MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by code_biologist | 2025-06-11 08:02:22+00:00
I would like the option to pay for the unquantized version. For creative or story writing (D&D campaign materials and such) quantization seems to end up in much weaker word selection and phrasing. There are small semantic missteps that break the illusion the LLM understands what it's writing. I find it jarring and deeply immersion breaking. I'd prefer prototype prompts on a cheaper quantized version, but I want to be able to spend 50 cents an API call to get golden output.
by SunlitCat | 2025-06-11 08:03:18+00:00
Well, yes. I totally agree with you on that one!

The original comment was about (mis)using the browser as some kind of platform independent runtime environment for apps.

Admittedly, at my workplace, I created a few (very simple) html/javascript based apps to get some tasks done quickly (like sorting some tables, or a little task planer tool) as it is convenient, because a browser is something you have everywhere.
by mytailorisrich | 2025-06-11 08:04:09+00:00
It's quite common, even the norm these days, to address people by their first names in professional settings, among colleagues.

The thing is that this is also becoming/has become the norm when you get correspondance from strangers when the standard etiquette is to use title + surname, as in all European countries, I suppose.

Now, I think when people address you by your surname only, either orally or in writing, it is irritating.
by henearkr | 2025-06-11 08:04:18+00:00
I love the idea to fork X11 if it can accelerate its development or maintenance, however in this precise case it looks like the developer who created the fork has questionable opinions about e.g. DEI, vaccines, etc, but more importantly it looks like he is willing to include references to his opinions inside the project (cf the README.md)...

So, it would be awesome if somebody would just go ahead and re-fork it removing just the controversial stuff.
by mike_hearn | 2025-06-11 08:04:42+00:00
Everyone understands the reasoning behind it. The reason lots of people view it as surprising and stupid is that it implicitly assumes (a) no mistakes are made that would then be propagated, (b) that you also don't accumulate unsafety by doing a chain of relative comparisons and (c) there are no downsides from playing word games with people.

None of these assumptions is sound. The assurance people want from the medical system isn't "taking this is only slightly less safe than taking that", it's "taking this is safe relative to doing nothing", because doing nothing is the default state.

> All because "most people assume vaccines are tested against an inert placebo" instead of educating themselves on statistics and the history of medical testing.

The FDA itself defines a placebo as an inert substance and tells people vaccines are tested against placebos, even though they aren't by their own definitions. They don't get to play games like that and then tell people they should have "done their own research" to catch them in the act.
by Eisenstein | 2025-06-11 08:05:23+00:00
People get sick of it. Most people don't like living in a constant state of anger, ready to get into an argument all the time. We would rather have a shared notion of truth and a common bond. You can't predict the next 'thing' but you can usually count on it not being more of the same. Something new is going to take hold, and I would like it to involve substance and critique of narratives.
by chneu | 2025-06-11 08:07:04+00:00
The paywall. I'm not against paying, but their free tier limitations are way too low.

The UI is just horrible and a huge waste of space. I had to use a user style to make it a non-headache to use.

Kagi routinely lacks results that every other search engine I use get no problem. I can't give any examples but I found myself going to page 5+ more often on Kagi than any other service.
by chneu | 2025-06-11 08:07:55+00:00
That went completely over your head. Was missing the point on purpose?

Climate change is already here and happening. You can easily see how it's changing global supply chains and agriculture. Many coastal and island people's have already had to relocate or are spending massive amounts of money trying to relocate(or mitigate sea level rise).

Tens of thousands of people are dropping dead every year from just the heat. Heat that's never hit their parts of the world. Then we have drought(desertification), hurricanes/typhoons of record size, dust storms, disease outbreaks, flooding, wildfire, extreme winter weather. The list is huge and obvious.

There are no lack of clear examples that the climate is becoming less hospitable to humans. And there's no denying it is being caused or accelerated by human behavior. Our models are accurate and paint a very clear picture of what's causing the climate to change: human consumption derived climate change.

Climate change is already forcing growth to slow. It won't be long until degrowth is happening. There are no downsides to curbing our consumption now.

The reality is we have been enjoying subsidized food and products since the industrial revolution. We have known our extreme-consumption is not sustainable since the 1960s. We've been taking on climate debt with our $3 patriot beef burgers and cheap plastic shit. The climate is now calling due on that debt.
by Ezhik | 2025-06-11 08:08:03+00:00
In my experience, people yearn for coding and modding. Given the tools a whole bunch of people will do domain-specific miracles using macros and other tools. I'm almost convinced that teaching programming is easier than teaching software development boilerplate.

I really love those customization power charts and really happy to see that my anecdote-based thoughts might actually have some grounding behind them.
by karel-3d | 2025-06-11 08:09:25+00:00
The money situation is what gives me pause with LLMs.

The amount of money it's burned on this is giant; those companies will need to make so much money to have any possibility of return. The idea is that we will all spend more money on AI that we spend on phones, and we will spend it on those companies only... I don't know, it just doesn't add up.

As a user it's a great free ride though. Maybe there IS such a thing as a free lunch after all!
by kinleyd | 2025-06-11 08:11:32+00:00
As a young man many years ago I happened to be in Seoul, in a shoe store. I was casually asking prices in English and noticed the salesman or owner was getting visibly angry with me. So much so that as I went around the corner of the store I clearly saw that he had begun advancing toward me, with every intention of physically attacking me. I put my hand forward to stop him and as I did, I shouted loudly, again in English, "Stop. Let me outta here!" To which he suddenly hesitated, stepped aside and let me go.

I wondered for years what I might have done to upset the bloke - he was a well built man and I did not want to fight him! It was only after the KAL crash and the coverage it gave the Korean focus on seniority and age that the penny dropped. He thought I was Korean - I do look very Korean (and Japanese and Chinese) - and was clearly offended by my not respecting his age.

At least that is what I would like to think. The alternative is that I was somehow very offensive anyway and I'd like not to think that.
by matwood | 2025-06-11 08:11:33+00:00
> That’s not a post–hoc justification, that’s avoiding bankruptcy.

Let's be clear. Cutting NSF, NIH, and higher education funding has nothing to do with bankruptcy and everything to do with the gutting and dumbing down of the US with some retribution sprinkled in. In fact, these types of cuts will likely lead to increase costs in the medium/long term as the population ages with worse preventative medicine.

If avoiding bankruptcy was really the goal as you say, Trump would not be proposing to increase defense spending by 13% and further cutting taxes. So just stop with this bankrupt the country angle because it's BS.

And lets also go ahead and use some real numbers. The increase in defense spending is ~113B to over 1T while the cuts to NIH/NSF have totaled ~23B. In 2024 the total NSF/NIH budget was ~60B.
by code_biologist | 2025-06-11 08:12:31+00:00
My use case is mostly creative writing.

IMO 2.5 Pro 03-25 was insanely good. I suspect it was also very expensive to run. The 05-06 release was a huge regression in quality, most people saying it was a better coder and a worse writer. They tested a few different variants and some were less bad then others, but overall it was painful to lose access to such a good model. The just released 06-05 version seems to be uniformly better than 05-06, with far fewer "wow this thing is dumb as a rock" failure modes, but it still is not as strong as the 03-25 release.

Entirely anecdotally, 06-05 seems to exactly ride the line of "good enough to be the best, but no better than that" presumably to save costs versus the OG 03-25.

In addition, Google is doing something notably different between what you get on AI Studio versus the Gemini site/app. Maybe a different system prompt. There have been a lot of anecdotal comparisons on /r/bard and I do think the AI Studio version is better.
DuoTrust: The next evolution of digital integrity
by mohammadalirauf | 2025-06-11 08:12:57+00:00
Trust doesn’t need 51%. It doesn’t need voting, staking, or global consensus mechanisms.

Trust is simple: two people make a deal. They sign it. Everyone else can verify it. That’s all.

That’s what DuoTrust is built on.

The Problem with Blockchains

Blockchains were supposed to decentralize power — but somehow, we ended up with a new priesthood: validators, miners, stakers, whales.

We’ve replaced middlemen with mechanisms. We validate coffee purchases through 10,000 anonymous nodes. And we call that “trustless.”

But trust was never meant to be democratic. It’s not a group decision. It’s a personal agreement between two people — either it happened, or it didn’t.

What DuoTrust Does Differently

DuoTrust removes the noise. It brings trust back to its roots:

Two parties make an agreement. They both sign it cryptographically. The signed transaction is broadcast to a public, immutable ledger. Everyone can audit it. No one can interfere.

There are no validators. No consensus. No governance model. Just clear, signed truth between peers.

Why It Works

Zero consensus = instant finality. No mining = no energy waste. No validators = no attack surface. Public auditability = built-in fraud resistance.

Fraud doesn’t require slashing or staking penalties — it’s punished the way it always has been: permanently recorded reputation damage.

What It’s For

DuoTrust is ideal for:

One-to-one trades Transparent digital contracts Auditable public votes Barter networks and trust-based economies

It’s not trying to be “the next blockchain.” It’s what blockchain always meant to be.

The Moment It Clicked

I wasn’t trying to invent anything. I was just frustrated.

“Why should some anonymous miner have a say in a deal I made with someone I trust?” That thought sat with me. Then it snapped into clarity:

We don’t need consensus. We need visibility. We don’t need majority approval. We need accountable signatures. That’s where DuoTrust came from.

Conclusion

DuoTrust isn’t a protocol for coin speculation or governance battles. It’s a framework for peer-to-peer agreements that speak for themselves.

If two people sign it, and the world can see it — that’s enough. Everything else is noise.
by happymellon | 2025-06-11 08:14:53+00:00
That reads like someone having a breakdown.

Probably going to regret asking, but what is a "redskirt"?

> doesn't matter which country you're coming from, your politicial views, your race, your sex, your age, your food menu, whether you wear boots or heels, whether you're furry or fairy, Conan or McKay, comic character, a small furry creature from Alpha Centauri, or just an boring average person. Anybody's welcomed, who's interested in bringing X forward.

Whoh. So normally people who talk like this are far from "strong and stable", it's a call for "all lives matter". I wouldn't touch this racist heap.

[Edit] And redskirt is just a misogynistic play on Star Trek red shirts. This dev sounds delightful.
Show HN: DNS-collector – Process DNS logs at the edge before storage
by dmachard | 2025-06-11 08:14:59+00:00
Hi HN!

I built DNS-collector to solve a DNS monitoring problem: systems drowning in noise from health checks, bad project behavior with internal queries, etc

Instead of processing DNS logs after storage, it works at the edge – capturing from DNS servers (BIND, PowerDNS, Unbound) via DNStap, filtering out noise, adding enrichment (GeoIP, threat intel), then sending clean data to your monitoring stack.

What it does: - Captures from major DNS servers via DNStap or live network capture - Filters noise (health checks, internal queries, spam) before storage - Enriches with GeoIP, threat intelligence, custom metadata - Outputs clean data to databases, SIEM tools, monitoring dashboards

Written in Go. *I actually learned Go while building this project* – it started as a way to solve a real problem and became my Go learning journey.

GitHub: https://github.com/dmachard/DNS-collector

*Looking for code reviews and optimization feedback!* Specifically: - Memory allocation patterns in high-throughput scenarios - Goroutine usage and channel buffering strategies - DNS packet parsing performance bottlenecks - Better error handling patterns

Would love feedback from Go experts on the architecture and performance
by plastic-enjoyer | 2025-06-11 08:15:25+00:00
As an ex-EEG researcher I can say that acquiring an EEG device is probably the least difficult thing. EEG signals are messy, not reliable and hard to interpret. Without a solid foundation in cognitive psychophysiology you won't have a lot of fun with an EEG device. So, before investing a lot of money into an EEG device you should watch a beginner course on cognitive psychophysiology or get some literature to get the basics down.

On the other hand, you could probably hack a cheap ECG device to measure EEG signals.
Show HN: Open-source AI RP tool with 300 GitHub stars in one month
by 0xhacker | 2025-06-11 08:16:11+00:00
Hi HN,

I'm a 21-year-old student from Wuhan University, and over the past 30 days I’ve built an open-source AI Roleplay engine called Narratium.

It’s designed for people who want to create immersive, long-form AI storytelling experiences — more like a VSCode for interactive narratives than a typical chat app.

I launched it inside the largest AI Roleplay community in China, and got: - 300+ GitHub stars within a month - ~10M daily tokens consumed by real users - Dozens of deep, branching story runs with user-written memory and character setups

## Why I built this

As a long-time RPG fan and hackathon builder, I was frustrated by how most AI tools lose character consistency, forget world context, or aren’t built for narrative control.

So I decided to build my own. Narratium supports: - Markdown-based character sheets - Context memory + world structure tracking - Plugin-style model swapping (OpenAI, Ollama, etc.) - Early support for graph-style memory tables

## What I learned

- Sharing to a niche Discord community gave my first traction (nearly 30% clicked Star) - MVP > perfection - Open source works best when paired with a story people care about

## What's next

Still early, but looking for collaborators, contributors, and feedback from folks interested in: - AI + storytelling tools - open-source interfaces for LLMs - narrative worldbuilding engines

Live demo: https://narratium.org GitHub: https://github.com/Narratium/Narratium.ai

Would love to hear what you think. Thank you!
by internet_points | 2025-06-11 08:16:32+00:00
> I guess this means the reasoning traces are fully visible and not redacted in any way - interesting to see Mistral trying to turn that into a feature that's attractive to the business clients they are most interested in appealing to.

but then someone found that, at least for distilled models,

> correct traces do not necessarily imply that the model outputs the correct final solution. Similarly, we find a low correlation between correct final solutions and intermediate trace correctness

https://arxiv.org/pdf/2505.13792

ie. the conclusion doesn't necessarily follow from the reasoning. So is there still value in seeing the reasoning? There may be useful information in the reasoning, but I'm not sure it can be interpreted by humans as a typical human chain of reasoning, maybe it should be interpreted more as a loud multi-party discussion on the relevant subject which may have informed the conclusion but not necessarily lead to it.

OTOH, considering the effects of automation fatigue vs human oversight, I guess it's unlikely anyone will ever look at the reasoning in practice, except to summarily verify that it's there and tick the boxes on some form.
by thrwwy_jhdkqsdj | 2025-06-11 08:18:26+00:00
I did the same thing, I thought "This post looks like a posthumous letter".

I hope LLM use will drive efforts for testing and overall quality processes up. If such thing as an AGI ever exists, we'll still need output testing.

To me it does not matter if the person doing something for you is smarter than you, if it's not well specified and tested it is as good as a guess.

Can't wait for the AI that is almost unusable for someone without a defined problem.
by cluckindan | 2025-06-11 08:18:35+00:00
That’s comparing apples to oranges. Nobody is going to be making a real cruise ship based on game water physics simulations.

In such a task, better water simulations are used. We have those, because we can directly observe the behavior of water under different conditions. It’s okay because the people doing it are explicitly aware that they are using simulation.

AI will get used in real decisions affecting other people, and the people doing those decisions will be influenced by the terminology we choose to use.
by Mistletoe | 2025-06-11 08:18:45+00:00
I’m constantly confused why Google wants me to use Gemini so much. Why would they want me to use an AI that doesn’t show ads, isn’t their search, and costs them money to generate the responses? The instant we see ads in LLMs we will stop using them, it will be as abrupt and as annoying as the vuvuzela example because using an LLM is a very intimate interaction. It will feel much more jarring when your intimate chat friend becomes a used car salesman to you. I get that AI=stock go up right now but it seems like they are poisoning their own well deeply down this path.
by 1dom | 2025-06-11 08:19:00+00:00
> I mean, all that skill, that knowledge, the experience - working on something which, almost by definition, very few people will be able to use.

This sentiment makes me sad. You can do things for fun, y'know? And when someone's just having fun, not hurting anyone, and being creative - that's got to be more than just tragic. It's basically the definition of a hobby.
by jasim | 2025-06-11 08:20:04+00:00
I can think of two instances, where the LLM embracing best practices for human thought leads to better results.

Claude Code breaks down large implementations to simpler TODOs, and produces far better code than single-shot prompts. There is something about problem decomposition that works well no matter whether it is in mathematics, LLMs, or software engineers.

The decomposition also shows a split between planning and execution. Doing them separately somehow provides the LLM more cognitive space to think.

Another example is CHASE-SQL. This is one of the top approaches in Text-to-SQL benchmark in bird-bench. They take a human textual data requirement, and instead of directly asking the LLM to generate a SQL query, they run it through multiple passes: generating portions of the requirement as pseudo-SQL fragments using independent LLM calls, combining them, then using a separate ranking agent to find the best one. Additional agents like a fixer to fix invalid SQL are also used.

What could've been done with a single direct LLM query is instead broken down into multiple stages. What was implicit (find the best query) is made explicit. And from how well it performs, it is clear that articulating fuzzy thoughts and requirements into explicit smaller clearer steps works as well for LLMs as it does for humans.
by GreyMolecules | 2025-06-11 08:20:13+00:00
This article does not address another layer that makes the Korean age system complicated: the "빠른" system. It refers to people born in January or February who, due to the school cutoff being in March, often enter school a year early and socially identify with those born in the previous calendar year.

For example, if I'm "빠른95", which indicates that I was born in 1995 between January and the end of February, I get to befriend and hang out with the ones born in 1994.

(Please note that Koreans typically make friends within the same narrow age band.)
by mat_jack1 | 2025-06-11 08:20:32+00:00
In past instances similar to this one, when Heroku wasn't acknowledging or giving any details it was a case of DDoS. It makes sense to stay quiet to avoid other potential attackers to pile in. Maybe they have found an AWS endpoint that was suffering DDoS attacks and they brought down a lot of people with it. Heroku is surely on AWS, I'm positive that also OpenAI is using something there and all the others affected. Let's wait and see, it will take a few days for sure.
by mkfs | 2025-06-11 08:20:35+00:00
> If only speed running communities existed, where they made different categories like any%, any% No major glitches/skips, all with varying prestige and competitiveness, as well as agreed upon which skips are so soul crushingly shit to do that they're excluded from every category aside from any% :(

Arbitrarily delineating good vs. bad glitches is dumb, and even glitch-free speedruns are more about persistence, just trying over and over again until you get the exact right sequence of inputs (or "RNG") to claim the record, rather than repeatable skill. This isn't like some high-level CS:GO player who can consistently headshot fast-moving targets or a high-level SF player who's mastered techniques like hit confirms.

> You might consider therapy, if playing games fast makes you angry.

I'm not the one downvoting comments, and unlike speedrunners, I don't throw tantrums over games.
by treetalker | 2025-06-11 08:21:17+00:00
> We’re in the era of task-specific models. On one hand, we have “normal” models like 3.5 Sonnet and 4o—the ones we talk to like friends, who help us with our writing …

…

> [M]odels today are so good …

…

> o3 pro (left) clearly understanding the confines of it’s environment way better.

Miracle models that are so good at helping us with our writing, yet we still use it's as a possessive form.
by benchly | 2025-06-11 08:22:55+00:00
Not the user you asked, but systemd has been controversial for a long time, long enough that I see the topic come up about once a month on various forums. There's a few folks who even consider it a bit fascist, I guess.

I don't particularly mind it myself, but I get where some power users would get irked by it. This article does a decent job of explaining why; https://www.infoworld.com/article/2251761/linux-why-do-peopl...
by makeitdouble | 2025-06-11 08:24:10+00:00
Would addressing you by your mail address work ?

Handling people's name is I think the bane of our field, and leads to many of the awful choices like forcing fields with a first and last name for instance, or requesting people's gender to properly set the Mr and Mrs. As a dev I'm not happy about it, as a user I hate it, I'm not sure the majority of people are happy either with the current state of things.

Accepting that it's a machine sending the mail could simplify all of this quite a bit, provided people are fine by being addressed in an impersonal and inorganic way.
by whstl | 2025-06-11 08:25:15+00:00
In Germany I never had someone go to those lengths, but I've once made someone visible irritated when I used "du" instead of the more formal "Sie".

Of course I didn't notice but a friend just clued me into it right after.

Thing is, in Berlin nobody really cares I guess, but this time I was in the country... oooooops...