MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by nomilk | 2025-06-09 11:40:07+00:00
Main points:

> This morning, I designed an entire enterprise dashboard without opening Figma. I sketched the core flow on paper, annotated it with handwritten notes, dropped them into my generative AI tool. Within a few seconds, my hand-drawn flows and page layouts were turned into, production-ready code using our design system.

> The future didn’t start with “AI”. It started with getting organized with our materials. Most notably, a mature design system. Our design system stopped being a rigid set of components and instead became system infrastructure. Tokens, foundational elements, assembly components, patterns, and templates became the full suite of options to build with.

> When tools like UIzard and UX Pilot hit the market, most people didn’t find them very impressive. But when they finally hit their stride, it felt like cheating. We’d sketch a few screens on paper, a tablet, or whiteboard, add a few annotations, and the generative AI would churn out a few working UI options. Soon, these systems merged with products like Builder.io and Cursor. And then mind-blowing magic started to happen.

This sounds great, but I don't understand what their 'design system' actually is - is it a set of files (e.g. like .cursorrules but stating colour, spacing, and design preferences etc), or a collection of files, or something more nebulous like the existing patterns in an app, or something else entirely?
by hagbard_c | 2025-06-09 11:40:54+00:00
It has been called LibreOffice [1] since the fork from OpenOffice [2] which in turn was developed from StarOffice [3]. The fork and name change from OpenOffice to LibreOffice was due to the former coming under the control of Oracle, a company known for its militancy with regard to licence enforcement. The experience with the way Oracle stewards the Java brand and technology shows they do know how to handle free software so it may have been unnecessary to fork the project but that aside, two name changes since the inception of StarOffice in 1985, one of which on the boundary of the closed-source office suite going open source, the other on a takeover by a known licence warrior is not bad and not too hard to follow.

LibreOffice, remember?

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/LibreOffice

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/OpenOffice.org

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/StarOffice
by K0balt | 2025-06-09 11:41:04+00:00
Your comment sparked a thought that might be of value.

If LLMs are indeed primarily useful for solving simpler tasks and will systematically balk at complex problems, perhaps a variant of the “thinking” approach is of value?

Where a task that is high iteration is approached by solving a part of the problem and then identifying the next -small part- of the problem, in an iteration loop.

I can also see this easily going off the rails, but perhaps posing each following iteration as -small- and encapsulating only the relevant context while trimming off the context tail could work as an agentic behavior spawned from the main supervisory task?

Of course maybe just having the model write and run code would probably be better for many classes of problems.

Maybe something to be looked at, if it’s not already being used.
by amelius | 2025-06-09 11:41:10+00:00
I don't think the EU needs an OS. What it needs from a strategic standpoint are a webbrowser and clones of the various US based services (search, AI, office/productivity).

This is important because of EU's strong stance on privacy. And to protect against takedowns like what happened to the chief prosecutor of the ICC (Trump told Microsoft to block their account).
by at0mic22 | 2025-06-09 11:42:14+00:00
AI is great for hit'n'go, but in the long run it brought us more trouble than help. It gets very inconsistent, does not track the context (especially if it is a common-sense context), brings in some weird architectural patterns by default, avoids updating current components preferring to write new almost exactly the same ones alongside with similar existing ones, e.t.c, e.t.c.

It's definitely a great tool to quickly bootstrap something, but I find myself thinking "I should have better done that myself" more and more.
by bilekas | 2025-06-09 11:43:00+00:00
I'm sorry but I don't know why there is such a big push for this..

Listed on the https://eu-os.eu/goals#motivation

> synergy effects lead to tax savings, because there is no per-seat license cost

How much are we talking ? Also there are good reasons that large organisations use enterprise software such as (I think) redHat in this case.. It's dedicated support mainly and security.

Maybe I'm being too cynical, I love open source and absolutely a proponent of its benefits, however I do know when sometimes it's not the right fit.

> independence in scheduling software migrations and potential hardware upgrades

Independence and much higher overhead to ensure everything goes smoothly.

> Edit : It's seems its Windows and not RedHat [0]

[0] https://gitlab.com/eu-os/eu-os.gitlab.io/-/issues/10#note_24...
by EMM_386 | 2025-06-09 11:43:07+00:00
> These statements betray a conceptual error: Large language models do not, cannot, and will not "understand" anything at all. They are not emotionally intelligent or smart in any meaningful or recognizably human sense of the word.

This is terrible write-up, simply because it's the "Reddit Expert" phenomena but in print.

They "understand" things. It depends on how your defining that.

It doesn't have to be in its training data! Whoah.

In the last chat I had with Claude, it naturally just arose that surrender flag emojis, the more there were, was how funny I thought the joke was. If there were plus symbol emojis on the end, those were score multipliers.

How many times did I have to "teach" it that? Zero.

How many other times has it seen that during training? I'll have to go with "zero" but that could be higher, that's my best guess since I made it up, in that context.

So, does that Claude instance "understand"?

I'd say it does. It knows that 5 surrender flags and a plus sign is better than 4 with no plus sign.

Is it absurd? Yes .. but funny. As it figured it out on its own. "Understanding".

------

Four flags = "Okay, this is getting too funny, I need a break"

Six flags = "THIS IS COMEDY NUCLEAR WARFARE, I AM BEING DESTROYED BY JOKES"
by vidarh | 2025-06-09 11:43:40+00:00
A pet peeve of mine is that these papers practically never benchmark against humans before they make grandiose claims of how bad these models are.

If you tried to get a human to write out a solution to Tower of Hanoi with a large number of disks, you'd get a whole lot of refusals, and even if you cajoled people into doing it, you'd get a whole lot of errors because people would get sloppy.

That said, there were some useful bits - basically the notion that we can't expect to just ramp inference budgets higher and higher for reasoning models and keep getting gains without improving the underlying LLMs too.

I just wish they'd been more rigorous, and stuck to that.
by friendzis | 2025-06-09 11:43:48+00:00
> I think the EU Public sector has too much variance in it to be safely serviced by just one distro.

I think that's THE problem. Every member country has at least one duplicate of some public sector thing (tax agency, property/citizen registry, health registry etc.) and each of them does their thing slightly differently.

> I think a better approach would be to <...> allow local administration <...> establish their own FOSS desktop solutions and base information exchange on truly open standards <...>.

Part of the problem are data schemas. Even if you mandate some common information exchange format, it is either somewhat opinionated on data schemas anyway or so generic that you need combinatorial explosion of custom middleware to align schemas. You just kick the can of pain down the road and eventually have a bunch of agencies that are in theory connected but cannot exchange data without "a project" anyway.

While slower and more painful to initially deploy, a much more fitting solution would be to have common open core software, enforcing common schemas, but allowing custom extensions/middleware.
by AStonesThrow | 2025-06-09 11:44:14+00:00
"EU" is below the threshold of originality; it is not possible to "copyright" two letters, especially without any font or design associated with them.

Perhaps you are instead thinking of trademark protection? Trademark protection, of course, protects trademarks for particular specified industries and is scoped to nations where the holder does business/exists/has jurisdiction.

It's unlikely this will help, but it's 100% certain that copyright ain't gonna apply.
by mannykannot | 2025-06-09 11:44:26+00:00
Yes, the whole "Towers of Hanoi is a bad test case" objection is a non-sequitur here. It would be a significant objection if the machines performed well, but not given the actual outcome - it is as if an alleged chess grandmaster almost always lost against opponents of unexceptional ability.

It is actually worse than that analogy: Towers of Hanoi is a bimodal puzzle, in which players who grasp the general solution do inordinately better than those who do not, and the machines here are performing like the latter.

Lest anyone thinks otherwise, this is not a case of setting up the machines to fail, any more than the chess analogy would be. The choice of Towers of Hanoi leaves it conceivable that they do would well on tough problems, but that is not very plausible and needs to be demonstrated before it can be assumed.
by asenchi | 2025-06-09 11:44:50+00:00
This is answered throughout scriptures. The problem of sin is human's rejection of the goodness of God. We love ourselves more than we love him and in that rejection regularly advantage ourselves at the disadvantage of those around us. In order to solve the problem, we would have to be wiped out. But in the wisdom and goodness of God he planned a way from the beginning to solve our transgressions.

God created all things out of love, and made humans as image bearers to tend to his creation. Out of love he did these things, fully knowing that humans were capable of turning away from God. Humans put themselves before God in the garden and by doing so brought evil into the world. The rest of scripture is God's good plan to turn the world right again, to expel evil from his good creation while also saving those whom bear his image that he loves. He does this by giving them the law to expose the sin of humankind, and sending the 2nd person of the trinity of God (Jesus) to fulfill the law. Jesus offered himself as a sacrifice to pay the guilt of the sins of humans. In doing so bringing true justice and mercy for the evil brought into the world. In his resurrection he conquered death (the ultimate punishment for evil, death is something that was never intended in God's good creation) and setting in motion the process of restoring the world, bringing about new creation in which Jesus is the first fruits. The world will be set right and all sin, evil, and tears wiped away.

(fixed some grammatical errors)
by diggan | 2025-06-09 11:45:11+00:00
> anthropomorphizes them to make them appear far more

It seems like this argument is frequently brought up just because someone used the words "thinking", or "reasoning" or other similar terms, while true that the LLMs aren't really "reasoning" as a human, the terms are used not because the person actually believes that the LLM is "reasoning like a human" but because the concept of "some junk tokens to get better tokens later" has been implemented under that name. And even with that name, it doesn't mean everyone believes they're doing human reasoning.

It's a bit like a "isomorphic" programming frameworks. They're not talking about the mathematical structures which also bears the name "isomorphic", but rather the name been "stolen" to now mean more things, because it was kind of similar in some way.

I'm not sure what the alternative is, humans been doing this thing of "Ah, this new concept X is kind of similar to concept Y, maybe we reuse the name to describe X for now" for a very long time, and if you understand the context when it's brought up, it seems relatively problem-free to me, most people seem to get it.

It benefits everyone in the ecosystem when terms have shared meaning, so discussions about "reasoning" don't have to use terms like "How an AI uses jumbled starting tokens within the <think> tags to get better tokens later", and can instead just say "How an AI uses reasoning" and people can focus on the actual meat instead.
by vidarh | 2025-06-09 11:45:14+00:00
> Second-graders can follow that, if motivated enough.

Try to motivate them sufficiently to do so without error for a large number of disks, I dare you.

Now repeat this experiment while randomly refusing to accept the answer they're most confident in for any given iteration, and pick an answer they're less confident in on their behalf, and insist they still solve it without error.

(To make it equivalent to the researchers running this with temperature set to 1)
by kristianc | 2025-06-09 11:46:17+00:00
One of my least favourite genres of post. The Medium equivalent of standing on a milk crate at a coworking space to declare, “I’ve transcended Figma, and so can you, if you’re as spiritually advanced as me.”

The core idea (designers solving problems instead of pushing pixels) is sound. But these kinds of posts are always packaged with this kind of missionary zeal, as if discovering the usefulness of sketching or systems thinking is some kind of personal enlightenment.
by Yizahi | 2025-06-09 11:46:36+00:00
In a certain large part of the population procrastination is a symptom of mental disorder (like for example ADHD etc.), and often a particularly severe one. Dismissing it as a "benefit" is not constructive.

I suspect that you use word procrastination too general, to include all possible cases. If a person is lazy for 5 minutes or for an hour it's not a procrastination. Procrastination is severe case of inability to do something a person wants to do. And before anyone interjects about "duh, work may be unpleasant", it also extends to ALL other spheres of life. Imagine wanting to play a game and literally not being to force yourself to click Start. Or scrolling saved watch list and not picking anything you want to watch. Stuff like that.

Procrastination and related issues is a severe mental disorder and I'm sick and tired of people normalizing it or dismissing as something good or beneficial.

PS: to rephrase all that above - the answer to the question "Why?" is not exclusively something external (like "not interesting") but often an internal one, a chemical disbalance in a person's brain, some brain structures under- or over-developed etc.
by eastbound | 2025-06-09 11:46:39+00:00
I always wonder whether those comments are generated by marketing teams or real.

Such wonderful product reviews, then I try said AIs, and man it is so clumsy even when given a precise set of instructions. There is no way the product is the same. Tried Cursor, Windsurf and IntelliJ Junie and they’re all incapable of, for example, reducing the XML of a file until a JUnit stops failing.
by chiph | 2025-06-09 11:46:45+00:00
For something like a compiler where the output is mostly deterministic[0] I agree. For an AI that was trained on an unknown corpus, and that corpus changes over time, the output is much less deterministic and I would say you lose the human element needed of copyright claims.

If it can be shown that for the same prompt, run through the AI several times over perhaps a year, results in the same output - then I will change my mind. Or if the AI achieves personhood.

[0] Allowances for register & loop optimization, etc.
by ty6853 | 2025-06-09 11:46:46+00:00
The 10th amendment constrains federal powers to enumerated powers when acting within the states.

This act passed because in the seas the federal government was not so constrained (yes hospitals and offices are on land but the loophole is they are only requiring them once you go out to sea).

Congress in 1798 would have never went along with such actions on the inland populace, except perhaps in the territories.
by em-bee | 2025-06-09 11:46:55+00:00
i generally do too. but on the other hand hiring a voice actor is cost prohibitive for someone just starting out and even asking a friend will multiply the amount of effort unless you want to do this as equal partners where the better speaker simply gets more airtime and the other does more of the research.

as an alternative maybe it helps to explain the reason up front. not being able to speak is a good excuse and i wouldn't want to miss out on good material just because the creator has no voice.

for someone who is simply not speaking english well enough, practice and get better.

as an alternative, record the video in your native language and offer the computer voice in english as a second audio track. then we can tell the difference from AI slop.
by diggan | 2025-06-09 11:47:00+00:00
> A lot of the claims of usefulness evaporate when tested

In your personal experience? Because that's been my personal experience too, in lots of cases with LLMs. But I've also been surprised the other way, and overall it's been a net-positive for myself, but I've also spent a lot of time "practicing" getting prompts and tooling right. I could easily see how people give it try for 20-30 minutes, not getting the results they expected and give up, which yeah, you probably won't get any net-positive effects by that.
by lo_zamoyski | 2025-06-09 11:47:19+00:00
That isn’t a Scriptural example, but a general criticism.

In any case, the problem of evil is not the showstopper some think it is [0][1].

[0] https://www.mdpi.com/2077-1444/12/4/268

[1] https://www.newadvent.org/summa/1049.htm
by AdamN | 2025-06-09 11:47:20+00:00
Big +1. Company margins are real but they're not orders of magnitude. If you're spending $100MM/year on a corporate product, trying to spend less than let's say $80MM/year simply means that you're not serious about the migration. I wish they would say, "we will take all this money and invest it into making the new OSS product better for our internal customers (government office workers). There will be no savings for now, we will just get more sovereignty and control for about the same spend.
by cess11 | 2025-06-09 11:47:33+00:00
Especially weird since the dude behind it is professionally situated in data protection policy work.

Going with effing IBM is a really weird thing to do for his "Proof-of-Concept". Debian for its robustness or openSUSE for being distinctly european would have been much more inspiring.

https://blog.riemann.cc/resume/
by bilekas | 2025-06-09 11:47:53+00:00
> I think that's THE problem. Every member country has at least one duplicate of some public sector thing (tax agency, property/citizen registry, health registry etc.) and each of them does their thing slightly differently.

You say this as if it is a bad thing, this is part and parcel of how the EU works. It's not the same as a Federal system where there is one way and the rest are derivatives of it. There is more autonomy for each of the EU member states to do things how they want.
by thomassmith65 | 2025-06-09 11:48:21+00:00
Yes and no. Mainly no:

https://books.google.com/ngrams/graph?content=you+got+this&y...

No doubt there are older people who use the phrase today, but that's still more annoying; they are the older people who are very proud of inserting 'cray cray' and 'yeet' into conversations.
by absummer | 2025-06-09 11:48:25+00:00
The original Turing game was about testing for a male of female player.

If you want to know more about that, or this research, you could try asking AI for a no-fluff summary.

The Transformer architecture and algorithm and matrix multiplication are a bit more involved. It would be hard to keep those inside your chain-of-thought / working memory and still understand what is going on here.
AI Code Review Rules Directory
by dearilos | 2025-06-09 11:48:45+00:00
Hey HN!

We've been helping other companies build their AI code reviewers, and noticed that people ended up writing similar rules.

So we built a directory for them! We've also compiled instructions for all the major code reviewers out there (Github Copilot, Coderabbit, Greptile, Diamond).

The biggest thing we've done is port strong migrations (https://github.com/ankane/strong_migrations) to other languages and ORMs. If you've ever used ruby and miss strong migrations - well, you can have them now.

We plan on keeping this up to date over time with more helpful rules.

If you have any that you added to your code review process, please feel free to share and we can add it to the directory.
by mapt | 2025-06-09 11:49:16+00:00
However bad these algorithms are (and we're talking very wide intervals in multiple dimensions of uncertainty), you could immediately improve the vision/volume calculation part with a modest change - like requiring a size reference. "Place a unit of currency next to the plate, then take at least two photos of the plate from different angles" can get you pretty close to an accurate volume.

If they aren't doing even that much, then they're not very interested in accuracy at all.
by vintermann | 2025-06-09 11:50:54+00:00
It has happened so many times that an old name with good associations gets auctioned off to the highest bidder. The highest bidder inevitably is the one with the greediest plan to cash in on whatever goodwill is left in the name by utterly betraying it. No one buys an old name to build a good name.

So to me, at this point, it's a counter-signal when yet another entity wraps themselves in the musty pelt of of Atari, Commodore etc. It's a reason to avoid them.

I bet it happens in other areas as well, I only know old computers best for obvious reasons. So maybe there's a broader consumer protection case here to simply ban the transfer of trademarks, or at least put some heavy restrictions on it.
by ajsnigrutin | 2025-06-09 11:51:28+00:00
The problem here is Zawinski's law:

> Every program attempts to expand until it can read mail. Those programs which cannot so expand are replaced by ones which can.

Or the newer version:

> My point was not about copycats, it was about platformization. Apps that you "live in" all day have pressure to become everything and do everything. An app for editing text becomes an IDE, then an OS. An app for displaying hypertext documents becomes a mail reader, then an OS.

So in turn, every product becomes bloatware that needs more money to maintain and more users to get more money.
by bandoti | 2025-06-09 11:52:22+00:00
I’d be worried about a lawsuit naming any tech product Chef. ;)

The problem, however, is these tools can maybe help build the initial prototype but that’s a far-cry from building and maintaining a product over the years.

I would like to see these companies demonstrate how their little-magic-tools can perform long-term, because people can already start with a Laravel template and have a full backend with Auth to boot.
by indymike | 2025-06-09 11:52:23+00:00
> The entire article is saying "it looks kinds like a human in some ways, but people are being fooled!"

The question is, what's wrong with that?

At some level there's a very human desire for something genuine and I suspect that no matter the "humanness" of an AI, it will never be able to close that desire for genuine. Or maybe... it is that people don't like the idea of dealing with an intelligence that will almost always have the upper hand because of information disparity.
by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF | 2025-06-09 11:53:04+00:00
> The only people that say something isn't genocide are those that support genocide.

I don’t think you meant to phrase it this way. The point in the sibling comment is spot on. If I may, I suspect you want to replace the word “something” with “a credible genocide”.

> broad consensus

Unfortunately, the consensus comes from an unreliable narrator. (That doesn’t make it wrong, just untrustworthy.)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent