MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by sanderjd | 2025-05-05 22:45:56+00:00
I don't think my comment implied that the answers to these questions aren't knowable! And indeed, I agree that the deals to pay for default status in different channels is a big part of that answer.

So then apply that to Open AI. What are the distribution channels? Should they be paying Cursor to make them the default model? Or who else? Would that work? If not, why not? What's different?

My intuition is that this wouldn't work for them. I think if this "pay to be default" strategy works for someone, it will be one of their deeper pocketed rivals.

But I also don't think this was the only reason Google won search. In my memory, those deals to pay to be the default came fairly long after they had successfully built the brand image as the best search engine. That's how they had the cash to afford to pay for this.

A couple years ago, I thought it seemed likely that Open AI would win the market in that way, by being known as the clear best model. But that seems pretty unclear now! There are a few different models that are pretty similarly capable at this point.

Essentially, I think the reason Google was able to win search whereas the prospects look less obvious for Open AI is that they just have stronger competition!

To me, it just highlights the extent to which the big players at the time of Google's rise - Microsoft, Yahoo, ... Oracle maybe? - really dropped the ball on putting up strong competition. (Or conversely, Google was just further ahead of its time.)
by JumpCrisscross | 2025-05-05 22:47:09+00:00
> I already linked to the Google DeepMind paper. The definition is being debated in the AI research community

Sure, Google wants to redefine AGI so it looks like things that aren’t AGI can be branded as such. That definition is, correctly in my opinion, being called out as bullshit.

> obviously there will be stages in between

We don’t know what the stages are. Folks in the 80s were similarly selling their expert systems as a stage to AGI. “Emerging AGI” is a bullshit term.

> If you reduce LLMs to "word autocompletion" then you completely ignore the the attention mechanism and conceptual internal representations. These systems have deep learning models with hundreds of layers and trillions of weights

Fair enough, granted.
by vkou | 2025-05-05 22:48:33+00:00
> if leads to them leapfrogging us

They won't be leapfrogging 'us'.

They'll be leapfrogging some privately owned, for-profit business.

Frankly, I don't give two shits about that, and I fail to see why anyone who doesn't own one of them should give one.

If they want me to have skin in the game, they should share either the profits, or the models. Until they do, it's not 'us', it's 'them'.
by aleph_minus_one | 2025-05-05 22:48:46+00:00
> They’re all double the last dimension plus two, without skipping any in that sequence - but that offers no insight into why it wouldn’t hold for 254.

Wikipedia at least gives a literature reference and concise explanation for the reason:

> https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Kervaire_invarian...

"Hill, Hopkins & Ravenel (2016) showed that the Kervaire invariant is zero for n-dimensional framed manifolds for n = 2^k− 2 with k ≥ 8. They constructed a cohomology theory Ω with the following properties from which their result follows immediately:

* The coefficient groups Ω^n(point) have period 2^8 = 256 in n

* The coefficient groups Ω^n(point) have a "gap": they vanish for n = -1, -2, and -3

* The coefficient groups Ω^n(point) can detect non-vanishing Kervaire invariants: more precisely if the Kervaire invariant for manifolds of dimension n is nonzero then it has a nonzero image in Ω^{−n}(point)"

Paper:

Hill, Michael A.; Hopkins, Michael J.; Ravenel, Douglas C. (2016). "On the nonexistence of elements of Kervaire invariant one"

* https://arxiv.org/abs/0908.3724

* https://annals.math.princeton.edu/2016/184-1/p01
by WalterGR | 2025-05-05 22:49:36+00:00
> it was just a SQL database that stored arbitrary data.

I mean, for some definitions of “just”, “SQL database”, and “arbitrary data.” :) It was a schematised graph database implemented on top of a slimmed-down version of SQL Server. The query language was not SQL-based.

> It was abandoned due to The Cloud.

It was discontinued circa 2007. The cloud was much less of a Thing back then. I don’t recall that factoring at all into the decision to cancel the project, though it would have been prescient.

(Disclaimer: I was on the WinFS team at Microsoft.)
by bmurray7jhu | 2025-05-05 22:50:11+00:00
Text of NIE 29-51 "Probability of an Invasion of Yugoslavia in 1951"

Partial HTML: https://history.state.gov/historicaldocuments/frus1951v04p2/...

Full text PDF scan: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/docs/CIA-RDP79R01012A0007000...
by woodruffw | 2025-05-05 22:50:21+00:00
Yep. In general there's been no truly "hostile to Israel" US president. The closest thing to "hostility" has been negotiating (under JFK, Carter, Bush Sr., and Obama most notably) with regards to one or more of Iran, the '67 border, WB settlements, etc. Israel has increasingly (and wrongly) considered these "meddling" under its far-right government, which is a internal change within their own politics rather than a marked change in the US's own tactics.
by ninkendo | 2025-05-05 22:51:22+00:00
The article you posted describes a patient using ChatGPT to get a second opinion from what their doctor told them, not the doctor themself using ChatGPT.

The article could just as easily be about “Delayed diagnosis of a transient ischemic attack caused by talking to some rando on Reddit” and it would be just as (non) newsworthy.
by barnabee | 2025-05-05 22:51:44+00:00
Thank you for not going down the subscription route!

I'm much more willing to buy a $15 app if it feels like it has legs even if I may give up with it after a month or two than to possibly lock myself into a much smaller amount forever.

The amount I'm willing to pay on the app store only goes up if the app is _also_ open source.
by Anthony-G | 2025-05-05 22:52:43+00:00
The facial recognition has been enabled by default since I started using an iPhone in 2020. I find it to be useful but not as useful as the map view: as a bird-watcher and wildlife enthusiast, I’ll remember where (but not necessarily when) I took interesting photos. The geo-tagging also makes it easy to delete old work-related photos of computers from my workplace.

I’m generally considered by peers to be somewhat paranoid when it comes to computer/mobile privacy and big ad/tech but I find these features to be very useful and I’m surprised your peers wouldn’t make use of them when they’re available – particularly when the software is so intuitive.

Thanks for the clarification.
by didgetmaster | 2025-05-05 22:53:44+00:00
This tactic is especially effective when considering a hotly contested political topic where nearly half the country is in favor of one side, while the other half takes the opposite stance.

Two reasonable people can look at all the evidence available and come to completely opposite conclusions. If you have a clear bias for one side or the other before weighing the evidence; then you might come away with the conclusion that people who believe the opposite must be crazy.
by dabockster | 2025-05-05 22:54:41+00:00
Something else I just found (literally from two days ago):

https://old.reddit.com/r/firefox/comments/1kdc02o/firefox_co...

> I don't think that people understand what interest Google has in paying Mozilla so much for, let's be honest, so little.

> Louis Rossmann explained it the best to me - Google pays Mozilla so much only to keep them alive to prevent antitrust litigation if Blink becomes basically the only browser engine left for Windows.

Looks like the courts might be understanding that relationship and declaring that illegal as well.
by wyager | 2025-05-05 22:54:49+00:00
> The median delay between speakers in a human to human conversation is zero milliseconds. In other words, about 1/2 the time, one speaker interrupts the other, making the delay negative.

Fascinating. I wonder if this is some optimal information-theoretic equilibrium. If there's too much average delay, it means you're not preloading the most relevant compressed context. If there's too little average delay, it means you're wasting words.
by qcic | 2025-05-05 22:55:14+00:00
I doubt it. Google is shoving Gemini on everyone’s face through search, and Meta AI is embedded in every Meta product. Heck, instagram created a bot marketplace.

They might not “know” the brand as well as ChatGPT, but the average consumer has definitely been exposed to those at the very least.

DeepSeek also made a lot of noise, to the point that, anecdotally, I’ve seen a lot of people outside of tech using it.
by Alupis | 2025-05-05 22:55:24+00:00
> no commercial usage

I think that's if you are literally on their free tier, vs. having a billable account which doesn't accumulate enough charges to be billed.

Similar to the sibling comment - you add a credit card and set yourself up to be billed (which removes you from the "free tier"), but you are still granted the resources monthly for free. If you exceed your allocation, they bill the difference.
by peturdarri | 2025-05-05 22:56:56+00:00
You're right, this is not solvable with regular LLMs. It's not possible to mimic natural conversational rhythm with a separate LLM generating text, a separate text-to-speech generating audio, and a separate VAD determining when to respond and when to interrupt. I strongly believe you have to do everything in one model to solve this issue, to let the model decide when to speak, when to interrupt the user even.

The only model that has attempted this (as far as I know) is Moshi from Kyutai. It solves it by having a fully-duplex architecture. The model is processing the audio from the user while generating output audio. Both can be active at the same time, talking over each other, like real conversations. It's still in research phase and the model isn't very smart yet, both in what it says and when it decides to speak. It just needs more data and more training.

https://moshi.chat/
by dragonwriter | 2025-05-05 22:57:47+00:00
. If you analogize to human leaning

You can't make valid legal analogies to human learning when dealing with copyright law, because human brains are not a fixed media under copyright law, thus impressions in human brains are not copies of any kind under copyright law, thus "well, when you make an impression in the human brain, its not a copyright violation" is never a good legal analogy for when you make something that is in a form which can be a copy under copyright law.
by 93po | 2025-05-05 22:57:51+00:00
I don't think it's as black and white as that. Giving messaging to an LLM and asking "How can I say this more clearly or more kindly?" gives valuable feedback to how you're communicating and how it could be done better, though obviously taking it with a grain of salt.

I think there is also value to affirmations and validation, even if it's done blindly by a robot. We have hurt feelings and want to feel understood. And when the source of those hurt feelings isn't immediately available to talk, it's a small tool to use for self-soothing behavior. Sometimes, or often times, these affirmations might be something you intrinsically already know and believe, and it helps to simply be reminded of them and worded in a different way.

To say "ChatGPT agrees with me and so I feel more confident that you're wrong as a result" is definitely the wrong approach here. Which is, to a small degree, what this person did. We did ultimately break up recently, and the reason being communication issues (and their unwillingness to even talk to me through conflict) is probably no surprise to you. But this outcome was very very likely regardless of LLM use.
by elpocko | 2025-05-05 22:59:04+00:00
Or maybe we could stop anthropomorphizing tech and call the "hallucinations" what they really are: artifacts introduced by lossy compression.

No one is calling the crap that shows up in JPEGs "hallucinations" or "bullshit"; it's commonly accepted side effects of the compression algorithm that makes up shit that isn't there in the original image. Now we're doing the same lossy compression with language and suddenly it's "hallucinations" and "bullshit" because it's so uncanny.
by numpad0 | 2025-05-05 23:00:46+00:00
> “only marginal value” to an attacker

> “see, you yourself agree that a schema is of some value to an attacker.”

IANAL, it appears justice systems universally interpret this type of "technically yes if that makes you happy but honestly unlikely" statements as "yes with technical bonus", not a "no with extra steps" at all, and it has to be shortened as just "unlikely from my professional perspective" or something lawyer approved for intended effect. Courts are weird.
by tempestn | 2025-05-05 23:02:03+00:00
Interesting. Two things that jumped out to me were 1) why do the regions of the standardization line not overlap or at least meet? And 2) What's up with the small but clear minority of people who took all the 'unlikely' phrasings to mean somewhere in the realm of 90 to 100%? My guess would be they're misreading the question and that is their estimate of unlikelihood?
by bdangubic | 2025-05-05 23:02:48+00:00
interviewing and finding the right candidates is very simple process - make sure you know who the right person is (but be open to be blown away by something entirely different) and work backwards from there. what is your ideal candidate? how are they the missing lego block to complete the masterpiece? what do other already-assembled blocks do? what tools are they using? I’ve been on so many interviews (on both sides) and am always blown away by what percentage of that process is wasted on meaningless things (like reversing a linked list). you know what you need and are probably surrounded by many amazing people - just find another one of them to complete the puzzle
by belter | 2025-05-05 23:02:58+00:00
"...The controllers who guide flights in and out of the New Jersey airport on April 28 “temporarily lost radar and communications with the aircraft under their control, unable to see, hear, or talk to them,” the National Air Traffic Controllers Association, their union, said in a statement...

...Staffing shortages followed the incident, which was so severe that some of the controllers involved “have taken time off to recover from the stress of multiple recent outages,” the Federal Aviation Administration said on Monday..."
by EMIRELADERO | 2025-05-05 23:03:31+00:00
Then the results would be the same, and it would still be fair use. I have yet to see an example that demonstrates LLMs plagiarize by default or by tendency.

Your causality seems to be inverted here. You seem to be implying that "learning" (or the ingestion and retention of information for the same means) is banned by default for everything, but we decide to allow it for humans as the sole exception. This is not the case. Everything not prohibited is allowed, and "intermediate copies" are considered to be vital to fair use by the court system.
by mk_stjames | 2025-05-05 23:04:12+00:00
Using code to do graphical layouts is... tedious.

In case anyone wants to get more artsy with their traces and are also using KiCad, here's a more hands on approach to try:

Layout your parts in KiCad, but don't route any traces. Now plot the board, but instead of plotting gerbers, plot out an SVG. Then you can pull that SVG into Inkscape. You'll get just the pads of all your components, all in the right places.

There you can draw out traces by hand, connecting the pads shown. you won't have DRC or netlist checking so this best works if you really know what you're doing, but it can be quite enjoyable. I did this back in the day with a wacom tablet and lots of smoothing on paths and you can make layouts reminiscent of hand-taped boards.

When done, remove the pads and leave just your drawn traces and then save back as the same SVG, without changing anything size wise. Then in Kicad go to Import>Graphics and pull the the SVG, 1:1, on the copper layer, and it will be right back in the right spot, with your hand drawn traces leading right into the original positioned pads. Your drills from the pads will go through the inkscape svg just fine.

Note this workflow works with any layer and any vector graphics ideas you want.
Baby music app backed by neuroscience research papers. Feedback?
by simplysparsh | 2025-05-05 23:04:16+00:00
I’m a first-time B2C founder and recently launched https://www.babymusic.ai. It’s an AI-powered app that generates personalized music for babies — not just to soothe them, but to support their brain development.

Why this?

After reading dozens of peer-reviewed papers (and speaking to a child psych PhD), I found strong, consistent evidence that exposure to specific types of music — especially early in life — can:

Improve language acquisition

Enhance emotional regulation

Boost musical aptitude

Help babies sleep better and longer

Yet most baby music apps are just Spotify playlists with cute branding.

So I built one that creates custom, research-backed audio based on cognitive principles — pleasant to hear, but intentionally designed to promote development. Think Calm/Headspace meets early childhood.

It’s getting some love from friends and early testers, but I’m hitting a wall on distribution.

This is new territory for me — I’m a builder, not a marketer — and I’d genuinely appreciate input on:

Distribution strategies (how do solo founders grow a B2C product like this?)

Getting early users beyond friends/family

UX ideas for non-tech-savvy parents

Pricing/positioning for trust in a product targeting babies

I’d also love feedback if anyone here has expertise in: audio apps, consumer trust, or building for kids.

Open to all thoughts, praise or roast.
by lossolo | 2025-05-05 23:04:31+00:00
> SamA is in a hurry because he's set to lose the race.

OpenAI trained GPT-4.1 and 4.5—both originally intended to be GPT-5 but they were considered disappointments, which is why they were named differently. Did they really believe that scaling the number of parameters would continue indefinitely without diminishing returns? Not only is there no moat, but there's also no reasonable path forward with this architecture for an actual breakthrough.
by scrubs | 2025-05-05 23:06:03+00:00
Every time I read a story like this, or hear about Musk, Hegseth, Trump, Marjorie Taylor Greene in the large, or Pizza gate, Signal gate, eating cats and dogs I'm reminded of an episode on the Tonight Show late 1970s with Johnny Carson.

Burt Reynolds, and another character (maybe Don Rickles) were guests. Carson couldn't get a word in edgewise. His guests were joking, cutting-up --- very entertaining for the audience to be sure --- but frustrating Carson.

The final guest was Carol Wayne the movie lady. She's the physical manifestation of the dumb-blonde concept. As they spoke, she called Johnny old, tried to explain the graphic symbols used on TV weather reports, and made mention of the fact she was friends with one of Burt's ex-wives.

Burt said something snarky back to Wayne then, partly embarrassed, climbed over the interview couch and briefly hid. He then climbed back over which I'm sure Carson thought uncouth. This was followed by more outbursts from the other guests.

At some point Carson grew tired of Wayne and all the noise. He announced it was time for a TV advert (the ol' clock on the wall!) saying something to the effect of:

"There are days I'd give my bottom dollar just to talk to a regular person. I'm supposed to be the host. When we come back I'll try to make sense of this chaos."

Over the last 10 years I've been feeling Carson's angst more and more viscerally. A sniper? Oh c'mon!
by caseyohara | 2025-05-05 23:06:25+00:00
Agreed. It doesn't seem right that San Francisco (famously foggy) is ranked less dreary than Denver (famously sunny 300 days a year* and quite arid).

*"300 days of sunshine per year" is frequently cited, even on the official Visit Denver website (https://www.denver.org/meetings/denver-info/weather/). Having lived in Denver for the last ~15 years, it is very sunny, but "300 days a year" stretches the truth just a bit.
by dragonwriter | 2025-05-05 23:07:52+00:00
> Copyright was first established by governments and the Church prior to the invention of corporations.

No, it wasn't. The first copyright law is generally held to be the Statute of Anne (1710) in Britain (the Licensing of the Press Act of 1662 which preceded it was not a "copyright law" in the sense that it did not provide for ownership of a right to publish/print particular works, but provided, as the name suggested, for licensing of printing presses, and revocation of said licenses -- it was more of a general censorship law); and even if you limit the scope to Britain (well, in either case, England before the Union with Scotland) corporations go back further (depending on whether you mean corporations as "entities which are not natural persons with legal personality"—the City of London Corporation's establishment is literally lost to history, but known to predate the Norman Conquest—or "joint stock companies"—the Company of Merchant Adventurers to New Lands in 1551 would be the first.)
by com2kid | 2025-05-05 23:08:04+00:00
Been there, implemented it, it works well enough.

Better solutions are possible but even tiny models are capable of being given a partial sentence and replying with a probability that the user is done talking.

The linked repo does this, it should work fine.

More advanced solutions are possible (you can train a model that does purely speech -> turn detection probability w/o an intermediate text step), but what the repo does will work well enough for many scenarios.
by foobiekr | 2025-05-05 23:08:43+00:00
Specific cases are probably impossible, though there's always hope. After all, to ue the example the nanotech people loved: there are literal assemblers all around you. Whether we can have singular device that can build anything (probably not - energy limits and many many other issues) or factories that can work on atomic scale (maybe) is open, I think. The idea of little robots was kind of visibly silly even at the peak.

The idea of scaling up LLMs and hoping is .. pretty silly.
by satisfice | 2025-05-05 23:08:51+00:00
I am mystified by the apparently credulity of the author of this post. When I was young I found the experience of sex so overwhelming that I was certain there lay some great wisdom within it. Spoiler alert after many years of experience: there really isn’t. It’s a fun time for a little while. That’s about it.

Now we see people relating to their GPTs as if something profound is happening, but I suspect nothing is. This activity leads nowhere.

I work with and test these things. I find them creepy and I refuse to engage with them as if they were thinking beings. They are utterly unreliable narrators of their own “thoughts.”
by stale2002 | 2025-05-05 23:08:59+00:00
People aren't saying that AI as a tool is going to go bust. Instead, people are saying that this practice of spending 100s of millions, or even billions of dollars on training massive models is going bust.

AI isn't going to be the world changing, AGI, that was sold to the public. Instead, it will simply be another B2B SaaS product. Useful, for sure. Even profitable for startups.

But "take over the world" good? Unlikely.
by mark336 | 2025-05-05 23:09:16+00:00
-1 for Apple vs Epic -1 for Apple contempt of FTC Monopoly ruling +1 for Apples DEI stance -1 for Apple going to Trump over DMA rulings in Europe And GTFOH, now Apple is pulling the rug on China and moving most iPhone production to India? If you want to stay on top of the major happenings in Big Tech or chips see my news forum site: http://asiaviewnews.com/gigabots/threads