MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by somenameforme | 2025-05-06 04:35:27+00:00
While I also hold a peer comment's view that the Turing Test is meaningless, I would further add that even that has not been meaningfully beaten.

In particular we redefined the test to make it passable. In Turing's original concept the competent investigator and participants were all actively expected to collude against the machine. The entire point is that even with collusion, the machine would be able to pass. Instead modern takes have paired incompetent investigators alongside participants colluding with the machine, probably in an effort to be part 'of something historic'.

In "both" (probably more, referencing the two most high profile - Eugene and the large LLMs) successes, the interrogators consistently asked pointless questions that had no meaningful chance of providing compelling information - 'How's your day? Do you like psychology? etc' and the participants not only made no effort to make their humanity clear, but often were actively adversarial obviously intentionally answering illogically, inappropriately, or 'computery' to such simple questions. And the tests are typically time constrained by woefully poor typing skills (this the new normal in the smartphone gen?) to the point that you tend to get anywhere from 1-5 interactions of a few words each.

The problem with any metric for something is that it often ends up being gamed to be beaten, and this is a perfect example of that.
by lhl | 2025-05-06 04:37:12+00:00
Basically anything llama.cpp (Vulkan backend) should work out of the box w/o much fuss (LM Studio, Ollama, etc).

The HIP backend can have a big prefill speed boost on some architectures (high-end RDNA3 for example). For everything else, I keep notes here: https://llm-tracker.info/howto/AMD-GPUs
by dahart | 2025-05-06 04:37:16+00:00
I agree with you that the cost of lunch food adds up and is more than the cost of accounting. Substantial is a subjective word but true if looking at the number by itself, and feeding 2 million kids in NY state will obviously be a big number compared to most people’s salaries, which is why it seems substantial. But it’s still a small fraction of the cost of education, and food is a single line item in a much much bigger budget. We can’t actually separate the lunch costs, when you include the cafeteria. It seems very strange that we don’t ask families to pay for books or bus rides but do ask them to pay for lunch. It very much feels like a conscious choice to ensure the poor kids are identified.

There was a scandal in the neighborhood I live in because one school tired of lunch debt was making the hot lunches, letting the kids pick them up, and then taking them away and throwing them in the trash, to make a big show of parents not paying their lunch bills. That saved no dollars and punished the children for what the parents did, poor children disproportionately. Even though most of the kids’ families could afford the lunches, that’s just a shitty thing to do.

The cost actually is small, in the big picture. The truth is that the U.S. can easily afford to pay not just for lunch but for all of education, both elementary and higher education, and it pays for itself many times over, if we look at the extra income tax people with degrees pay over people who don’t have any higher education. We are choosing to not give our kids college degrees by default, and we are choosing to withhold hot lunches from elementary school kids, and it is not because it costs a lot, it would be trivial to fund (and we already proved that during COVID.) It’s because we have politics and a social belief system that is allergic to the idea of free lunch, regardless of the costs.
by potholereseller | 2025-05-06 04:37:29+00:00
Marketing finds a way. I just wish the writer had picked something more interesting than "self-governing principles" and "good faith"; every democratic government on Earth claims to be built on those principles. There's lots of good anarchist and non-anarchist fiction and non-fiction they could have been inspired by, if only books weren't so arcane. For lack of inspiration, Mars may just be a copy of Earthgov, but with more underground structures.
by not_a_bot_4sho | 2025-05-06 04:39:15+00:00
> yeah I can imagine if they bothered, they could see that there's always a person or two in all the pictures that aren't associated with any of the faces of the accounts

This is a thing in FB: shadow accounts.

A lot of time and money and research goes into it, so that if/when people do decide to join, they will have a very "familiar" experience with all the right suggestions ready to go.

Yes, it's creepy as hell. No, you can't opt out as far as I know.
by rogermavis | 2025-05-06 04:39:40+00:00
My stack atm is neovim, python/R, an EC2 and postgres (sometimes Sql Server). Some use of arrow and duckdb. For queries on less than few hundred GB this stack does great. Fast, familiar, the ec2 is running 24/7 so it's there when I need it and can easily schedule overnight jobs, and no time wasted waiting for it to boot.
by TZubiri | 2025-05-06 04:39:59+00:00
"If someone powerful wants your encrypted data, they will have it. It's dumb."

But that's not at all the case, you can definitely encrypt data in a way that no one can break it.

Even if you assume there's an all powerful state that can decrypt everything. There's a distribution of malicious actors with varying degrees of power, you'll at least agree that not all eavesdroppers can decrypt your comms, they most certainly will be a minority, and an infitesimally small minority at that point. You can encrypt such that you protect yourself against the 99th percentile.

Regarding what you have to protect, you could be in charge of an organization, and you don't need to encrypt data yourself but consider how data is encrypted by your vendors, and when those vendors get hacked or their db's leaked, you can assess how it affects your company.

Just in general, knowing the many complexities of how data is encrypted and not encrypted and accessed and leaked and subpoenad, is much more useful than the binary of "THEY" have my data or "THEY" don't
by forgetfreeman | 2025-05-06 04:41:05+00:00
Except none of that is actually true. Unconvinced? Go look at a heat map of poverty in the US and then check out which states get bulk of federal assistance dollars. Note none of those states is running a massive budget surplus. While I have you I'd like to also point out that "hrrr federal government bad" is not only tautological, as an ideology it's deeply stupid . States frequently encounter problems that require a bigger budget than they can muster to solve (see also: disaster recovery).
by DetroitThrow | 2025-05-06 04:42:23+00:00
Is HuggingFace venture funded? Because they have an Apache 2.0 licensed competitor (but it's not very active at a glance).

MSTY is the first one that comes to mind though. And if you're willing to stretch your idea of "what competes with OpenWebUI" I know half a dozen startups that let you pass in some set of keys and "build a multi-agent system" in a GUI usually alongside some pared down chat windows.
by Dylan16807 | 2025-05-06 04:43:33+00:00
> Child labor

Are you serious.

> Because /some/ children struggle to eat enough?

They said "without kids", not without this particular program.

> Carrying everyone who can't walk is not a universal good. Particularly when some of those people can't walk because of a tiny, temporary, and highly solvable problem.

> Now you have people who make it their career to carry people. Their motivations are to carry as many people as is possible. If we actually made it so no one had to be carried they would be out a job.

These are children. Someone is carrying them no matter what.
by psychoslave | 2025-05-06 04:44:34+00:00
The difference between the casual blogger and the professional journalist are not of nature, but degrees on different axes.

The main difference from a societal point of view are obviously all the privileges and duties given to a pro in a field, be it writing or anything else actually.

Independence is ever denial or lie when it comes to social interaction. No one is an island, or if you prefer, under the sea even island are connected on solid grounds and all kinds of life forms are able to travel from one island to an other. There is nothing as an absolutely isolated zone.

Also you can be trappist, but simultaneously claiming to be the president of the universe won't hold much attention.
by riffraff | 2025-05-06 04:45:00+00:00
It seems it should be trivial to solve the differentiation problem too.

When I was a kid in Italy in the '90s we paid for lunch in middle school, but this was done through "lunch tickets".

You'd get those from the town hall, some of us paid for them, some got them for free, but you would not know about it when getting lunch.

(Still, free lunch for all kids should obviously be the default)
by fc417fc802 | 2025-05-06 04:46:22+00:00
No one said anything about a maximally accurate estimate. This is exactly the sort of obtuse attitude I'm objecting to.

By complicating factors I was referring to things that are known to have a notable impact on the outcome of this specific procedure. This is just summarizing what's known. It explicitly does not take into account the performance of any particular professional, team, or site.

Something like MRSA is entirely separate. "The survival rate is 98 out of 100, but in this region of the country people recovering from this sort of thing have been exhibiting a 10% risk of MRSA. Unfortunately our facility is no exception to that."

If the recipients of a procedure are predominately female and the patient is a male then you simply indicate that to them. "The historical rate is X out of Y, but you're a bit unusual in that only 10% of past recipients are men. I'm afraid I don't know what the implications of that fact might be."

You provide the known facts and make clear what you don't know. No weasel words - if you don't know something then admit that you don't know it but don't use that as an excuse to hide what you do know. It's utterly unhelpful.
by Brajeshwar | 2025-05-06 04:47:43+00:00
I’ve been away for quite a while, so just a loud thinking.

With tools such as PostCSS, and servers serving zipped styles across CDN, maintaining a single request to the styles; does it really benefit from breaking up the styles these days?

Also, I’m going to assume, besides the core styles that run a website, anything that is loaded later can come in with its specific styles as part of the HTML/JS.

For the critical CSS thing, we used to kinda do it by hand with some automation more as a toolset to help us decide how much to include (inside the HTML itself - `<styles>`) and then insert the stylesheet. But then, we always found it better to set a Stylesheet Budget and work with it.
by jongjong | 2025-05-06 04:48:25+00:00
Makes sense. It's hard to imagine this for people who don't have access to such opportunities. Myself included to some extent.

Most people will never have to make any truly difficult or impactful ideological decision in their entire lives. Probably couldn't even wrap their minds around it so they're sure to neglect it. The decisions most people encounter in their lives are relatively simple and the consequences of making a mistake are relatively minimal. I feel like the biggest variables in most peoples' lives are external (costs imposed on them), not consequences of their own decisions. It's seems like the flip side of the fact that a small number of people do get to make those impactful decisions on a large scale.
by monkeyelite | 2025-05-06 04:48:35+00:00
The divide is almost entirely in status - not in actions or morals. It’s important to remember they are competitors and both have an interest in guarding their audience.

More cynically, almost all news these days is PR. There is very little new information entering the system from journalists - just synthesis of information provided to them. So traditional journalists are not unlike bloggers in this way either.
by thurn | 2025-05-06 04:49:15+00:00
Which of these statements do you disagree with?

- Superintelligence poses an existential threat to humanity

- Predicting the future is famously difficult

- Given that uncertainty, we can't rule out the chance of our current AI approach leading to superintelligence

- Even a 1-in-1000 existential threat would be extremely serious. If an asteroid had a 1-in-1000 chance of hitting Earth and obliterating humanity we should make serious contingency plans.

Second question: how confident are you that you're correct? Are you 99.9% sure? Confident enough to gamble billions of lives on your beliefs? There are almost no statements about the future which I'd assign this level of confidence to.
by OneDeuxTriSeiGo | 2025-05-06 04:50:01+00:00
> It feels like the design is to make it as hard as possible to keep track of what one is eligible to, it's designed to be painful and unreliable.

This is an understatement. Florida's unemployment system for example was designed intentionally to fail when too many people tried to file for benefits to prevent them from having to pay out. This of course blew up into a whole scandal during covid when a bunch of people were suddenly unemployed and all tried filing at the same time which is how it officially came out that the system was designed from the start to function like this.

https://www.npr.org/sections/coronavirus-live-updates/2020/0...
by lelandfe | 2025-05-06 04:50:13+00:00
Nice one. Would be cool if this also handled responsiveness. The need to dedupe responsive critical styles has made me resort to manually editing all critical stylesheets I've ever made.

I also see that this brings in CSS variable definitions (sorry, ~custom properties~) and things like that. Since critical CSS's size matters so much, it might be worth giving an option to compile all of that down.

> Place your original non-critical CSS <link> tags just before the closing </body> tag

I don't recommend doing this: you still want the CSS downloaded urgently, critical CSS is a façade. Moving to the end of body means the good stuff is discovered late, and thus downloaded late (and will block render if the preloader[0] discovers it).

These days I'd recommend:

<link rel="preload" href="styles.css" as="style" onload="this.rel='stylesheet'"> <noscript><link rel="stylesheet" href="styles.css"></noscript>

[0] https://web.dev/articles/preload-scanner
by OptionOfT | 2025-05-06 04:51:06+00:00
Wrt to the updates: Does it mean it maintains the original environment variables you passed in separate from the ones set by the container?

E.g. when updating a container with watchtower:

You deploy a container 'python-something'.

The container has PYTHON=3.11.

Now, the container has an update which sets PYTHON=3.13.

Watchtower will take the current settings, and use them as the settings to be preserved.

So the next version will deploy with PYTHON=3.11, even though you haven't set those settings.
by yieldcrv | 2025-05-06 04:51:43+00:00
"hrrr federal government bad" is not my argument. I don't think the federal government is bad. I think its budget is not balanced and its funding has strings attached that undermines the sovereignty of independent institutions.

Disaster recovery is also not the topic nor does it provide any introspective ability on this topic.

yes, I agree if something is not within the budget, and there is also no consensus, then it won't happen. I'm not sure that even needed to be said, but I am familiar with people that would try to make programs happen in those situations too. I would vote no on those proposals in those cases.
by cik | 2025-05-06 04:52:07+00:00
> So you don't mind if your economic value drops to zero, with all human labour replaced by machines?

This was the fear when the cotton gin was invented. It was the ear when cars were created. The same complaint happened with the introduction of electronic, automated, telephone switchboards.

Jobs change. Societies change. Unemployment worldwide, is near the lowest it has ever been. Work will change. Society will eventually move to a currency based on energy production, or something equally futuristic.

This doesn't mean that getting there will be without pain.
by xpe | 2025-05-06 04:52:07+00:00
> In attempting to explain why my point of view has been misunderstood by you I also attempted to find a reason for it.

What have I misunderstood? Help me understand. What is the key point you want to make that you think I misunderstand?

>> (me) When he goes into "demon mode"

> When he decides to lie, cheat and steal? Why do you strain so hard to lionize this behavior?

I hope this is clear: I'm not defending Musk's actions. Above, I'm just using the phrase that Walter Isaacson uses: "demon mode". Have you read the book or watched an interview with Isaacson about it? The phrase is hardly flattering, and I certainly don't use it to lionize Musk. Is there some misunderstanding on this part?

>>>> (me) But to speak plainly, Musk is a complex figure, frequently problematic, and he often exacts a tool on the people around him. Part of this is attributable to his wealth, part to his particulars. When he goes into "demon mode", to use Walter Isaacson's phrase, you don't want to be in his way.

>> (me) Where in my comment do I lionize Musk?

> You attribute to personality what should be attributed to malice. You do this three times.

Please spell this out for me. Where are the three times I do this?

Also, let's step back. Is the core of this disagreement about trying to detect malice in Elon's head? Detecting malice is not easy. Malice may not even be present; many people rationalize actions in such a way so they feel like they are acting justly.

Even if we could detect "malice", wouldn't we want to assess what causes that malice? That's going to be tough to disentangle with him being on the Autism spectrum and also having various mental health struggles.

Along with most philosophers, I think free will (as traditionally understood) is an illusion. From my POV, attempting to blame Musk requires careful explanation. What do we mean? A short lapse of judgment? His willful actions? His intentions? His character? The overall condition of his brain? His upbringing? Which of these is Elon "in control of"? From the materialist POV, none.

From a social and legal POV, we usually draw lines somewhere. We don't want to defenestrate ethics or morality; we still have to find ways to live together. This requires careful thinking about justice: prevention, punishment, reintegration, etc. Overall, the focus shifts to policies that improve societal well-being. It doesn't help to pretend like people could have done otherwise given their situation. We _want_ people to behave better, so we should design systems to encourage that.

I dislike a huge part of what Musk has done, and I think more is likely to surface. Like we said earlier -- and I think we probably agree -- Musk is part of a system. Is he a cause or symptom? It depends on how you frame the problem.
by fc417fc802 | 2025-05-06 04:53:00+00:00
I was thinking this while reading it as well. Why go to all this trouble when we know in advance there will still be issues? Standardize on not using casual wording for quantified risks and instead provide the actual numbers. Something like "40 (out of 100) error 10 (plus or minus)". No more ambiguity. My offhand example even abbreviates nicely as scientific notation ie 40e10. I'm sure someone who actually spent some time on this could come up with something better.
by 1vuio0pswjnm7 | 2025-05-06 04:54:08+00:00
"The title of this submission is somewhate misleading."

Better to read the submission before drawing conclusions rather than only the HN title. In this case the HN title has been editorialised.

The actual title of the article is "A Judge Says Meta's AI Copyright Case Is About `the Next Taylor Swift'"

"The judge didn't make any sort of ruling, this is just reporting on a pretrial hearing."

The HN title doesn't mention anything about a "ruling". Nor does the title chosen by Wired.

The subheading in the article reads "Meta's contentious AI copyright battle is heating up-and the court may be close to a ruling."

That is accurate. The Court will soon decide the SJ motions.

Reading the article leaves no chance of being mislead by any title:

"If Chhabria grants either motion, he'll issue a ruling before the case goes to trial-and likely set an important precedent shaping how courts deal with generative AI copyright cases moving forward."
by analog31 | 2025-05-06 04:55:27+00:00
A weird aspect of my childhood: I brought a sandwich to lunch every day when I was in school. At first, my mom made it, but very quickly it became my own job, not that it was particularly difficult.

The school had subsidized lunches and milk. I always brought a nickel for milk. The teacher collected everybody's lunch money at the start of the day. That way, it was utterly opaque who was getting it for free. A simple system, appropriate for the times.

But I remember that my lunch was always better than the grim school lunch, and I always wondered: Why can't they ditch the hot lunch, and just give everybody a nice sandwich, and a piece of fruit, which is better?

I'm sure there are good arguments for the hot lunch, but still it's counterintuitive to me. And 55 years later, I still bring a sandwich, or leftovers, for lunch, and skip the hot meal at the company cafeteria.
by fastball | 2025-05-06 04:57:19+00:00
Seems like an arbitrary distinction.

I'd say Chain-of-Thought has massively improved LLM output. Is that "incremental"? Why is that more incremental than the move from GPT-2 to GPT-3? Sure you can say that this is when LLMs first passed some sort of Turing test, but fundamentally there was no technological difference from GPT-3 to GPT-4. In fact I would say the quality of GPT-4 unlocked thousands (millions?) more use-cases that were not very viable with the quality delivered by GPT-3. I don't see any reason for more use-cases to keep being unlocked by LLM improvements.
by rogermavis | 2025-05-06 04:57:29+00:00
> you are comparing it here to something that's always on

That's the point. Our org was told databricks would solve problems we just didn't have. Serverful has some wonderful advantages: simplicity, (ironically) cheaper (than something running just 3-4 hours a day but which costs 10x), familiarity, reliability. Serverless also has advantages, but only if it runs smoothly, doesn't take an eternity to boot, isn't prohibitively expensive, and has little friction before using it - databricks meets 0/4 of those critera, with the additional downside of restrictive SQL due to spark backend, adding unnecessary refactoring/complexity to queries.

> your setup is not really practical to have a lot of people collaborating

Hard disagree. Our methods are simple and time-tested. We use git to share code (100x improvement on databricks' version of git). We share data in a few ways, the most common are by creating a table in a database or in S3. It doesn't have to be a whole lot more complicated.
by holuponemoment | 2025-05-06 04:57:33+00:00
Nice list, I'd add run0 as the sudo replacement.

My only bugbear with it is that there's no equivalent to the old timeout default you could set (note that doas explicitly said they won't implement this too). The workaround is to run it in `sudo -i` fashion and not put a command afterwards which is reasonable enough even though it worked hard against my muscle memory + copypaste commands when switching over.

> Systemd gets a lot of hate

I'd argue it doesn't and is simply another victim of loud internet minority syndrome.

It's just a generic name at this point, basically all associated with init and service units and none of the other stuff.

https://man.archlinux.org/man/run0.1.en
by mati365 | 2025-05-06 04:57:43+00:00
Nice! I’ve been using a similar approach for years with my own setup: https://github.com/Mati365/hetzner-podman-bunjs-deploy. It’s built around Podman and systemd, and honestly, nothing has broken in all that time. Super stable, super simple. Just drop your units and go. Rock solid.