MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
Ask HN: Anyone using OpenAI's Agent SDK in production?
by sukit | 2025-06-23 09:49:43+00:00
I'm exploring building a simple agent-based app and came across OpenAI's Agent SDK: https://openai.github.io/openai-agents-js/ . From what I understand, it wraps a lot of functionality — like the agent loop, function calling, and integration with the OpenAI MCP server — which could potentially save me a lot of work compared to using the plain OpenAI SDK.

However, I'm wondering:

Is the Agent SDK too abstracted or hard to debug?

Has anyone actually used it in a real production app yet?

Would I be better off just implementing the logic myself on top of the plain OpenAI SDK for more control and transparency?

Appreciate any insights.
by mschuster91 | 2025-06-23 09:50:54+00:00
These are available here as well, but the concentrations (especially of the hydrogen peroxide) are far too low to be useful in bombmaking or most classic experiments involving it, and on top of that dilution from the factory, it's likely a bunch of the peroxide dissociated since it was manufactured. You need to concentrate the hydrogen peroxide up to be useful for more than cleaning blood stains, and that's pretty dangerous.
by kissgyorgy | 2025-06-23 09:52:03+00:00
The difference is huge, not even close both in quality and usage.

Claude Code is fully agentic, meaning you give it a task and fully implements everything, produces surprisingly good, working code. Can test, commit, run commands, log in to remote system, debug anything.

It doesn't optimise for token usage, which Cursor heavily do, that's why it can produce higher quality code on first shots (the downside is that the cost is very high)

Cursor's agent mode is very much in it's infrantry just catching up, but Cursor is essentially a tool for editing files, but Claude Code is like a junior developer.
by aa-jv | 2025-06-23 09:52:21+00:00
There were two places my Mum used to know to look for me, after school, if I wasn't home at an appropriate time: the TANDY shop, and the COMPUTER AGE shop.

These two shops - the former a means of access to the TRS-80, the latter a means of access to the Apple II and Atari 800 computers - were my "second class-room", inasmuch as I learned so much in the few hours I got away with hacking there.

The TANDY salesmen were more than willing to let us kids play with their systems, but we were never allowed to use the disc drives (now I know why, finally) - whereas the COMPUTER AGE salesmen, once they noticed me furiously typing away every day after school, gave me a floppy disc to save things. This floppy disc was a constant accessory and a major source of hassle with my regular school teachers, who didn't have a clue what it was and were mostly just miffed with my obsession over it. "What is that thing and why do you carry it everywhere you go?", once teacher asked me during a break, to which my precocious answer was "its the future, lady!", earning me a visit to the headmaster for disrepect (catholic school...)

The TANDY I'd go to was in the middle of a shopping district in one of the wealthiest parts of town (Subiaco, Perth, Australia), and the COMPUTER AGE was located in the midst of all of the wealthy schools of the city (Claremont), which meant I was constantly battling with rich kids to gain access to the machines .. eventually I witnessed a wave of rich kids disappearing from the shops as they got their systems unpacked at home, but I could never afford it, so was a regular with the salesmen. One of the COMPUTER AGE guys noticed this one day, and it formed the basis of a long friendship.

I'll always remember those halcyon days, when things were really very adventurous. I'm pretty glad I never got to save much on the TRS-80's, as it gave me more motivation to study "The Apple Way", and that eventually led me to gaining access to modems and BBS's and things, which were always more fun on Apple than the TRS-80.

So its pretty nice to hear the backstory of Tandy, ultimately, as a shoelace vendor that became a digital pioneer.
by BlackFly | 2025-06-23 09:52:28+00:00
According to the author this isn't the case, but the take is complicated:

> People don’t read books or short stories in magazines anymore because they’re too busy scrolling? There’s data on this: according to the National Endowment of the Arts, the number of Americans who “read literature” has fallen from 56.9% in 1982 to 46.7% in 2002 to 38% in 2022. I’m not even going to bother pulling data on the percent of time people spend on their phones or on the internet. So the internet means people spend less time reading books and (presumably) less time reading literary fiction in particular because it’s weighty, boring, dense, etc. There are two problems with this theory: one is that the facts are wrong — the actual size of the fiction reading population has not shrunk a meaningful amount (population growth), and the second is that even if the facts were right, it couldn’t be correct: in 1955, the number of Americans who even read one book a year (39%) was lower than it is today (53%).3 And the 1950s and 1960s were supposedly the golden-age of American fiction. What’s actually going on?

Most easily digestible evidence submitted by the author is https://fred.stlouisfed.org/data/DRBKRA3A086NBEA showing that actual per capita expenditure on reading material has increased indexed to 2017 dollars...
by pixelpoet | 2025-06-23 09:52:37+00:00
The article says that Euler integration is commonly used in games, and I'm not sure that's true; it's been popularised in gamedev since many years that, and I quote, "if you use Euler integration, then you're a bloody idiot"[0].

BTW the same article series points out that using irregular timesteps is also a bad idea.

[0] Since gone offline, and without the famous quote, but there's an archived copy here: https://vodacek.zvb.cz/archiv/680.html
by fainpul | 2025-06-23 09:53:18+00:00
> because they want the new shiny ones

I don't believe that. I think the desire for a new phone is mostly triggered by some unhappiness with the current one. For example because the battery doesn't last a full day anymore, the screen is cracked, it doesn't get security updates anymore or performance feels sluggish (because new OS and apps are more demanding or wasteful).

If replacing the battery or screen is expensive, buying a new phone becomes more attractive, since you might also get a better camera, more performance, larger display or other benefits. On the other hand, if I can order a new battery for cheap and swap it out in five minutes, I might just do that and keep my old phone for a few years longer.
by GordonS | 2025-06-23 09:53:59+00:00
> Hamas is a death cult. They will fight to the last Gazan child.

This is just... utterly absurd. The entity killing children (literally on a daily basis!), bombing hopsitals, schools, water treatment facilities etc, and carrying out campaigns of terrorism across the Middle East, is the rogue nuclear state of Israel.

'Propaganda' doesn't quite cover it; I think we need a new word for propaganda that is so delusional and verifyiably false, that it has no basis in any reality.
by vidarh | 2025-06-23 09:54:32+00:00
None of this is relevant to what I wrote. If anything, they sugget that you don't understand the argument.

If anything, your argument is begging the question - it's a logical fallacy - because your argument rests on humans exceeding the Turing computable, to use human abilities as evidence. But if humans do not exceed the Turing computable, then everything humans can do is evidence that something is Turing computable, and so you can not use human abilities as evidence something isn't Turing computable.

And so your reasoning is trivially circular.

EDIT:

To go into more specific errors, this is fasle:

> Let P be a deterministic Turing machine (TM) operating entirely within Ω.

>

> Then: Lemma 1 (Symbol Containment): For any output L(P) ⊆ Σ, P cannot emit any σ ∉ Σ.

P can do so by simulating a TM P' whose alphabet includes σ. This is fundamental to the theory of computability, and holds for any two sets of symbols: You can always handle the larger alphabet by simulating one machine on the other.

When your "proof" contains elementary errors like this, it's impossible to take this seriously.
by regularfry | 2025-06-23 09:54:40+00:00
One problem with the paper is that it defines AGI in such a way that if it fails to solve a problem that is inherently unsolvable, AGI can be written off as impossible. It tries to synthesise a definition from different sources whose own definitions don't have any particular reason to overlap in any meaningful way.

I'm just not sure "AGI" is a useful term at this point. It's either something trivially reachable from what we can see today or something totally impossible, depending entirely on the preference of the speaker.
by gf000 | 2025-06-23 09:55:40+00:00
I mean, as with code, the actual typing is not really the bottleneck.

I also basically read the right pane rendered output, but mostly as a "reading out what I've written and evaluating whether it sounds good" most of the time, not really messing with layouting (especially that LaTeX and Typst does that very well, I can be reasonably sure that my paragraphs will have decent hypens and such).
by roflmaostc | 2025-06-23 09:55:46+00:00
https://docs.modular.com/mojo/faq/#open-source

> Will Mojo be open-sourced?

> We have committed to open-sourcing Mojo in 2026. Mojo is still young, so we will continue to incubate it within Modular until more of its internal architecture is fleshed out.

Soon it might be though.
by Certhas | 2025-06-23 09:55:55+00:00
THe thing is, if one is an expert it is incredibly difficult to understand the beginner perspective. Here is one attempt:

C is simpler than Rust, but C is also _much_ simpler than Python. If I solve a problem in Python I have a good standard library of data types, and I use concepts like classes, iterators, generators, closures, etc... constantly. So if I move to Rust, I have access to the similar high-level tools, I just have to learn a few additional concepts for ressource management.

In comaprison, C looks a lot more alien from that perspective. Even starting with including library code from elsewhere.
by ciphernomad-org | 2025-06-23 09:56:05+00:00
This is a classic Feistel network round: L_new = L_old ^ F(key, R_old). It's a deliberate design.

The security of the Labyrinth relies on the composition of many rounds, not any single one. The unchanged right half from a Hash round is fully encrypted if the next round is a Stream round. Since the Labyrinth is a deep, aperiodic mix of both round types, the entire block is guaranteed to be diffused and encrypted.
by FirmwareBurner | 2025-06-23 09:56:41+00:00
When will the EU do the same for cars? There's no need for individual low cost parts to be integrated fused together as modules super expensive to replace.

Not just German ICE cars, but I follow what EV Clinic is doing and it's making my blood boil on how poorly designed against cheap and easy repairability EVs are.

Feels like this is the bigger environmental and societal issue than phones and tablets.
by akarlsten | 2025-06-23 09:57:34+00:00
They mostly seem interested in JRPG anime slop, and even then Expedition 33 was released just this year and is probably the best example of that genre from the last 20 years? That's also by a relatively small studio though..

I would agree that big AAA studios are basically entirely creatively bankrupt at this point, but that's not exclusive to games, the same trend is apparent with movies (remakes of Disney movies, Star Wars sequels, etc.).

Another end-of-ZIRP casualty?
by corimaith | 2025-06-23 09:58:21+00:00
There will always be exceptions to any trends, but I wouldn't say the deluge of generic roguelike platformers with 16 bit art has been paticularly flattering to the indie industry. Have things really progressed in 2024 since 2012 in the same way that 2012 was abjectly different from 2002? Not really, you could release Slay the Spire in 2012 or 2024 and it wouldn't look out of place.
by Towaway69 | 2025-06-23 09:58:45+00:00
> Different paradigms make different things easier, and thus affect what you are most likely to do with them.

100% this - strangely I just discovered that very thing by taking Node-RED and porting it to Erlang[1]. In doing that, I realised that Erlang has concepts (supervisor, gen_server, gen_statem,...) that would be very applicable to Node-RED and that could be reverse "ported" to the NodeJS based Node-RED. Might do that but the way NodeJS works, it might be more difficult.

The reason I thought Erlang would be a good fit for flow based programming are the independence of processes and their communication via messages. This is the exact same thing that happens in flow based programming, so Node-RED should fit well - I thought.

> Pure Data's UI works identically on all platforms.

How weird - PDs UI is exactly the same as Node-RED only built in the 1990s! The idea of flow-based visual programming is what Node-RED is about. It would be interesting to investigate the granularity of nodes in PD versus NR.

> Pure Data (or just "Pd") is an open source visual programming language for multimedia.

Have there been any efforts to transport those ideas for other applications? E.g., has anyone created a website with PD?

[1] = https://github.com/gorenje/erlang-red
by TuxSH | 2025-06-23 09:58:55+00:00
> As to 'vetting' the use of std library — I do not see how to do it without making a fork (or writing own "stripped down" version from scratch). E.g., you cannot simply decide not to use container allocator parameters, to reduce symbol sizes.

Yes, correct, what I meant is that you can still use many features like type_traits, bit_cast, initializer_list, span, array etc. Of course, std::string and friends are a bit no-no in very memory constrained cases.

> So current C++ standard library must be treated like part of the compiler implementation.

Indeed. Though even in C, compiler will assume C standard library is present unless you explicitly tell it not to (it optimizes calls to memcpy and will emit memset calls when initializing variables to 0)
by weitendorf | 2025-06-23 09:59:44+00:00
I'm pretty sure the central permise is flawed because human computation over infinite problem spaces is subject to the halting problem too.

Skimmed and saw this, decided it was just a crank at that moment. The problem is not well defined enough and you could easily apply the same argument to humans. It's just abusing mathematical notation to make subjective arguments:

A.3.1. Example: The Weight Question as an Irreducibly Infinite Space

Let us demonstrate that the well-known example of the “weight question” (see Sectin 2.1) meets the formal criteria of an irreducibly infinite decision space as defined above.

We define the decision space X as the set of all contextually valid responses (verbal and nonverbal) to the utterance: “Darling, please be honest: have I gained weight?”

Let Σ be the symbol space available to the AI system (e.g., predefined vocabulary, intonation classes, gesture tags). Let R be the transformation rules the system uses to generate candidate outputs.

Then:

1. Non-Enumerability: There exists no total computable function such that every socially acceptable response is eventually enumerated. Reason: The meaning and acceptability of any response depend on unbounded, semantically unstable factors (facial expressions, past relationship dynamics, momentary tone, cultural norms), which cannot be finitely encoded.

-----

Just want to add that I don't mean to be an asshole here, in case this stays the top reply. I'm quite interested in quantifiable measures of intelligence myself, and it takes guts to put something like this out there with your name on it.

What I think what might help the author is to think of his attempts to disprove AGI as a more adversarial mini-max. Whatever theory or example you have regarding an example that is not possible under AGI, why could a better designed intelligence not achieve it, and why does it not also apply to humans?

For example, instead of assuming that an AI will search infinitely without giving up, consider whether the AI might put a limit on the time it expends solving a problem, or decide to think about something besides aether if it's taking too long to solve that problem that way, or give up because the problem isn't important enough to keep going, or whether humans suffer from epistemic uncertainty too.
by goless | 2025-06-23 10:00:12+00:00
Yes the expression may not be precise enough, but the example should be accurate enough.

1, https://github.com/sdzx-1/polystate?tab=readme-ov-file#2-imp...

This shows what composition means, and even complex nested selects are described quite precisely by type.

2, https://github.com/sdzx-1/polystate?tab=readme-ov-file#1-com...

Yes, this effect can be achieved without using composite types. But if it is convenient and easy to achieve this effect through composite types, is it worth it?
by vidarh | 2025-06-23 10:00:23+00:00
> Compute functions != Intelligence though.

If that is true, you have a proof that the Church-Turing thesis is false.

> LLMs can tell you about the taste of a beer, but we know that they have never tasted a beer. Flight simulators can't take you to Australia, no matter how well they simulate the experience.

For this to be relevant, you'd need to show that there are possible sensory inputs that can't be simulated to a point where the "brain" in question - be it natural or artificial - can't tell the difference.

Which again, would boil down to proving the Church-Turing thesis wrong.
by gucci-on-fleek | 2025-06-23 10:00:26+00:00
> The free plan on overleaf only allows collaboration between 2 people. If you have 3 students in your report assignment then you can't use overleaf for free.

Yup. You used to be able to share projects with unlimited people via link sharing, but they annoyingly got rid of that last year [0]. And Overleaf's cheapest plan is still more expensive than a basic VPS, so it's actually cheaper to self-host (which is what I'm doing [1]).

> That sounds like a sign that overleaf is struggling, that they had to make that change.

Either struggling or realized that they have a captive audience—if your professor requires assignments to be typeset with LaTeX and assigns group projects, there aren't really any other options.

[0] https://www.overleaf.com/blog/changes-to-project-sharing

[1] https://www.maxchernoff.ca/p/overleaf
by somewhereoutth | 2025-06-23 10:00:49+00:00
> then the only way of showing that an artificial intelligence can not theoretically be constructed to at least meet the same bar is by showing that humans can compute more than the Turing computable.

I would reframe: the only way of showing that artificial intelligence can be constructed is by showing that humans cannot compute more than the Turing computable.

Given that Turing computable functions are a vanishingly small subset of all functions, I would posit that that is a rather large hurdle to meet. Turing machines (and equivalents) are predicated on a finite alphabet / state space, which seems woefully inadequate to fully describe our clearly infinitary reality.
by yababa_y | 2025-06-23 10:01:43+00:00
Whoa there boss, extremely tough for you to casually assume that there is a consistent or complete metascience / metaphysics / metamathematics happening in human realm, but then model it with these impoverished machines that have no metatheoretic access.

This is really sloppy work, I'd encourage you to look deeper into how (eg) HOL models "theories" (roughly corresponding to your idea of "frame") and how they can evolve. There is a HOL-in-HOL autoformalization. This provides a sound basis for considering models of science.

Noncomputability is available in the form of Hilbert's choice, or you can add axioms yourself to capture what notion you think is incomputable.

Basically I don't accept that humans _do_ in fact do a frame jump as loosely gestured at, and I think a more careful modeling of what the hell you mean by that will dissolve the confusion.

Of course I accept that humans are subject to the Goedelian curse, and we are often incoherent, and we're never quite surely when we can stop collecting evidence or updating models based on observation. We are computational.
by rob_c | 2025-06-23 10:02:10+00:00
Oh hell no.

This is like saying mathematics should avoid the calculator.

Don't be so naive, the only AI models have are able to perform more powerful contextual lookups and reference and on the case of chat bots hallucinate when this fails.

These tools have no agency, people who blindly trust it beyond this are the highest of fools and don't understand garbage in garbage out.

The role of a university is to train in the use of tools and that includes the squishy one used for critical thinking. If the university wasn't doing that before now it wasn't doing its job.

None of this pseudo intellectualism and politico opinion posting.
by fewbenefit | 2025-06-23 10:02:14+00:00
I’m mostly web/backend so not deep in iOS, but SwiftUI does look like yet another case of abstracting away control in the name of “ease.” Same pattern with React: move logic to declarative bindings, then spend hours debugging state sync and lifecycle quirks.

UIKit with didSet {} or NotificationCenter might be verbose, but at least you can see what’s going on. SwiftUI’s “magic” feels like trading simplicity for opacity.

And yeah, Interface Builder, VB, even Delphi gave visual control without hiding everything. Declarative UIs sound elegant until you need to trace why a view is re-rendering 7 times in a scroll.
by pif | 2025-06-23 10:05:17+00:00
> Probably one of the most important metrics is “relevance to, and effect on, the state of the world as it is right now.”

Actually, no! It's more of “relevance to the state of the world as it was right then, and as it is right now, and that teaches you that we are not living in bizarre times, but then we just don't know enough about ourselves as a society and we keep committing the same errors.”
by dfox | 2025-06-23 10:05:59+00:00
As for NCD X terminals (at least the later ones), surprising amount of stuff could run directly on the terminal (which ran some weird MMU-less BSD variant): mwm and motif session manager, dtterm-like terminal with telnet and serial port support, some kind of JVM and two different variants of mosaic were part of the SW package (it booted either from flash PC card or from NFS).
by melodyogonna | 2025-06-23 10:06:29+00:00
I don't think investors look at what makes a net positive to the community when making large investments like in Modular. I was calling out the part of the post that said Modular raised a lot of Money to develop Mojo, that isn't entirely true as just creating a language isn't enough reason to invest $130m into a company, no matter how much net-positivity the language would bring.
by 0points | 2025-06-23 10:07:06+00:00
We're talking about a local privilege escalation here.

That assumes:

1) Attacker already have an account on the system

2) The app `udisks` is installed on the system.

Everyone is fighting the same battle and it's a good thing. It is happening because the rest of the system is hard enough to attack these days. This is true for all major OS:es.

Only fanboys bend reality to make this into a good-vs-bad argument.
by simoncion | 2025-06-23 10:07:09+00:00
It sounds to me like they intended to attempt to sell the machines, but wanted to make sure that if those machines failed to sell, they wouldn't have wasted money on a bunch of hardware that was useless to them.

Really good projects fail for all sorts of really stupid reasons. It shouldn't be considered amazing to reduce the risk of a new and unproven product with a backup plan that makes use of nearly 100% of the unsold inventory. ;)