MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by ICBTheory | 2025-06-23 10:47:11+00:00
The claim isn’t that humans maintain a consistent metascience. In fact, quite the opposite. Frame jumps happen precisely because human cognition is not locked into a consistent formal system. That’s the point. It breaks, drifts, mutates. Not elegantly — generatively. You’re pointing to HOL-in-HOL or other meta-theoretical modeling approaches. But these aren’t equivalent. You can model a frame-jump after it has occurred, yes. You can define it retroactively. But that doesn’t make the generative act itself derivable from within the original system. You’re doing what every algorithmic model does: reverse-engineering emergence into a schema that assumes it. This is not sloppiness. It’s making a structural point: a TM with alphabet Σ can’t generate Σ′ where Σ′ \ Σ ≠ ∅. That is a hard constraint. Humans, somehow, do. If you don’t like the label “frame jump,” pick another. But that phenomenon is real, and you can’t dissolve it by saying “well, in HOL I can model this afterward.” If computation is always required to have an external frame to extend itself, then what you’re actually conceding is that self-contained systems can’t self-jump — which is my point exactly...
by pjmlp | 2025-06-23 10:47:25+00:00
At my university we had a couple of X terminals from IBM, connecting into DG/UX, and I can certaily vouch that for early 1990's they weren't that cheap to acquire.

If memory serves me right, we had four of them on the student lab.

Everyone else could enjoy connecting to DG/UX via terminal app on Windows for Workgroups, or the older green and ambar text based phosphor terminals.

As anecdote, those big screen X terminals were quite often used to have four parallel sessions of mixes using talk and some MUD game.
by sksjvsla | 2025-06-23 10:48:19+00:00
As I wrote elsewhere in this thread:

Being able to stay compliant and protect revenue is worth far more than quibbling over which cloud costs a little less or much a monthly salary for an employee is in various countries.

The real ratio to look at is cloud spend vs. the revenue.

For me, switching from AWS to European providers wasn’t just about saving on cloud bills (though that was a nice bonus). It was about reducing risk and enabling revenue. Relying on U.S. hyperscalers in Europe is becoming too risky — what happens if Safe Harbor doesn’t get renewed? Or if Schrems III (or whatever comes next) finally forces regulators to act?

If you want to win big enterprise and governmental deals, Then you got to do whatever it takes and being compliant and in charge is a huge part of that.
by Y_Y | 2025-06-23 10:48:49+00:00
Forward Euler is very terrible and can give you wildly wrong answers after just a few steps. If you think higher Runge-Kutta and fancy methods are too complex/expensive you do have cheap and stable options, like implicit euler or leapfrog. It's very likely that your numeric integrator is going to be a hot part of your game loop, it's worth doing ten minutes of research, IMHO.
by ICBTheory | 2025-06-23 10:49:39+00:00
Yes, of course — if you define Ω² as “English + All of Science,” then congratulations, you have defined an unbounded oracle. But you’re just shifting the burden.

No sysem starting from Ω₁ can generate Ω₂ unless Ω₂ is already implicit. ... If you build a system trained on all of science, then yes, it knows Einstein because you gave it Einstein. But now ask it to generate the successor of Ω² (call it Ω³ ) with symbols that don’t yet exist. Can it derive those? No, because they’re not in Σ². Same limitation, new domain. This isn’t about “a small frame can’t do AGI.” It’s about every frame being finite, and therefore bounded in its generative reach. The question is whether any algorithmic system can exeed its own Σ and R. The answer is no. That’s not content-dependent, that’s structural.
by bubblyworld | 2025-06-23 10:49:50+00:00
It's not really an assumption, it's an observation. Run an agentic tool and you'll see it do this kind of thing all the time. It's pretty clear that they use the information to guide themselves (i.e. there's an entropy reduction there in the space of future policies, if you want to use the language of the OP).

> Unlike living things, that information doesn't allow them to change.

It absolutely does. Their behaviour changes constantly as they explore your codebase, run scripts, question you... this is just plainly obvious to anyone using these things. I agree that somewhere down the line there is a fixed set of tensors but that is not the algorithm. If you want to analyse this stuff in good faith you need to include the rest of the system too, including it's memory, context and more generally any tool it can interact with.

> The "AI" doesn't collect the information.

I really don't know how to engage on this. It certainly isn't me collecting the information. I just tell it what I want it to do at a high level and it goes and does all this stuff on its own.

> There is no world-model, there is no understanding of information.

I'm also not going to engage on this. I could care less what labels people assign to the behaviour of AI agents, and whether it counts as "understanding" or "intelligence" or whatever. I'm interested in their observable behaviour, and how to use them, not so much in the philosophy. In my experience trying to discuss the latter just leads to flame wars (for now).
by jeroenhd | 2025-06-23 10:50:36+00:00
Some mandatory systems are unnecessary and drive up the cost of new cars, though. Things like backup cameras, adaptive cruise control, and lane assist add very little to road safety (research has even shown that people relying on these features even start paying less attention on the road), but are mandatory.

Safety features that are easier to defend (automatic emergency braking, driver fatigue detection, driver distraction warning systems, black boxes, tire pressure monitors, "intelligent speed assistance", oncoming vehicle detection) are also adding a whole heap of electronics to cars that drive up the base price of any vehicle. Then there were the inherent privacy risks when the EU wanted to introduce mandatory, automated SOS call functionality ("eCall") on crashes (because their mobile modems are basically tracking devices you're not allowed to remove) but the requirements were altered to keep the modem off under non-crash circumstances.

You can't rip out the touch screen of your car and replace it with physical buttons unless you also figure out how to make the reversing camera work. Modifications to the outside of your car may also be a challenge because you need to keep the lane assist system working or your car won't pass the mandatory safety inspections.

I'm in favour of most new safety systems, but EU regulations seem to be making some very strange choices in this regard that make it impossible for newcomers to have even a remote chance of coming to market. The rules are excluding a whole bunch of Chinese and Indian cars (on purpose), but also stifling competition from new EU manufacturers.
by vidarh | 2025-06-23 10:51:00+00:00
> It’s making a structural point: a TM with alphabet Σ can’t generate Σ′ where Σ′ \ Σ ≠ ∅

This is trivially false. For any TM with such an alphabet, you can run a program that simulates a TM with an alphabet that includes Σ′.
by viraptor | 2025-06-23 10:51:07+00:00
> Unlike living things, that information doesn't allow them to change.

The paper is talking about whole systems for AGI not the current isolated idea of pure LLM. Systems can store memories without issues. I'm using that for my planning system and the memories and graph triplets get filled out automatically, the get incorporated in future operations.

> It can produce some sequence that may or may not cause some external entity to feed it back some more data

That's exactly what people do while they do research.

> The representation of the information has nothing to do with what it represents.

That whole point implies that the situation is different in our brains. I've not seen anyone describe exactly how our thinking works, so saying this is a limitation for intelligence is not a great point.
by bertwagner | 2025-06-23 10:51:24+00:00
I get the desire for menu personalization to get customers to buy more, but many of these other solutions seem to be jamming AI into non-AI problems:

Other tech initiatives Dine Brands is testing include AI-powered cameras that can detect when a table needs to be cleared

Is this really more efficient than looking out over the dining room (or taking a quick walk around) to see which tables need to be cleared?
by Sporktacular | 2025-06-23 10:51:33+00:00
This doesn't make sense. If we can form logic circuits from biological matter we can create functionally equivalent circuits from other technologies - in hardware or software. They might have quirks but the way we know AGI is possible is because GI is possible. It may not come from LLMs or other current technologies but claiming there is a mathematical bound, and such a contestable one at that, is dubious.

Unless you want to claim some non-material basis for biological intelligence, in which case you should start by proving that.

This whole thing is fishy - "I do you the favor and leave out the middle part (although it's insightful). And we come to the end" - who publishes that? The foreword about Apple's paper is pretty clearly tacked on in a bid for relevance. Not sure why people should take this more seriously than the author takes it himself.
by gerjomarty | 2025-06-23 10:51:45+00:00
This was discussed previously, but this is because of a court case that Warner Music and Sony brought against radio streaming app TuneIn Radio. They argued that streaming stations outside of the UK for listeners inside the UK through the app, while using in-app advertising, was a copyright infringement.

This has had a chilling effect on other radio streaming platforms, which have all restricted foreign radio stations on their platforms while geolocated inside the UK.

https://www.mishcon.com/news/court-of-appeal-upholds-copyrig...
by ICBTheory | 2025-06-23 10:51:47+00:00
You’re flipping the logic.

I’m not assuming humans are beyond Turing-computable and then using that to prove that AGI can’t be. I’m saying: here is a provable formal limit for algorithmic systems ->symbolic containment. That’s theorem-level logic.

Then I look at real-world examples (Einstein is just one) where new symbols, concepts, and transformation rules appear that were not derivable within the predecessor frame. You can claim, philosophically (!), that “well, humans must be computable, so Einstein’s leap must be too.” Fine. But now you’re asserting that the uncomputable must be computable because humans did it. That’s your circularity, not mine. I don’t claim humans are “super-Turing.” I claim that frame-jumping is not computation. You can still be physical, messy, and bounded .. and generate outside your rational model. That’s all the proof needs.
by samjones33 | 2025-06-23 10:52:12+00:00
What is the life expectancy of a body politic that chooses ongoing offensive war?

That is not a well thought out question. The answer is different in PA controlled areas, non PA areas, and Gaza.

And Gaza's life expectancy is different for members of Hamas vs. non members. And was one thing on October 6, 2023 and October 8, 2023.

Hamas has agency.

They could end the war a year ago or tomorrow.

Why don't they?
by UltraSane | 2025-06-23 10:52:55+00:00
"Israel is actively engaged in a genocide"

This is absolutely not true. Hamas is actively attempting to destroy Israel. I really hate this watering down of the word "genocide". Terms like "genocide" and "ethnic cleansing" have specific meanings that shouldn't be diluted through overuse.

"The USA is directly responsible for the rise of fundamentalism and sociopolitical precarity within Iran"

Don't remove agency from the Iranians. THEY chose an Islamic Theocracy all on their own after the Shah was overthrown. You "merica evil" types really like to remove agency from people.

"USA, which is currently engaged in its own domestic ethnic cleansing "

I truly, truly hate Trump and think what ICE is doing is stupid and sadistic but calling it "ethnic cleansing" is completely absurd. The federal government does have the constitutional authority to deport non-citizens.

"Iran has issues, but their biggest issue is the existential threat of the American-Israeli alliance against their sovereignty."

Iran's biggest issue is that they constantly try to pick fights with MUCH stronger countries. They have spend every second since 1979 antagonizing the US and Israel in a profoundly foolish way. Compare this to how Vietnam doesn't hold a grudge against the US and benefits greatly from having a normal relationship with it.
by AllegedAlec | 2025-06-23 10:53:44+00:00
> you feel comfortable complaining about other people’s stylistic choices in writing

Yeah, why be such a privileged prick that you belittle someone's diction? Everyone should be free to write how they want to. In fact: if you complain about grammar you're just as fucking classist, you reactionary scum. Hell, there's no real difference between unintelligible grunting and pointing and properly written sentences in a tone appropriate for the context.
by PhilipRoman | 2025-06-23 10:54:13+00:00
Local privesc, don't care. If anyone still thinks that they can draw a security boundary anywhere with a shared kernel, they should really look at kernel CVE database (and be horrified). For every fancy titled exploit there are twenty that you've never heard of.

You can sort of do it if you carefully structure your program to restrict syscall use and then use some minimal and well audited syscall filtering layer to hide most of the kernel. But you really have to know what you're doing and proper security hardening will break a lot of software. To get a basic level of security, you have to disable anything with the letters "BPF", hide all virtual filesystems like /proc, /sys, disable io_uring and remove every CONFIG_* you see until something stops working. Some subsystems seem more vulnerable than others (ironically netfilter seems to be a steady source of vulnerabilities).
by ta1243 | 2025-06-23 10:54:19+00:00
I run ubuntu 2404 on my 2017 thinkpad fine, although I have replaced the battery (and about to again), upgraded the ram etc, not expecting to replace it for some more years yet.

My iphone 12 mini is from 2020 and is fine, so 5 years. Next ios release still supports 2019 iphone 11s, dropping the 2018 era, so apple seems to give 7 years for a phone, which doesn't seem terrible for closed source software.
by romesmoke | 2025-06-23 10:55:41+00:00
I spent the most part of my PhD trying to convince people that allocators are not simple. But the not-simple part is design, specifically the strategy/policy part. In other words, minimizing fragmentation by adapting to linked program behavior. From what I know, no product-level allocator and very few research-level ones go beyond a "one size fits all" approach.

The reason why this is so is pragmatic: fancy strategies take extra compute time that is too expensive when one's sitting on the critical path. So what follows has a good chance of not bearing practical value but (i) there are setups where memory capacity is a bottleneck and (ii) hey, it's just a PhD anyway.

So what does a fancy strategy even look like? Let's look at the simplest non-trivial version of the problem. Say, we know the sizes and lifetimes of all objects in advance, and we want to pack them in as tight a contiguous address space as possible. Mathematicians call this the Dynamic Storage Allocation (DSA) problem and it's NP-complete, i.e., no known optimal algorithm exists for the general case. Deep learning compilers battling the AI memory wall have been returning to DSA lately (it's an old problem).

The implication of the above is that a real allocator, that is, one forced to work under uncertainty w.r.t. object sizes and lifetimes down the line, can always fail remarkably. So going for a general-purpose solution begs that you know what you're doing (one could argue that most programs out there are "well-behaved", and I would agree up until the point where this observation is turned into a universal law).

Nevertheless, it remains a fact that writing a toy allocator is both educational and soberingly not hard.
by nullfield | 2025-06-23 10:55:47+00:00
I don’t even know that I could come up with such a list.

Setting everything to “public”, likewise, has potential implications far beyond a visa, since scraping can happen real fast. Then, things on the Internet live like… more than forever, potentially resurfacing later.

That could be a potential employer, romantic interest, etc.—and just consider how things from 10-20 years ago have already resurfaced for some high-profile individuals, under some new social cause or just attitude change. The same thing can happen to any of us under these circumstances, ready to ruin lives.
by WillAdams | 2025-06-23 10:56:06+00:00
The amazing thing to me is that they later purchased GRiD (rather than buying a GRiDcase III Plus, I should have invested in something...) but couldn't continue their success selling to Military/Police.

Stuff I desperately wish I'd known about early computing:

- the patch to make the cassette copy of Pascal work on TRS-DOS --- I think that might have made for a markedly different trajectory in my life --- c.f., Microsoft BASIC vs. MacBasic on my first Mac: https://www.folklore.org/MacBasic.html

- that the "Softporn Adventure" was going to become a popular franchise and to keep, rather than remove the printed label on the erased disk I got as a blank from a local computer shop

- that Ultima was going to be important enough to me that I would miss the cloth map which came w/ my copy of Ultima II

- that I should have waited and got a Radio Shack PC-2 and its plotter, or better still a Radio Shack Model 100 rather than a PC-1

Ah well, at least I kept the poster I got from a copy of _Creative Computing_:

https://americanhistory.si.edu/collections/object/nmah_11970...

Really do need to get it framed....
by rsynnott | 2025-06-23 10:56:14+00:00
Yeah, this is kind of the trouble with this sort of thing. Even ignoring the obscenity issue (_many_ great works of English literature were not originally published in English-speaking countries, but rather in France, which was more laid-back about this sort of thing), it is not that long ago that novels as a form were considered kinda inherently disreputable/low-brow; even into the 19th century, _all_ novels were kind of seen a bit like how we now see genre fiction.
by vidarh | 2025-06-23 10:57:30+00:00
No, I'm not flipping the logic.

> I’m not assuming humans are beyond Turing-computable and then using that to prove that AGI can’t be. I’m saying: here is a provable formal limit for algorithmic systems ->symbolic containment. That’s theorem-level logic.

Any such "proof" is irrelevant unless you can prove that humans can exceed the Turing computable. If humans can't exceed the Turing computable, then any "proof" that shows limits for algoritmic systems that somehow don't apply to humans must inherently be incorrect.

And so you're sidestepping the issue.

> But now you’re asserting that the uncomputable must be computable because humans did it.

No, you're here demonstrating you failed to understand the argument.

I'm asserting that you cannot use the fact that humans can do something as proof that humans exceed the Turing computable, because if humans do not exceed the Turing computable said "proof" would still give the same result. As such it does not prove anything.

And proving that humans exceed the Turing computable is a necessary precondition for proving AGI impossible.

> I don’t claim humans are “super-Turing.”

Then your claim to prove AGI can't exist is trivially false. For it to be true, you would need to make that claim, and prove it.

That you don't seem to understand this tells me you don't understand the subject.

(See also my edit above; your proof also contains elmentary failures to understand Turing machines)
by simianwords | 2025-06-23 10:58:31+00:00
A characteristic of LLMs bad articles is that they try to stack up small multidimensional criticisms in hopes that the at least one would stick.

LLMs curb independent thinking (links some n=5 article published recently)

LLMs reduce wages (wrong!!)

LLMs cause environmental damage (wrong!)

Add in some vague leftist jargon about decolonisation and you have your standard llms bad article. There is I admit, a nugget of truth in each criticism and I hope we can explore it from an unbiased angle.

After thinking about it I have a theory on the real reason some people have a bad opinion on LLMs.
by raxxorraxor | 2025-06-23 10:59:32+00:00
You have to provide the correct distribution. Look to China as an example. That would require work to maintain, but comparatively this wouldn't make a blip on the radar in any budget, hell smaller businesses are able to afford something like this.

If the distribution is set, it is easier to distribute group policies. You also might want an identity provider that distributes login configuration to all systems, an equivalent to a windows domain.
by world2vec | 2025-06-23 10:59:55+00:00
From the extension's page:

Features:

- Auto-installation: When you launch Claude Code from within VSCode’s terminal, it automatically detects and installs the extension

- Selection context: Selected text in the editor is automatically added to Claude’s context

- Diff viewing: Code changes can be displayed directly in VSCode’s diff viewer instead of the terminal

- Keyboard shortcuts: Support for shortcuts like Alt+Cmd+K to push selected code into Claude’s prompt

- Tab awareness: Claude can see which files you have open in the editor

- Configuration: Set diff tool to auto in /config to enable IDE integration features
by MohamedMabrouk | 2025-06-23 11:00:29+00:00
not sure, modular is focusing mainly on enterprise applications. but if you look at the current PRs you can see people hacking support for standalone consumer-grade Nvidia and AMD gpus because it is easy, you just add the missing or different intrinsics for the architecture in the lowest level (in pure mojo code) and wire it up in a few places and voila you already program and run code on this GPU. iGPU/Apple GPUs are still not supported yet but it would interesting to see their integration
by KaiserPro | 2025-06-23 11:00:55+00:00
You can get started for <£100 or even <£30 if you are careful

You will need a set of flat headed screwdrivers. These are 80% of the tools you'll be using.

If you are approaching middle age, you'll need some magnification. I dont like loupes (those lenses you hold to the eye), and the visor mounted magnifiers are also not that good for me. I got a second hand long armed stereo 10x microscope for £30 which is perfect for me. You might just want a big old magnifying glass.

You might want a movement holder, again you can get super cheap ones, but second hand ones are better (because the shit ones are thrown away). they are basically specialized vices, or tiny little buckets(those are custom to each movement though.)

Next, start off with pocket watches, they are much bigger and more forgiving, and also cheaper.

In the uk: H samual, Thos russel are good brands to look for anything £20 or less.

For america: waltham/elgin (they often have broken balance though so watch out ) Eglins and Walthams look a lot more pretty, and have a better standard of finishing than the english counterparts.