MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by dragochat | 2025-06-01 20:47:53+00:00
> There is no risk of terrorists using NI3 because anybody who made it in sufficient quantities to do serious damage would succeed only in blowing themselves up: those who do so are humorous, not terrible.

...not gonna say more, but, buried in the info and video there IS actually an idea for overcoming this nasty limitation (if you can mostly live up with "quasi-random detonation time", which could be acceptable for _some_ nefarious uses). Tbh I'd be more curious if any current gen LLM can figure it out.
by TZubiri | 2025-06-01 20:49:38+00:00
Unclear.

A couple of bugs in gen 1 that might be implemented differently than PS, would be bugs that are fixed in ps due to balancing or due to playability:

- multiplayer desyncs, see counter - fly/dig para invuln. - freeze clause, and to a lesser extent sleep clause

Bugs like normal body slam para invuln, amnesia reapplying speed drops, and toxic counter bugs, 1/256 miss chance, focus energy bugs, I would expect to stay. If those get fixed, the project would veer into the terrain of natdex, Create A Pokemon, or Custom Metas, as in made up fan games that never existed in cartridge
by p12tic | 2025-06-01 20:51:19+00:00
State of the art of local models is even further.

For example, look into https://github.com/kvcache-ai/ktransformers, which achieve >11 tokens/s on a relatively old two socket Xeon servers + retail RTX 4090 GPU. Even more interesting is prefill speed at more than 250 tokens/s. This is very useful in use cases like coding, where large prompts are common.

The above is achievable today. In the mean time Intel guys are working on something even more impressive. In https://github.com/sgl-project/sglang/pull/5150 they claim that they achieve >15 tokens/s generation and >350 tokens/s prefill. They don't share what exact hardware they run this on, but from various bits and pieces over various PRs I reverse-engineered that they use 2x Xeon 6980P with MRDIMM 8800 RAM, without GPU. Total cost of such setup will be around $10k once cheap Engineering samples hit eBay.
by HillRat | 2025-06-01 20:52:23+00:00
One thing about Andor is that Gilroy specifically encouraged the directors not to shoot a lot of coverage and focus instead on very intentional shot lists, which both sped up shooting (critical given the cost of the production, COVID requirements, and the Hollywood strikes) and resulted in a much more crafted look, though it required a lot of detailed up-front planning. It’s really quite striking how different that approach is from the usual way things are shot, edited, and cleaned these days.
by kgeist | 2025-06-01 20:52:58+00:00
900 ms sounds like a lot for just 10,000 documents? How many chunks are there per document? Maybe Pinecone's 820 ms includes network latency plus they need to serve other users?

In Go, I once implemented a naive brute-force cosine search (linear scan in memory), and for 1 million 350-dimensional vectors, I got results in under 1 second too IIRC.

I ended up just setting up OpenSearch, which gives you hybrid semantic + full-text search out of the box (BM25 + kNN). In my tests, it gave better results than semantic search alone, something like +15% better retrieval.
by LatteLazy | 2025-06-01 20:53:45+00:00
Isn’t destroying the dollars reserve currency status key to his stated goals? I thought that as long as dollars are the reserve currency, people will want them, and trade goods and services for them just for the privilege of holding them.

So the US will never get manufacturing jobs back as every other country effectively insists on subsidising exports to the us to get the dollars they need for their reserves?

I am not commenting on whether this is true or a good idea etc. but ending the usd as a reserve currency is a key objective, not a risk that might occur unintended no?
by kadoban | 2025-06-01 20:54:38+00:00
Even if you were okay with all of that, there's still better compounds to use as weapons. It's just not a good one at _all_.

It _is_ still dangerous though. A lot of people/writeups discount the danger. You really want to use ear/eye protection, do it outside, and try to avoid glass for the final steps to reduce the shrapnel risk.

And it's probably obvious, but: it's not a good prank. You can really fuck up someone's ears or worse.
by margalabargala | 2025-06-01 20:54:48+00:00
You call compilers "levels of abstraction but still thinking", I call LLMs yet another level of abstraction.

This isn't really some new concept, the only thing new is that it's being applied to areas that haven't historically had a ton of automation.

Hand-wringing about LLMs and "not thinking" is the same thing that was hand-wrung about students using calculators and not knowing how to do long division. Or using a computer lookup and not knowing how to use the dewey decimal system. Heck, or using an automobile/bicycle and not knowing how to shoe a horse.

People over the last decade have demonstrated they are perfectly capable of generating large quantities of crappy, not-thought-out code all on their own. Just look around you. LLMs democratize the lowest common denominator, and those that are doing sufficiently difficult, nuanced, unique things that they actually need to know what they're doing, will continue to do so.

I don't think LLMs will reduce the abilities of the 10% best software engineers, and I don't think the quality of output of the rest will meaningfully change.
by creatonez | 2025-06-01 20:55:48+00:00
This HN thread is fascinating. A third of the commenters here only read 1/3 of the article, another third read 2/3 of the article, and another third actually read the whole article. It's almost like the people in this thread linearly loaded the article and stopped at random points.

Please, don't be the next clueless fool with a "what about X" or "this is completely useless" response that is irrelevant to the point of the article and doesn't bother to cover the use case being proposed here.
by quentinvcr | 2025-06-01 20:57:57+00:00
Hi, Quentin here Some months ago I've created a list of alternatives to popular Saas software. I created a whole new section on the website for open source alternatives.

Feel free to submit your own or share some feedback.

Some backstory: I was collecting some tools for quite some time now for my own use. Mostly to take some inspiration and do some competitor research for my other products. I though it would be fun to build this into a directory website for anyone to use and contribute to.

Today, we have around 70 tools published in the collection and more in review. Enjoy and thank you for your support!
by GouacheApp | 2025-06-01 20:58:17+00:00
We're not trying to fully replace that, but offer a more local, sustainable option for tools and surplus materials. It won’t make sense for a $9 hammer, but for the expensive, rarely-used stuff, sharing can save money, space, and reduce waste. Same thing as the 6 drywall panel that would end up in the bin that is now covering my living room. A depot could help with the pickup hassle too.
by johnea | 2025-06-01 20:58:19+00:00
I could understand that position, except that I don't think most LLM generated text are for the purpose of producing thought provoking conversation.

My expectation would be that anyone going through the effort to put a LLM generated comment bot online is doing it for some ulterior motive, typically profit or propaganda.

Given this, I would equate not caring about the provenance of the comment, to not caring if you're being intentionally misinformed for some deceptive purpose.
by Joeri | 2025-06-01 20:58:36+00:00
You can keep servers dumb, but some kinds of product features demand the servers to do the job. And then if you want to squeeze the most out of the server as it relates to your client app, RSC is one way to look at it.

I feel like the design space of making the server as dumb as possible is not sufficiently explored yet. I’m imagining PWAs that work offline by default, hosted on static hosting, talking to CORS-unlocked PKCE-authenticated APIs, storing their state as dumb files in APIs like dropbox, and doing all of the cross-client p2p syncing and merging client-side inside of a service worker.

It wouldn’t work for all categories of software, but so much productivity software ultimately reduces to a per-user file paradigm instead of a central database (outliners, notes, task managers, image editors, …) that I think a lot of complex web apps could be built this way. They wouldn’t work well on low end android phones, but then most of the products from those categories already don’t work well there, when half their logic is still on the server.

And yes, I know, Apple does not play nice with PWAs, but I still think there’s something there that I wish more people would explore.
by LeFantome | 2025-06-01 20:58:39+00:00
This is the whole point of Flatpak.

You can have a stable RHEL desktop that receives few updates and Flatpak apps that are up-to-date and that update regularly.

So, Flatpak makes a distro like RHEL viable as a desktop.

The other option is Distrobox. In both cases, you are basically running an up-to-date distro for your apps and a more stable distro (RHEL) as your host.
by MangoToupe | 2025-06-01 20:59:16+00:00
Well, that's fine, we're all entitled to our opinions.

Such a definition of systems language strikes me as borderline useless and vague, though, hence my request to chuck it out the window. (See also: high-level vs low-level is an even more poorly defined and useless term). I also don't see C (or rust, or C++) as having any unique affinity for accessing hardware—certainly, certainly not better access than lisp, which can often resemble an assembler with twenty megabytes of macros baked on top. Hell, I'd argue lisp is more systems-y and "low-level" than C is, which can't even be easily utilized to pump out a maintanable boot sector. It's just not built for that; it's built to generate object files, which then need to be lowered into binaries with a linker. Lisp is just flexible enough to rewrite itself into the target domain, which C cannot do.

Look, I'm not trying to argue about definitions; it's a waste of both our time. But genuinely, why are you so strident about using the term if you clearly have a more precise understanding of what you want to communicate? Why not just say "programming languages with access to an inline assembler and address lookups" (which, again, would include most common lisps)? Why not say "can link to the C ABI without relying on FFI at runtime" (which would exclude many lisps)? And granted, this only came up because it was used seriously in the original post, so the onus is really on everyone to care about how precisely they characterize language.

We should honestly just stop using "systems/high-level/low-level" entirely; they're too vague and get people too worked up. Which is just baffling to me; I have no emotional attachment to any programming language or similar tool.

Edit: you may find Game Oriented Assembly Lisp interesting: https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Game_Oriented_Assembly_Lisp
by refibrillator | 2025-06-01 20:59:47+00:00
> Unsloth Dynamic GGUF which, quality wise in real-world use performs very close to the original

How close are we talking?

I’m not calling you a liar OP, but in general I wish people perpetuating such broad claims would be more rigorous.

Unsloth does amazing work, however as far as I’m aware even they themselves do not publish head to head evals with the original unquantized models.

I have sympathy here because very few people and companies can afford to run the original models, let alone engineer rigorous evals.

However I felt compelled to comment because my experience does not match. For relatively simple usage the differences are hard to notice, but they become much more apparent in high complexity and long context tasks.
by joshterrill | 2025-06-01 21:01:22+00:00
I extracted the espresso model files from a recent iOS build and then wrote a python script to unpack the weights and save them in an open source format that is easier to work with, in my case it was onnx. Through many rounds of iteration, I converted each neural network layer from espresso to its onnx equivalent and eventually got something that works, then turned it into an API. If you want me to send it to you, let me know! My GitHub username is the same username I have on here, and on my GitHub you’ll find my email.
by layer8 | 2025-06-01 21:02:46+00:00
A camera perceives its surroundings (add some image recognition to that). An LLM perceives its inputs. Things like that can be fully mathematically described. The question is, how is consciousness different from that? Introspecting, all there is is perception, arrows pointing to the things being perceived, where “things” includes some of the arrows themselves. Is there anything else? What prevents any of this to be fully mathematically described?
by scosman | 2025-06-01 21:03:36+00:00
Lot's of tools for each of those separately (RAG and fine-tuning). We're working on combining them but it's not ready yet.

You don't need a big GPU cluster. Fine-tuning is quite accessible via both APIs and local tools. It can be as simple as making API calls or using a UI. Some suggestions:

- https://getkiln.ai (my tool): let's you try all of the below, and compare/eval the resulting models

- API based tuning for closed models: OpenAI, Google Gemini

- API based tuning for open models: Together.ai, Fireworks.ai

- Local tuning for open models: https://unsloth.ai (can be run on Google Collab instances if you don't have local Nvidia GPUs).

Usually the building the training set and evaluating the resulting model is the hardest part. Another plug: Kiln support synthetic data gen and evals for these parts.
by simonw | 2025-06-01 21:03:50+00:00
That is exactly the problem: I do not need to save money on my LLM calls, so any experiment I do along those lines won't really benefit me very much. I'm deeply curious, but not quite enough to put the work in if I don't have a practical need for it.

I'm constantly surprised at how hard it is to find somebody who can show me a demo! That's why I keep on hassling any company that appears to be selling fine-tuning tooling: if you want people to buy your product, giving them a convincing demo feels like it should be table stakes.
by neilv | 2025-06-01 21:04:47+00:00
In this thread, I'm responding to the question of whether you teach a child the things, vs. OP's "Knowing fundamentals is always useful, but learning to collaborate with an AI is probably the more important long-term skill."

I agree that our field is already full of poo. But, at least with one child, we have a chance to nurture them to be much better than that.

I'll make that argument with enthusiasm and determination.
by bilaal_dc5631 | 2025-06-01 21:05:44+00:00
Thanks for the questions.

> Does the phone get hot at all?

It's pretty reasonable and similar to the heat you'll get when playing an intensive game. If you're sensible it's pretty usable.

> how long did it take you to build this

I first started in 2023 and managed to get an MVP out the same year. That was pretty basic and a lot of work has been done since. I don't have an accurate measure of how much time has been spent, but it's had a lot of my attention since I released the first MVP.

> how easy is it to test this in Xcode?

This is pretty nice actually. It runs absolutely fine in the simulator, which is where I do most of my testing. The only time I have to move to a physical device is for performance testing, which isn't a huge drain on productivity.
by digianarchist | 2025-06-01 21:06:14+00:00
The blog post compares an example using hooks to pass in a state and update function to a child component. It then compares that to a Svelte component which contains a state variable.

Those two examples aren't equivalent because any parent component wrapping the Svelte component doesn't have access to the state whilst App (in the React example) does.

For the Svelte example to be equivalent, the component would have to export the store.

A minor gripe but the hooks vs Svelte state is pretty minor issue in itself.
by Findecanor | 2025-06-01 21:07:01+00:00
640×400 was an interlaced mode. Every other scanline was shown every other frame. This was a NTSC TV signal, remember?

There was an add-on called a "Flicker Fixer" that cached the video signal and emitted VGA-signals at twice the pixel clock and horizontal refresh rate. The Amiga 3000 had one built in.

The ECS and AGA chipsets supported "Productivity mode" that emitted VGA signals but ECS supported only four colours in this mode. All games used the TV modes. "Multisync" monitors that could switch between VGA and television refresh rates were expensive, so few people had them.
by saltcured | 2025-06-01 21:08:00+00:00
I think you're conflating "consciousness" and "free will"? Most of what you are explaining is the question of free will to make decisions and take action.

The consciousness illusion is a different focus, as to whether our experience of alertness, thought, and perception even has the temporal and causal elements we tend to assume. This problem has many layers.

One example is the visual system and the illusion of a constantly perceived visual field that is really a synthesized memory of many smaller visual samples from the frequent saccades of our eyes. We don't see our own eye movement that is happening We also don't usually see our retinal nerve blindspot nor recognize the inherent asynchrony of some of our different senses. Our consciousness experience fuses all this together and well known perceptual illusions and magic tricks generally exploit the gaps in this process.

But there are many other layers, such as full blown hallucination where the mind constructs sensory perceptions that do not match our physical stimuli. There are many more subtle layers in between. Delusional beliefs can be felt as "fact" that suppresses internalization of other contradictory perceptions.

More subtly, people often post-rationalize causal relationships between social experiences, emotional state, and actions in ways that are inaccurate. Psychologists talk about "cognitive distortion" as an overall concept for this fuzzy area where people's internal state biases their perception and belief derived from physical stimuli.
by WhyIsItAlwaysHN | 2025-06-01 21:08:36+00:00
Is the probability of lost data zero across eg. millions of documents?

I see there's a 30% redundancy per document, but I'm not sure every frame in a h265 file is guaranteed to have more than 70% of a qr code being readable. And if it's not readable, then that could mean losing an entire chunk of data.

I'd definitely calculate the probability of losing data if storing text with a lossy compression.
by whytevuhuni | 2025-06-01 21:08:48+00:00
> But genuinely, why are you so strident about using the term if you clearly have a more precise understanding of what you want to communicate?

Because, up until I've read your comment, I've seen the term used with my definition pretty much everywhere, so I believe it's a fairly well understood and agreed on term, with you being more of an exception.
by cesarb | 2025-06-01 21:09:06+00:00
Does anyone still use the magnetic strip? I think it's been over a decade since I've seen a credit card without the chip, and terminals have been able to read the chip since forever. I think the last few times a store tried to use the magnetic strip on my card (because the chip failed to read due to a bad contact), the transaction was simply rejected due to not using the chip.
by ryan_glass | 2025-06-01 21:09:10+00:00
Prompt eval time varies a lot with context but it feels real-time for short prompts - approx 20 tokens per second but I haven't done much benchmarking of this. When there is a lot of re-prompting in a long back and forth it is still quite fast - I do use KV cache which I assume helps and also quantize the KV cache to Q8 if I am running contexts above 16k. However, if I want it to summarize a document of say 15,000 words it does take a long time - here I walk away and come back in about 20 minutes and it will be complete.
by lotsofpulp | 2025-06-01 21:09:48+00:00
That might work for a few customers, for a few products sold at high margins. But mathematically, if the business started giving everyone 25% discounts, and they already only have a 2% profit margin, then it doesn’t pencil out that it could survive.

Bottom line is if a business, and an entire industry in this case, has 2% to 5% profit margins, across 10+ publicly listed businesses, across decades of operation, it means they are selling goods at about as low of a price as possible (averaged over all goods). Some will be high margin, some low margin, some negative margin, but at the end it’s only resulting in a couple percent of profit.
by alexisread | 2025-06-01 21:10:37+00:00
The code will be polling the input, so it's effectively quantized, and games can treat movement as a vector. Seems to work ok: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=atHTzwcx4Og

Obviously it'd be better to have a protocol like the megadrive, but given the setup in the ST, this is a hack without having to change the ST hardware.
by Spooky23 | 2025-06-01 21:11:46+00:00
> Second, most people in countries like the US don't support murdering terrorists and most LLMs would not advocate that. In the US it's rare for people to advocate killing those opposed to the government.

Many are happy to send “them” off to Central America, where someone else will murder them. The government may make mistakes, but you need to break some eggs to make an omelet.
by II2II | 2025-06-01 21:13:03+00:00
The industrial design of PCd may have been lacking in beauty, but it was almost always practical.

For example: I cannot think of any desktop models that lacked internal expansion. They may have used a riser card to stack in two or three slots sideways, but the slots were there. The design may have been crude, but at least your desktop wasn't turned into a disaster every time the technological landscape shifted: when hard drives became affordable, the world switched to 3.5" floppies, if you decided to use online services or send faxes directly from your computer, get a CD-ROM, or cable Internet.
by Lammy | 2025-06-01 21:13:07+00:00
> How did they react to Headscale? I must’ve missed the announcement.

They hired the dev: https://tailscale.com/blog/opensource#the-open-source-coordi...

Fun fact: Tailscale have an almost-assuredly-accurate count of Headscale users due to how few people disable the Tailscale client's telemetry which by default sends them real-time events about everything you do on a Headscale network. See KB1011: https://tailscale.com/kb/1011/log-mesh-traffic

“Each Tailscale agent in your distributed network streams its logs to a central log server (at log.tailscale.io). This includes real-time events for open and close events for every inter-machine connection (TCP or UDP) on your network.”

It's possible to opt out of this spying on Unix/Windows/Mac by starting Tailscale with `--no-logs-no-support` or `TS_NO_LOGS_NO_SUPPORT=true` environment variable (see https://tailscale.com/kb/1011/log-mesh-traffic#opting-out-of...), but it is not currently possible to opt out in the Android/iOS clients: https://github.com/tailscale/tailscale/issues/13174

This is why they had the data telling them they should hire the Headscale dev to nip that competition in the bud before it had any chance to usurp their business by overtaking them in mindshare using their own client. Definitely a sound business decision, but it really really irked me when I realized I was feeding Tailscale detailed usage data for everything I did on my supposedly “““private””” Headscale network despite having no business relationship with them.

For an example of how invasive this is for the average user, this person discovered Tailscale trying to collect ~18000 data points per week about their network usage based on the number of blocked DNS requests for `log.tailscale.com`: https://github.com/tailscale/tailscale/issues/15326

The privacy-adversarial behavior made me switch from Headscale to NetBird for my personal network now that it's available in FreeBSD Ports: https://www.freshports.org/security/netbird/