MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by mrguyorama | 2025-05-29 20:24:53+00:00
It's more than that. Even if you take an extreme assumption that "Full" intelligence means being able to see ALL relevant facts to a "choice" and perfectly reliably make the objective "best" choice, that does not mean that being more intelligent than we currently are guarantees better choices than we currently make.

We make our choices using a subset of the total information. Getting a larger subset of that information could still push you to the wrong choice. Local maxima of choice accuracy is possible, and it could also be possible that the "function" for choice accuracy wrt info you have is constant at a terrible value right up until you get perfect info and suddenly make perfect choices.

Much more important however, is the reminder that the known biases in the human brain are largely subconscious. No amount of better conscious thought will change the existence of the Fundamental Attribution Error for example. Biases are not because we are "dumb", but because our brains do not process things rationally, like at all. We can consciously attempt to emulate a perfectly rational machine, but that takes immense effort, almost never works well, and is largely unavailable in moments of stress.

Statisticians still suffer from gambling fallacies. Doctors still experience the Placebo Effect. The scientific method works because it removes humans as the source of truth, because the smartest human still makes human errors.
by kstrauser | 2025-05-29 20:25:00+00:00
That's the killer feature. Whatever it is you want to do, there's almost certainly a package for it. The joke is that Python's the second best language for everything. It's not the best for web backends, but it's pretty great. It's not the best for data analysis, but it's pretty great. It's not the best at security tooling, but it's pretty great. And it probably is the best language for doing all three of those things in one project.
by steveBK123 | 2025-05-29 20:25:34+00:00
It's crazy cuz my 2022 BMW has 4k front facing camera (2x the brand new Tesla HW4 resolution), on top of the array of other cameras + 5 radar modules.. and.. they don't pretend they can FSD with that.

My car just has really really good highway ADAS. Which is all that most people need.
by tunesmith | 2025-05-29 20:25:35+00:00
It's just still so complicated when you are dealing with any level of digestive issues. Sometimes you're supposed to lay off high-fiber fruits like apples. And then there's soluble versus insoluble fibers (sometimes you need more insoluble), gut flora, probiotics; fats are both good and bad for gut "motility"... if your balance is off somehow it just gets really complicated really fast.
by hermitdev | 2025-05-29 20:25:43+00:00
I started using C# towards the end of the 1.0 beta or maybe just after RTM...I embarrassingly called it "C pound" for quite a while. Because, even as someone born and raised in the US, pretty much my only exposure to the symbol was in the context of phones. "Call me at blah, pound one-two-three" as in the extension is "#123".

Remember, it was originally release +20 years ago (goddamn, I feel old now); recorded video or even audio over the internet were much, much, MUCH rarer then, when "high-speed" speed internet for a lot of people meant a 56K modem.

Back then, most developer's first exposure to C# then was likely in either print form (books or maybe MSDN magazine).
by jltsiren | 2025-05-29 20:25:51+00:00
Ships going to Antarctica often offer single beds in shared cabins.

When I went there, I booked the cheapest bed (maybe $6500 in 2013) in a three-person cabin. It was early season and the ship wasn't full, so the company filled it with backpackers waiting for last-minute discounts in the hostels of Ushuaia. Because I had paid the full price, they upgrade me two classes to a much nicer two-person cabin. And then halfway through the trip, the ship delivered some staff to a museum. The other guy got their cabin, and I got the one we had shared.
by scsh | 2025-05-29 20:26:41+00:00
I don't disagree and think that that is something people should be more concerned about than they already are/have been. I think the difference is how opaque the influence of the middleman is.

It's like the difference of someone handing out printed tour guides vs an in-person tour guide. It's typically can be easier to tell which are the ads, the extent of the curation, etc. with the printed guide(but not always!). While with the in-person guide you just have to just have to take everything they say at face value since there's no other surrounding information to judge.
by jajko | 2025-05-29 20:26:44+00:00
Go to Ushuaia, and book a normal ship just like all other folks do. You will have 100x more rewarding experience from all of it, guaranteed. Its not just destination but whole road to it that make such trips worthwhile and you will keep remembering it for rest of your days.

Cruises are for folks, how to say it politely... who gave up on any form of adventure or excitement in their lives. Dont be that person, not yet at least.
by serial_dev | 2025-05-29 20:27:15+00:00
This all feels like a charade designed to justify ever-higher valuations. Jony Ive likely gets insanely wealthy, even more than he did at Apple, just for lending his name. OpenAI gets a wave of “free” press, with headlines touting how they’ve brought the world’s greatest designer on board. And by the time it’s clear that none of it led to anything meaningful, a few years have passed, and the company is bigger than ever.
by crazygringo | 2025-05-29 20:27:24+00:00
No they aren't. Public utilities generally give you only one choice of provider, which is why they need to be regulated because of their monopoly status.

When you fly, you usually have a choice between lots of airlines. So there's nothing "public utility" about it whatsoever.

Airports, on the other hand, are considered public infrastructure. There are also sometimes routes that are only served by one airline, which are sometimes regulated accordingly. But that isn't the general case, nor should it be.
by vouaobrasil | 2025-05-29 20:27:37+00:00
Sometimes it's a matter of the prisoner's dilemma or an arms-race. For example, I would like to continue using older phones. But most older phones don't support 4G or 5G. And that's not just a matter of internet: I had a nice phone, worked well for calls and texts, but the phone literally would not connect to the network because it was 2G max.

In other cases, one has to use newer technology because it is what is provided at work. Mainly because older technology doesn't get security updates. Now my iPhone SE original, which works perfectly fine, no longer is updated and I don't know what to do. I DON'T want a newer phone. I hate phones.

Still, some other technology isn't even made any more and if you need to use something at all, it has to be newer because it's harder and harder to find older stuff.
by Analemma_ | 2025-05-29 20:27:38+00:00
Because increasingly I can't park my car, order from a restaurant, manage my bank account, or schedule a doctor's appointment without an up-to-date smartphone, since the old ways of doing those things got removed in favor of apps. I also can't stay in touch with a bunch of my friends, who are on various chat platforms I can't access.

Unless you're prepared to go full off-grid hermit, you cannot opt out of technological progress even if you want to. That irks me, but what can I do?
by refulgentis | 2025-05-29 20:27:42+00:00
I agree with you vehemently.

Another way of looking at it is, insistence on complete verisimilitude in an image generator is fundamentally in error.

I would argue, even undesirable. I don't want to live in a world where a 45 year old keyboard that was only out for 4 years is readily imitated in every microscopic detail.

I also find myself frustrated, and asking myself why.

First thought that jumps in: it's very clear that it is in error to say the model has no idea, modulo there's some independent run that's dramatically different from the only one offered in this thread.

Second thought: if we're doing "the image generators don't get details right", it would seem to be there a lot simpler examples than OPs, and it is better expressed that way - I assume it wasn't expressed that way because it sounds like dull conversation, but it doesn't have to be!

Third thought as to why I feel frustrated: I feel like I wasted time here - no other demos showing it's anywhere close to "no idea", its completely unclear to me whats distinctive about a IBM Model F Keyboard, and the the wikipedia images are worse than Google's AFAICT.
by crote | 2025-05-29 20:27:43+00:00
> could easily be called from lower level languages

Could? Yes. Easily? No.

People write their business logic in Python because they don't want to code in those lower-level languages unless they absolutely have to. The article neatly shows the kind of additional coding overhead you'd have to deal with - and you're not getting anything back in return.

Python is successful because it's a high-level language which has the right tooling to create easy-to-use wrappers around low-level high-performance libraries. You get all the benefits of a rich high-level language for the cold path, and you only pay a small penalty over using a low-level language for the hot path.
by eslaught | 2025-05-29 20:27:53+00:00
How do you not completely destroy your concentration when you do this though?

I normally build things bottom up so that I understand all the pieces intimately and when I get to the next level of abstraction up, I know exactly how to put them together to achieve what I want.

In my (admittedly limited) use of LLMs so far, I've found that they do a great job of writing code, but that code is often off in subtle ways. But if it's not something I'm already intimately familiar with, I basically need to rebuild the code from the ground up to get to the point where I understand it well enough so that I can see all those flaws.

At least with humans I have some basic level of trust, so that even if I don't understand the code at that level, I can scan it and see that it's reasonable. But every piece of LLM generated code I've seen to date hasn't been trustworthy once I put in the effort to really understand it.
by gnarlouse | 2025-05-29 20:27:54+00:00
Don't forget that "Her" and "Lost In Translation" are companion films directed by a divorced couple and each film is a take on the respective director's view of how the relationship went and what happened.

Sort of a difficult stance to defend as a harbinger of the future of A.I. when the direction of the film is ultimately just a hit-piece on an ex-wife ¯\_(ツ)_/¯.
by guptadeepak | 2025-05-29 20:27:55+00:00
I've been building software for over two decades, from debugging assembly code in India to now running AI companies. The pace of abstraction in our field continues to accelerate in ways that fundamentally change what it means to be a developer.

Major tech companies are already generating 25-30% of their code through AI. At GrackerAI and LogicBalls, we're experiencing this shift firsthand. What previously took weeks can now be prototyped in hours.

Three key insights from this transformation:

Architecture becomes paramount: AI can generate functional code, but designing robust distributed systems and making trade-offs between performance, cost, and maintainability remains distinctly human.

Quality assurance complexity scales: As more code becomes AI-generated, ensuring security, maintainability, and efficiency requires deeper expertise. The review process becomes more critical than initial coding.

Human-AI collaboration evolves: We're moving from imperative programming (telling computers how) to declarative (describing what) to natural language goal specification.

The most interesting challenge: while AI excels at pattern matching, true innovation—creating entirely new paradigms—remains human.

For those integrating AI into development workflows: what unexpected quality challenges have you discovered between AI-generated code and existing systems?

Deepak
by Klaus23 | 2025-05-29 20:28:09+00:00
Nice site! I have a suggestion for a prompt that I could never get to work properly. It's been a while since I tried it, and the models have probably improved enough that it should be possible now.

A knight with a sword in hand stands with his back to us, facing down an army. He holds his shield above his head to protect himself from the rain of arrows shot by archers visible in the rear.

I was surprised at how badly the models performed. It's a fairly iconic scene, and there's more than enough training data.
by miltonlost | 2025-05-29 20:28:24+00:00
> People will look at this as penalizing single travelers and want everyone to have the lowest fare, but that’s not the real alternative. A flat fare would bring solo prices down and group rates up so the blended average is the same.

So it’s still penalizing being single. Single travelers are subsidizing group rates. They are being penalized for not buying multiple. You didn’t explain how it’s not a penalty to buy as one person
Never Redlining a Doc Again
by SamuelKatsaros | 2025-05-29 20:28:39+00:00
in private equity, we waste hours editing NDAs manually. it’s mostly boilerplate: kill the residuals clause, fix governing law, shorten the term, add the return clause.

i got tired of opening Word every time, so i built something that takes a .docx and returns a redlined version — fully marked up, like a lawyer did it. just a local script + llm + a playbook of what we always fix.

surprised it didn’t exist in this form already. works well enough that i haven’t redlined manually in weeks.

sharing here in case others are doing the same thing (or have done it better). curious how people are automating doc work internally.

-- samuel
by Izkata | 2025-05-29 20:28:43+00:00
> The thing I wish was more understood in anti-mRNA vaccine circles was how mRNA vaccines work vs traditional vaccine platforms.

My experience actually looking at these groups is they did understand it better than most. The various studies people are pulling up in this thread today, showing more research is needed? They were sharing and talking about similar studies in 2021 and 2022 during the period everyone else was blindly repeating the "safe and effective" mantra.

Quick edit for an example of one of these earlier studies they were sharing: https://www.mdpi.com/1467-3045/44/3/73
by palmotea | 2025-05-29 20:29:04+00:00
> We seem to agree as this is more or less exactly the my point. Striving to keep the status quo is a futile path. Eventually things change. Be ready. The best advice I've ever got work (and maybe even life) wise is to always have alternatives. If you don't have alternatives, you literally have no choice.

Those alternatives are going to be worse for you, because if they weren't, why didn't you switch already? And if a flood of your peers are pursing alternatives at the same time, you'll probably experience an even poorer outcome than you expected (e.g. everyone getting laid off and trying to make ends meet driving for Uber at the same time). Then, AI is really properly understood as a "fuck the white-collar middle-class" tech, and it's probably going to fuck up your backup plans at about the same time as it fucks up your status quo.

You're also describing a highly individualistic strategy, for someone acting on his own. At this point, the correct strategy is probably collective action, which can at least delay and control the change to something more manageable. But software engineers have been too "special snowflake" about themselves to have laid the groundwork for that, and are acutely vulnerable.
by freedomben | 2025-05-29 20:29:32+00:00
Just my opinion, I think at least a portion of them have to learn to live with "faith" being the answer to some hard questions. You also don't have to look hard for doctrines that are contradictory. For example: was Jesus human or God? (and keep in mind that God is traditinally viewed as tri-omni, meaning omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent)

Many times I've asked that I'm told "he was 100% human and also 100% God." I'm sure different sects believe differently on that, but plenty do accept that. When I ask "how is it possible to be 100% human and 100% God?" you'll sometimes get answers like, "well it's like water in different forms, ice, liquid, and vapor" but that doesn't answer the question (it answers a question about how Jesus and God the Father can both be God yet still be "monotheistic"). When pushed it has always come down to "some things have to be accepted on faith." That is obviously enough for plenty of people, but I personally find it insufficient. Back when I was a believer I had cognitive dissonance over that question that I somewhat learned to live with (obviously not entirely as I am no longer a believer, but it wasn't that question that led me to ultimately lose my faith).
by Amezarak | 2025-05-29 20:29:50+00:00
The story in Matthew 19:21 has exactly the same point and precedes this very parable.

> But when the young man heard that saying, he went away sorrowful: for he had great possessions. [Then follows the camel and the needle.]

The rich man fails the test because he is unable to give up his wealth; his heart is not in the right place. He loves the world and he loves his riches more than he loves God. It is entirely possible to have your heart in the right place and be rich, as demonstrated by several other examples.

Another example is in Acts, where Peter kills a man and his wife because they lie about how much money they're giving - they were perfectly free, and would have been saved, even had they withheld their money from the commons. Paul also says there are not many rich men that are Christians - but there are some.

The attitude that "ahah, you didn't give your money to the poor, so you're not a REAL Christian doing what you're supposed to do" is put into the mouth of a figure in the Bible. That figure is Judas.

> Then took Mary a pound of ointment of spikenard, very costly, and anointed the feet of Jesus, and wiped his feet with her hair: and the house was filled with the odour of the ointment.

> 4Then saith one of his disciples, Judas Iscariot, Simon's son, which should betray him,

> 5Why was not this ointment sold for three hundred pence, and given to the poor?

Jesus, and the other apostles, are not saying that you can't be rich. They're saying you cannot love money more than God, and even trusting in money is ultimately a foolish endeavor because your life and prosperity are in God's hands.

If you are snidely arguing that people aren't Christians or following God simply because they haven't given all their money to the poor, you are falling into the same error as Judas, and the same general category of error as the Pharisees.
by jt2190 | 2025-05-29 20:30:20+00:00
> He would say stuff like “hyperlinks should always be blue and underlined” because that’s what users expect, without realizing that at that point in time we were still so early in the adoption of the web that it made no sense to apply such rigid rules.

I always remember recommendations from Nielsen as (a) backed by some testing with real users, (b) temporal, i.e. “at this time users expect…” and ( c) only focused on usability, that is, in practice there are other things to consider like design, performance, etc.

I will say that most of this nuance gets rounded to a Boolean like most advice.
by abduhl | 2025-05-29 20:30:35+00:00
>> The so-called Chevron deference doctrine was simply that the Supreme Court ruled (~40 years ago in the Reagan administration) that if an agency is responsible for administering a statute that's ambiguous, that agency's interpretation should be deferred to.

This is a misstatement of what the law was. Under Chevron, the agency’s interpretation MUST be deferred to, not should. This is an affront to the separation of powers.

Agencies are not neutered. Nor are they prevented from interpreting ambiguous statutes post-Chevron. They are prevented from being the final say on interpretation. This is good, just, and in line with America’s constitutional regime.
by nialse | 2025-05-29 20:30:38+00:00
Maybe I would be useful to zoom out a bit. We're in a time of technological change, and change its gonna. Maybe it isn't your job that will change, maybe it is? Maybe it's not even about you or what you do. More likely it's the processes that will change around you. Maybe it's not change for better or worse. Maybe it's just change. But it's gonna change.
by jazzyjackson | 2025-05-29 20:30:52+00:00
Thanks for mentioning that, had me digging around for where I can find the music. The youtube link lead me to the project's hackaday log, which is extremely detailed but lacks any mention of music [0]

The submission link's github page [1] links to a website listing all the tracks that ever played [2], explaining they dropped the music from the project so as not to deal with copyright claims. too bad fair use isn't clear enough to apply here, I think its a relatively transformative use and doesn't compete with the original.

[0] https://hackaday.io/project/178144-reverse-engineering-the-w...

[1] https://github.com/netbymatt/ws4kp

[2] https://twcclassics.com/audio/artists.html
by johnnyanmac | 2025-05-29 20:31:10+00:00
The US has (has?) a huge tarriff, something like 200%, on Chinese EV's. This in theory would be good because it gives American manufacturers a chance to catch up and giving them a huge advantadge for selling to American customers.

in practice, it didn't work because the US really can't decide where it wants to go with EV's. Fighting over standards, some trying to keep holding things back to sell ICE vehicles, etc. Inflation also didn't help, so a lot of cars just blew up in cost. So because of the indeisive industry, the tarriff is just a safeguard instead of an opportunity.
by mrtksn | 2025-05-29 20:31:21+00:00
It doesn't have anything to do with DOGE, that's just the tax the US importers are paying as a result of Trump tariffs: https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/12/tariff-receipts-topped-16-bi...

It's just tax on consumption, the companies can choose whatever way to handle that(i.e. make less profit if they have the margins, increase prices if they can still sell it, go out of business etc. ).
by ryandrake | 2025-05-29 20:31:45+00:00
> Because increasingly I can't park my car, order from a restaurant, manage my bank account, or schedule a doctor's appointment without an up-to-date smartphone

We still have the ability to opt-out of these things, and (sometimes) loudly let businesses know why, but the window is closing fast. If we want to have any hope for a world that doesn't require smartphones and apps, we need to take action now.
by r2_pilot | 2025-05-29 20:31:58+00:00
Specifically, free will can't affect chemistry or physics, because what, to you, is free will, to me, is chemical reactions that lead to your body making movements. Since no known process is capable of altering these reactions, ergo you have no free will(defined as the ability to make choices outside of external interference, whatever that even means). Calvinism is relevant because they purport to believe in the same God you do, yet have wildly different and incompatible theories of mind that make no sense to you. As an outside observer all I can say is that either you or they are wrong, and it's likely you both are.
by vouaobrasil | 2025-05-29 20:32:05+00:00
AI, LLM models, newer computers that come *default* with A.I, newer phones with cameras I don't want, "Apps" for everything, IOT devices that flood the trash heap with electronic waste, phones that are forced to be obsolete and upgrade to make more trash, websites that load 200MB onto your local storage just to read an article that can fit in 65KB (check out the structure of BBC.com and see how much space it takes in the cache), cars with *ugly* huge screens and touch controls, social media, huge tech corporations, sophisticated advertising algorithms,...