MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by paulsutter | 2025-05-25 17:51:42+00:00
"Expert in (now-)ancient arts draws strange conclusion using questionable logic" is the most generous description I can muster.

Quoting Chomsky:

> These considerations bring up a minor problem with the current LLM enthusiasm: its total absurdity, as in the hypothetical cases where we recognize it at once. But there are much more serious problems than absurdity.

> One is that the LLM systems are designed in such a way that they cannot tell us anything about language, learning, or other aspects of cognition, a matter of principle, irremediable... The reason is elementary: The systems work just as well with impossible languages that infants cannot acquire as with those they acquire quickly and virtually reflexively.

Response from o3:

LLMs do surface real linguistic structure:

• Hidden syntax: Attention heads in GPT-style models line up with dependency trees and phrase boundaries—even though no parser labels were ever provided. Researchers have used these heads to recover grammars for dozens of languages.

• Typology signals: In multilingual models, languages that share word-order or morphology cluster together in embedding space, letting linguists spot family relationships and outliers automatically.

• Limits shown by contrast tests: When you feed them “impossible” languages (e.g., mirror-order or random-agreement versions of English), perplexity explodes and structure heads disappear—evidence that the models do encode natural-language constraints.

• Psycholinguistic fit: The probability spikes LLMs assign to next-words predict human reading-time slow-downs (garden-paths, agreement attraction, etc.) almost as well as classic hand-built models.

These empirical hooks are already informing syntax, acquisition, and typology research—hardly “nothing to say about language.”
by randmeerkat | 2025-05-25 17:52:05+00:00
> It can help us, just like a calculator can help us solve an equation.

A calculator is consistent and doesn’t “hallucinate” answers to equations. An LLM puts an untrustworthy filter between the truth and the person. Google was revolutionary because it increased access to information. LLMs only obscure that access, while pretending to be something more.
by keybored | 2025-05-25 17:52:07+00:00
> If the majority can simply erase the rights of a minority with a vote then nothing stops them from doing so.

If Bill can punch Bob in the face without any repercussions then nothing stops Bill from doing so. Empty truisms.

All political systems exist in a framework which put constraints on actions. And everyone who wring their hands over “checks and balances” just assert that there’s something special about “voting to erase rights” versus an “enlightened” judge making a judgement to erase rights because there are laws that they are second-class citizens or Bill punching Bob in the face. But there isn’t.
by hollerith | 2025-05-25 17:52:22+00:00
I'm confused: can you explain how the sandbox helps?

I mean, if the plan is not to let the AI write any code that actually gets allocated computing resources and not to let the AI interact with any people and not to give the AI write access to the internet, then I can see how having a good sandbox around it would help, but how many AI are there (or will there be) where that is the plan and the AI is powerful enough that we care about its alignedness?
by titzer | 2025-05-25 17:53:56+00:00
All this interview proves is that Chomsky has fallen far, far behind how AI systems work today and is retreating to scoff at all the progress machine learning has achieved. Machine learning has given rise to AI now. It can't explain itself from principles or its architecture. But you couldn't explain your brain from principles or its architecture, you'd need all of neuroscience to do it. Because the brain is digital and (probably) does not reason like our brains do, it somehow falls short?

While there's some things in this I find myself nodding along to in this, I can't help but feel it's an a really old take that is super vague and hand-wavy. The truth is that all of the progress on machine learning is absolutely science. We understand extremely well how to make neural networks learn efficiently; it's why the data leads anywhere at all. Backpropagation and gradient descent are extraordinarily powerful. Not to mention all the "just engineering" of making chips crunch incredible amounts of numbers.

Chomsky is extremely ungenerous to the progress and also pretty flippant about what this stuff can do.

I think we should probably stop listening to Chomsky; he hasn't said anything here that he hasn't already say a thousand times for decades.
by WinstonSmith84 | 2025-05-25 17:54:00+00:00
maybe you don't like it to be called a Ponzi scheme, but the reality is that it is one.

Definition of a Ponzi scheme: A Ponzi scheme is an investment fraud that pays existing investors with funds collected from new investor. Ponzi scheme organizers often promise to invest your money and generate high returns with little or no risk. But in many Ponzi schemes, the fraudsters do not invest the money. Instead, they use it to pay those who invested earlier and may keep some for themselves.

https://www.investor.gov/protect-your-investments/fraud/type...

That's exactly how pensions work in Europe. Replace "Ponzi scheme organizers" by "legally elected governments" and here you have it - you have a whole continent of people believing that their pension is a given. Not everybody may like it, but that's the hard truth.

In the US, people contribute towards a 401K, and choose how to invest, but typically pick up just the S&P 500 - anyway and at least that money is somehow what they have saved for themselves.

But I agree with your statement "it is completely possible for the system to be balanced" - yes a Ponzi scheme can be absolutely balanced, you just need enough participants ...
by the8472 | 2025-05-25 17:54:41+00:00
I could retort with another gotcha argument, but instead of doing that perhaps we can do better than that?

An attempt: They are bad reasoning machines that already are useful in a few domains and they're improving faster than evolutionary speeds. So even if they're not useful today in a domain relevant to you there's a significant possibility they might be in a few months. AlphaEvolve would have been scifi a decade ago.

"It's like if a squirrel started playing chess and instead of "holy shit this squirrel can play chess!" most people responded with "But his elo rating sucks""
by danielbln | 2025-05-25 17:54:54+00:00
I just ran a few experiments through Kling 2.0 Pro and none of the generations align with the prompt to the degree that you could easily lipsync it, at all. "Pretty well" doesn't cut it for that, and I've been following the aivideo sub since its inception. There are two models right now that can do convincing lipsync that doesn't look like trash or aligns with the prompt "pretty well": omnihuman/dreamina and veo3. That's it. At most you could run a second pass with something like LivePortrait, but even that is a rung below the quality of SOTA.

That said, I don't need to convince you, you go ahead and see what you want to see.

This latest generation will trigger a seismic shift, not "maybe in the future when the models improve", right now.
by WarOnPrivacy | 2025-05-25 17:54:59+00:00
NT4 can do USB! tl;dr: https://nt4ref.zcm.com.au/usb.htm

I learned this last Thur. A pharma client had an NT4 box with a fried PS2 port. I got onboard USB operational using the above resource and they can mouse again.

MS chose to omit USB from NT4 and the OS EOL'd that way. A 3rd party corp wrote a USB driver stack for NT, 20+yr ago. A civic minded someone put up the above linked site to make it usable.
by prpl | 2025-05-25 17:55:01+00:00
Reminds me of SUSY, string theory, the standard model, and beyond that, string theory etc…

What is elegant as a model is not always what works, and working towards a clean model to explain everything from a model that works is fraught, hard work.

I don’t think anyone alive will realize true “AGI”, but it won’t matter. You don’t need it, the same way particle physics doesn’t need elegance
by nicolashahn | 2025-05-25 17:55:18+00:00
I feel like there really hasn't been sincere data-backed methods with proper resources behind them, for example governments giving out minor cash benefits to parents of a few thousand dollars when that's a drop in the bucket compared to the total cost of raising a kid and is not going to convince anyone who wasn't already going to have kids.

Also, that's a wild solution. You'd have to do away with monogamy which would cause some pretty insane societal shifts. However, as a straight guy I can see the appeal lol.
by alwa | 2025-05-25 17:55:46+00:00
Whose reaction to being caught being sloppy is, puzzlingly, to scramble for the righteous ground of victimhood…

> Faris said she’d faced a wave of harassment online after the incident and has taken a step back from social media. “I’ve been caught in a situation where people have rushed to condemn without offering the benefit of the doubt,” she said. “And while many were quick to accuse me of knowingly using AI, very few stopped to consider how devastating it was for me to find out that my own work had been altered without my knowledge or consent.”
by MostlyStable | 2025-05-25 17:56:07+00:00
>promoting this as a good thing

This is literally completely opposite of what happened. Then entire point is that this is bad, unwanted, behavior.

Additionally, it has already been demonstrated that every other frontier model can be made to behave the same way given the correct prompting.

I recommend the following article for an in depth discussion [0]

[0] https://thezvi.substack.com/p/claude-4-you-safety-and-alignm...
by muppet9066 | 2025-05-25 17:56:23+00:00
Unscrupulous individuals are more likely to use cameras that are intended to be concealed to avoid suspicion rather than glasses that have a fortune in advertising to make people aware of what they are and what they do. These glasses company have tons of money to lose for mishandling user data. Meta's glasses are available in many countries considered to have strict privacy laws all around the world: (Canada, Germany, Sweden, etc.) : https://www.meta.com/help/ai-glasses/4961066940605960/
by layer8 | 2025-05-25 17:56:36+00:00
The point of inline replies is to quote just enough to establish the context of the reply, and to enable replying to multiple separate points without having to separately establish each point as context. Case in point:

> It takes so much effort to read the email to figure out who said what

Email clients used to color each quoting level, and mails started with something like:

John Doe wrote on $date: > Jane Smith wrote on $date: > > Joe Shmoe wrote on $date: > > > what they wrote > > what they wrote > what they wrote

and you knew that Jane was green and Joe was cyan. The respective points were also closer together, so you had to scroll less than you have nowadays.

> while also keeping state of all the different threads.

That’s why we had threaded views that showed messages in a tree, and showed when the subject (line) changed. People were encouraged to edit the subject line to reflect topic drift, so that you had a good overview when looking at the thread visualization, which would omit repetitions of the same subject text and only show where it changed.

Example (threaded view at top, colored quotes at bottom): https://robot.unipv.it/clipedia/images/mutt-threads.png
by 0xDEAFBEAD | 2025-05-25 17:56:44+00:00
I confess my opinion of Noam Chomsky dropped a lot from reading this interview. The way he set up a "Tom Jones" strawman and kept dismissing positions using language like "we'd laugh", "total absurdity", etc. was really disappointing. I always assumed that academics were only like that on reddit, and in real life they actually made a serious effort at rigorous argument, avoiding logical fallacies and the like. Yet here is Chomsky addressing a lay audience that has no linguistics background, and instead of even attempting to summarize the arguments for his position, he simply asserts that opposing views are risible with little supporting argument. I expected much more from a big-name scholar.

"The first principle is that you must not fool yourself, and you are the easiest person to fool."
by rsynnott | 2025-05-25 17:56:47+00:00
> Inside the home, the police found Polaroid pictures showing the man bound and being assaulted, the law enforcement official said.

... Why on earth would you document this?

> Two butlers who worked at the home were also present and agreed on Friday to be interviewed by the police, the official said.

... Why on earth would you do this in a place where you weren't the only person present?! (Also, butlers, wtf?)

I suppose, much like the crypto people are slowly rediscovering why the modern financial system is as it is, maybe they're also figuring out how to do crimes by trial and error.
by Bender | 2025-05-25 17:57:11+00:00
Oh, you'll still get dingdongs, in addition to the flower shop. Ever attended something like an HOA meeting? It'll be something like that.

I also agree with that. At least I will have removed 98% of the dingdongs. Nothing is ever perfect. And yeah I made the mistake once of buying a home in an HOA. Never again. The HOA officers were always without exception people that wanted to be in government and hold power over people but would never have been permitted to hold any position.

There will still be the local "dictator" mod coming up with a new rule for what's not an allowed discussion topic this week.

Yup, that's any community big or small. In a big place like Twitter everyone is impacted by a single cult of personality. In small communities if they are a bad dictator their site will be mostly vacant and people will form their own thing. I think that is ultimately the right path, people forming their own things. Not perfect, nothing is.

The official public funded platform should be locked down and keep everything on topic and on track. People should register in person at the office of whomever is funding it. If the public platform develops a cult of personality then the political figure power tripping could be at risk of being voted out of office or their department de-funded. If nobody is using the platform I would hope it would quickly lose its funding. USAID was an example of governments hiding behind NGO's to shape public opinion.

HN is an example of what I call a partially locked down community. This site would not scale to billions of people of course. Something that big would have to be fully locked down.
by kelsey978126 | 2025-05-25 17:57:33+00:00
This is the point where i realized he has no clue what he is saying. Theres so many creatures that once existed that can never again exist on earth due to the changes that the planet has gone through over millions, billions of years. The oxygen rich atmosphere that supported the dinosaurs for instance. If we had some kind of system that can put together proper working DNA for all the creatures that ever actually existed on this planet, some half of them would be completely nonviable if introduced to the ecosystem today. He is failing to see that there is an incredible understanding of systems that we are producing with this work, but he is a very old man from a very different time and contrarianism is often the only way to look smart or reasoned when you have no clue whats actually going on, so I am not shocked by his take.
by iamleppert | 2025-05-25 17:57:34+00:00
You can definitely make the self-taught path work. I'm proof of that and have been working in industry for over 20 years. However, what I will say is the following: there are certain companies and roles which you will never be able to access. These are often times the best roles, best companies, have the most money, etc. A degree isn't just the time spent studying and knowledge -- you can do that part yourself. What's more valuable is the network and access to the alumni network of others who will hire you into their company just because you went to the same school as them. It's a big club and you won't be in it if you decide to self-study. That's the cold, hard truth.

So what's left for someone self-taught with no degree? You are left with all the jobs the others don't want. You'll be flipping through the crazies, outright scams, poorly capitalized companies, or places that are already in a state of distress. VERY rarely you will find a real job that you can plan to stay at for any length of time. You WILL be paid less, and you're more likely to get taken advantage of. You will have a harder time getting multiple offers at once, because your overall demand is lower. So that erodes your position in the market and over time it will feel like you're on a completely different tract financially. You will need to work twice as hard, because finding a new job is much harder, even if you're good. You will constantly be doubted, by first yourself and imposter syndrome and next by those around you who have degrees. Make one mistake and the consequences are that much more dire.

It's better than nothing, but if you have the opportunity to go to school (I didn't), do it over the self-taught route.
Show HN: Alto – phone AI system I built as a Google Duplex alternative
by eh8 | 2025-05-25 17:57:47+00:00
Hi HN! I’ve been working on Alto, an AI phone agent that can make phone calls on your behalf — things like handling errands, confirming appointments, or negotiating bills so you don’t have to. Growing up, I often had to make phone calls for my mom because I spoke "better English." As a result, I’ve probably spent more time on hold with airlines, insurance companies, and small businesses than most people. But most AI calling tools today are built for businesses (sales calls, receptionists, etc.), so I wanted something for consumers — a personal agent you can use like Google Duplex, but with way more flexibility and real-world usefulness.

Many organizations still have frustrating phone systems with long wait times, bad menus, or no online alternatives. And these same businesses will probably refuse to ever change. Alto is meant to give you a way around that, especially when the only option is calling.

Right now it's early, but you can try Alto out for free. I'm working on features like profile memory (so it can remember things like your birthday or frequent flyer number), follow-up call chaining, voice customization, and eventually uploading documents for Alto to reference on calls.

Since this is a soft launch, I would actually prefer if you reach out _before_ you buy a subscription — I want to ensure your intended use case works smoothly.

I would appreciate any ideas or pitfalls you see — thank you!
by great_wubwub | 2025-05-25 17:58:32+00:00
So a corporation can do bad things like poison entire communities and get out of trouble by slipping the president some money? And that's how the framers intended this to work?

We sure have come a long way since "by the people, for the people". It's the capitalist version of buying indulgences (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Indulgence). Sounds like it's time for 95 Theses II: Electric Boogaloo.
by behnamoh | 2025-05-25 17:58:57+00:00
https://gimp-print.sourceforge.io/ which uses CUPS helped me resurrect an old Canon printer for which the company refused to provide updated drivers on macOS.

I was about to throw it in the recycling/trash, but I just couldn't accept that a perfectly fine hardware was crippled because the software was not updated to work on the latest macOS versions. Perplexity pointed me to Gutenprint and it worked wonderfully! The only thing that doesn't work is the scanner functionality.
by pfdietz | 2025-05-25 17:59:06+00:00
The issue with low TFR seems to be difficulty of forming relationships, not failure to have children once relationships are formed.

I'm imagining it becoming a social norm for single women to have (at least) a single child. Perhaps they'd team up to make raising them easier, forming loose family-like units. Romantic attachments would be optional.

One consequence of such a situation would be an incentive toward private positive eugenics. Women would prefer semen from top quality donors.
by chongli | 2025-05-25 17:59:06+00:00
Imaginary numbers are not relevant at all. There’s nothing whatsoever to do with the everyday use of the word imaginary. They could just as easily have been called “vertical numbers” and real numbers called “horizontal numbers” in order to more clearly illustrate their geometric interpretation in the complex plane.

The term “imaginary number” was coined by Rene Descartes as a derogatory and the ill intent behind his term has stuck ever since. I suspect his purpose was theological rather than mathematical and we are all the worse for it.
by mattw1 | 2025-05-25 17:59:26+00:00
In all seriousness tho, not much of anything he says is taken seriously in an academic sense any more. Univeral Grammar, Minimalism, etc. He's a very petty dude. The reason he doesn't engage with GPT is because it suggests that linguistic learning is unlike a theory he spent his whole life [unsuccessfully] promoting, but he's such a haughty know-it-all, that I guess dummies take that for intelligence? It strikes me as not dissimilar to Trump in a way, where arrogance is conflated with strength, intelligence, etc. Fake it til you make it, or like, forever, I guess.
by nicolashahn | 2025-05-25 17:59:44+00:00
Raising the birth rate is extremely difficult and immigration will destroy a country's culture if not managed properly.

For an interesting case study, compare Japan (who refuses to allow mass immigration and is at risk of going extinct) and the UK (who has embraced it and is on the way to becoming Muslim-majority). It'll be interesting to see in 50 years which one has had better outcomes.
by mattnewton | 2025-05-25 18:00:36+00:00
The article reiterates allegations house republicans made that the Senate did not affirm. I am unable to find the specific court orders he was in violation with, just this repeated assertion. Again, you can argue against the policy of Mayorkas, but neither the courts nor the legislature ultimately seem to have found him in violation of the law.

And all I was arguing with was that this was not business as usual and the media is not making something out of nothing. This is a big change in policy.

What happened to Garcia is really not splitting hairs and I really encourage you to look into the case more thoroughly. He was under a court order _not_ to be deported because he had credibly made the case to the courts that he was in danger from the very gangs the government later accused him of being a member of. The executive branch is unambiguously ignoring the Supreme Court currently. This is the most salient and unambigious example I am aware of, but there are many additional cases and actions of the government in the same direction. I can only conclude the court system is not working as an equal branch and a check on the executive right now based on the statements and actions of the adminstration.

I am not arguing the policy, I'm arguing that the checks and balances of the US government are being ignored in pursuit of the policy. The bill of rights, especially around due process, is being interpreted to not apply to foreigners. And that is alarming if you wanted to visit the US and believed those checks and balances would be in force.

People have been saying the executive branch has been needed too much power since Bush jr. No president since then has meaningfully rolled back executive power, and they deserve some criticism for it. But the increased criticism of Trump's second term is not for nothing. I believe ignoring the courts is actually acting like a dictator, even for a policy (cracking down at the border) that the polls I've seen show majority of Americans support. How you execute a policy matters.