantares | 2025-05-06 00:18:00+00:00
I vibed this puzzle game into existence with two breaks* from vibe coding midway through to get it out of a rut: https://love-15.com/

It builds for PC, web, iOS and Android.

It's a simple sliding block puzzle game with a handful of additional game mechanics which you can see if you go into settings to unlock all levels, saved progress and best times/move counts, a level editor, daily puzzles with share results, and theme selection.

I think I found the current limits of vibe coding. There's one bug that I know of which I don't think can be fixed with vibe coding, and so I haven't fixed it as this was largely an experiment to see how far you could get with vibe coding.

I've since inspected the code and I believe the code is just too bad for the LLM to get anywhere at this point. Looking at the git history - I had it commit every time a feature was complete and verified working by me - the code started OK but really went downhill as it got bigger, and it got worse faster over time.

(When I first broke from vibe coding it was hitting a brick wall on progress earlier than expected and I needed to guide it to break the project up into more files, which it is terrible at by the way; I think the one giant file was hitting context length limits, which were smaller at the time than they are now. The second break was at the end to get it over the finish line when it just could not fix some save bugs without introducing new ones, and I did just barely enough technical guidance to help it finish. In neither case did I write code, but I did read code in both cases.)
by aylmao | 2025-05-06 00:18:44+00:00
I'd go further and say the US government wants "an instrument more powerful than any nuclear weapon" to be built in its territory, by people it has jurisdiction over.

It might not be a direct US-govt project like the Manhattan Project was, but it doesn't have to. The government has the ties it needs with the heads of all these AI companies, and if it comes to it, the US-govt has the muscle and legal authority to reign control over it.

A good deal for everyone involved really. These companies get to make bank and technology that furthers their market dominance, the US-govt gets potentially "Manhattan project"-level pivotal technology— it's elites helping elites.
by wonderwonder | 2025-05-06 00:18:49+00:00
Honestly my answer is no. I want my property taxes to ensure that my kids get the best possible start.

My money supports my kids and those kids that live in my area. I would say yes to paying more property tax to support my local schools to an even greater degree. I am in no way ok with my kids school funding getting reduced to fund other areas. I specifically moved to this area for the good schools.

I would be ok with an additional penny of sales tax to fund a statewide program to ensure all kids have access to food.
by jwatte | 2025-05-06 00:19:56+00:00
If I put something up for anyone to read on the internet. And someone reads it on the internet. I can't really control that, right?

Now, if someone makes an infringing use of the thing I put up on the internet. Then I have some kind of recourse, at least through the courts, if I have a lot of money to pay lawyers.

But if someone makes a fair use of the thing I put up on the internet, then I don't have any recourse, because that's the way the law works.

As far as I understand it, using data as input data to a machine learning model that substantially transforms and does not duplicate the input data is currently believed to be fair use.

So, the training use of freely available data seems pretty straightforward that authors can't control when they make it freely available.

It seems like Facebook made use of data that wasn't freely available, though -- ebook rip library type stuff. That's the bit I think they could be in trouble for. But that's just a plain-old "Napster" style copyright question, as far as I understand it.

The lawyer's argument that Llama "obliterates the market" for written works seems weak. I, and anyone I know, put down AI slop fiction before the first paragraph is done, because it's not the same thing as real fiction.
by rchaud | 2025-05-06 00:20:34+00:00
> Or maybe we could stop anthropomorphizing tech and call the "hallucinations" what they really are: artifacts introduced by lossy compression.

That would be tantamount to removing the anti-gravity boots which these valuations depend on. A pension fund manager would look at the above statement and think, "So it's just a heavily subsidized, energy-intensive buggy software that needs human oversight to deliver value?"
by thaumasiotes | 2025-05-06 00:20:35+00:00
Who are you talking about? The entire claim was "there was no reasonable description for hypotenuse length before the theorem"; I assume the Pythagorean theorem is intended. But that claim is crazy. You just contradicted it yourself.

I should note that hypotenuses look no different in 126 dimensions than they do in 2 - three points determine a plane, regardless of how big the space containing the plane might be - but that's not really relevant to anything here.
by codethief | 2025-05-06 00:21:20+00:00
Mankind didn't know about germs, black holes, electrons, radioactivity, … for a long time but back then no one ever claimed they didn't exist, either. They were simply outside our realm of experience but at the same time there was also nothing in our experience as humans that was really constraining their existence.

Today, we have a pretty good understanding of the broad strokes of how nature works (think local energy & momentum, spacetime, quantum mechanics, etc.) Yes, we don't understand everything yet (not by a long shot) but we expect future insights do be compatible with what we've seen and measured so far[0]. In that sense, today's "laws" of nature constrain tomorrow's (updated) "laws" of nature. This is also how the authors arrives at his conclusions.

[0]: Yes, there is no guarantee for that. It could happen that physical laws change wildly from one day to the next. But this is not a particularly interesting direction for a research program, because if you start with that assumption, then anything could happen at any time, and physics as the discipline of trying to understand nature would become a rather pointless endeavor. However, the success of physics at describing nature seems to indicate that we're onto something.
by johnnyanmac | 2025-05-06 00:21:36+00:00
It's really concerning how many thing they can curate their own course curriculum and master it to the equivalent and rigor of a 4 year degree. You don't know what you don' know so that's exactly waht a teacher is for. o help you close gaps and push you a bit further. An athlete wouldn't think they can train as efficiently without a coach, I'm not sure why acedemis is seen any differently. Because people had a bad teacher here and there? Yeah, that's life. Don't typecast an entier population over one bad experience.

Also, do I really need to remind people here of the "resources" used when you struggle and need help while self-guided?

- I probably don't need to rant about StackOverflow. Discord can be incredibly hit or miss, many forum pleas goes uncalled. It can be really hard to get unsuck compared to asking a teacher about their own assignment

- worse than asking quesions, forget getting high quality feedback on your project: getting people to do more than a quick skim takes effort in and of itself. You'd truly find an angelic soul if anyone decided to disect and correc your source code.

- there's also so, so, so many domains to explore. How will you specialize without knowing they exist? And if you've dug deep into any domain, you know that this is where the publicly free knowledge truly dries up. You won't find a nifty course on low level optimization hacks, nor network architecture (beej gets close, but only touches the surface), nor modern rendering techniques. You'll find some 300 level material, but 400 level stuff will likely require a mix of cobbling project ideas together that's within your reach but also pushing you. Scoping is always hard to do, and nearly impossible while still a student.

And Software is one of the easier domains to self learn. Good luck with the lab based STEM, getting proper feedback in art while learning theory, taste testing as a cook, using power tools in any given blue collar work, etc.
by bumby | 2025-05-06 00:22:06+00:00
You realize employers are sometimes regulated by who they can hire, right? A nurse often must be licensed. An engineer who stamps designs (ie one who isn’t under an exemption) has to be licensed. One of the major steps in that process is getting an accredited degree. (Yes, there are edge cases where you may be licensed without an engineering degree, but those are so vanishingly rare as to not really be a factor).

There is certainly room for employers to stop over-credentialing jobs, but there’s also room for universities to improve their role in the process. Employers don’t have “complete autonomy”; we can’t just suddenly decide we’re going to create more nurses, doctors, engineers, and lawyers because we’ve found a loophole in the pipeline.
by felipeerias | 2025-05-06 00:22:54+00:00
One sci-fi example could be based on the replicators from Star Trek, who are able to synthesize any meals on demand.

It is not hard to imagine a "cooking robot" as a black box that — given the appropriate ingredients — would cook any dish for you. Press a button, say what you want, and out it comes.

Internally, the machine would need to perform lots of tasks that we usually associate with intelligence, from managing ingredients and planning cooking steps, to fine-grained perception and manipulation of the food as it is cooking. But it would not be conscious in any real way. Order comes in, dish comes out.

Would we use "intelligent" to describe such a machine? Or "magic"?
by mplewis | 2025-05-06 00:23:26+00:00
It's been five years. There is no AI killer app. Agentic coding is still hot garbage. Normal people don't want to use AI tools despite them being shoved into every SaaS under the sun. LLMs are most famous among non-tech users for telling you to put glue into pizza. No one has been able to scale their chatbots into something profitable, and no one can put a date on when they'll be profitable.

Why are you still pretending anything is going to come out of this?
by wkat4242 | 2025-05-06 00:23:52+00:00
It's not worth the support trouble for the little it would make. Adblockers often break legit things too. Often people still want to use links that go through tradedoubler and the like. One support call and your yearly profit is wasted.

And how do you block access to non paying customers? DNS isn't autenticated.

It's also not really a great method for adblocking anymore (which would make the support problem worse, "why am I still seeing ads?")
by senectus1 | 2025-05-06 00:23:59+00:00
>The US has discovered that there's a substantial portion of the population (which for this could be 1%, 10%, 20% whatever) who is really bad at raising kids, basically.

I'm a center-lefty, but America appears to be mostly right and I find it fascinating that this is just "accepted".

Why does America just accept that some (a large enough number that most schools have to feed them) people cant raise their kids?
by steveklabnik | 2025-05-06 00:25:59+00:00
> The implication always seems to be that this somehow bolsters the idea that LLMs are therefore in some sense and to some degree human-like.

Nah, it's something else: it's that LLMs are being held to a higher standard than humans. Humans are fallible, and that's okay. The work they do is still useful. LLMs do not have to be perfect either to be useful.

The question of how good they are absolutely matters. But some error isn't immediately disqualifying.
by EA-3167 | 2025-05-06 00:26:29+00:00
Always. In fact people in the first world now are much MUCH more jaded and less credulous than even city-dwellers in ancient times were. You wouldn't believe what people in isolated villages would have fallen for a few thousand years ago.

Consider: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glycon

> When the people gathered in the marketplace of Abonutichus at noon, when the incarnation was supposed to occur, Alexander produced a goose egg and sliced it open, revealing the god within. Within a week, it grew to the size of a man with the features of a man on its face, including long blond hair. At this point, the figure resembling this description was apparently a puppet that appeared in the temple. In some references, Glycon was a trained snake with a puppet head.
by teleforce | 2025-05-06 00:29:29+00:00
The article is more than one year old, systemd now even has specialized officially supported OS distro for immutable workflow namely ParticleOS [1],[2].

[1] ParticleOS:

https://github.com/systemd/particleos

[2] Systemd ParticleOS:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43649088
by alecattie | 2025-05-06 00:29:47+00:00
Hi everyone,

I’m currently building a tool called BringYourServer that aims to simplify Django app deployments. The idea is to help you quickly get your Django app running on your own AWS EC2 instance, taking care of Docker setups, Nginx configuration, and automatic SSL with Certbot.

My goal is to remove the DevOps hassle so you can concentrate on coding, while still keeping full control of your infrastructure. I’m gathering feedback from fellow developers to see if this approach resonates and to better understand your needs.

If this sounds like something you might find useful, consider joining the waitlist. It’s just a way for me to track interest and gather input as the project takes shape.

You can learn more and sign up here: bringyourserver.com

Thanks for taking the time to check it out, and I’d welcome any feedback or suggestions you have!
by lotyrin | 2025-05-06 00:30:30+00:00
My AI drive thru experiences have been vastly superior to my human ones. I know it's powered by LLM and some kind of ability to parse my whole sentence (paying attention the whole time) and then it can key in whatever I said all at once.

With a human, I have to anticipate what order their POS system allows them to key things in, how many things I can buffer up with them in advance before they overflow and say "sorry, what size of coke was that, again", whether they prefer me to use the name of the item or the number of the item (based on what's easier to scan on the POS system). Because they're fatigued and have very little interest or attention to provide, having done this repetitive task far too many times, and too many times in a row.
by robocat | 2025-05-06 00:30:38+00:00
I'm unsure if I misunderstand you or your writing ingroup!

> learning is compression

I don't think I know enough about compression to find that metaphor useful

> occupy considerable space in their heads

I reckon this is a terribly misleading cliche. Our brains don't work like hard drives. From what I see we can keep stuffing more in there (compression?). Much of my past learning is now blurred but sometimes it surfaces in intuitions? Perhaps attention or interest is a better concept to use?

My favorite thing about LLMs is wondering how much of people's (or my own) conversations are just LLMs. I love the idea of playing games with people to see if I can predictably trigger phrases from people, but unfortunately I would feel like a heel doing that (so I don't). And catching myself doing an LLM reply is wonderful.

Some of the other sibling replies are also gorgeously vague-as (and I'm teasing myself with vagueness too). Abstracts are so soft.
by laser | 2025-05-06 00:33:11+00:00
Makes for a good underdog story! But OpenAI is dominating and will continue to do so. They have the je ne sais quoi. It’s therefore laborious to speak to it, but it manifests in self-reinforcing flywheels of talent, capital, aesthetic, popular consciousness, and so forth. But hey, Bing still makes Microsoft billions a year, so there will be other winners. Underestimating focused breakout leaders in new rapidly growing markets is as cliche as those breakouts ultimately succeeding, so even if we go into an AI winter it’s clear who comes out on top the other side. A product has never been adopted this quickly, ever. AGI or not, skepticism that merely points to conventional resource imbalances misses the big picture and such opinions age poorly. Doesn’t have to be obvious only in hindsight if you actually examine the current record of disruptive innovation.
by 0x6c75636964 | 2025-05-06 00:33:26+00:00
That was really beautifully said. Thank you.

I don't think I dispute anything you say. I deeply recognize the existential isolation you expressed so well. I approached this experiment from the perspective that these models were interesting and possibly useful tools in this (possibly foolish, but most definitely Sisyphean) endeavor, not as shepherds guiding me on the road to self-understanding.
by apsurd | 2025-05-06 00:33:39+00:00
I can't square how OpenAi can capture users and presumably retain them when the incumbents have been capturing users for multiple decades and why can they not retain them?

If every major player had an AI option, i'm just not understanding how because OpenAi moved first or got big first, the hugely massively successful companies that did the same thing for multiple decades don't have the same advantage?