MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by Dylan16807 | 2025-06-06 02:53:15+00:00
> prior experience

The part of the computer that knows how to drive is completely separate from the 7TB database of the exact shape and location of every lane and edge and defect.

> knowing how far i can leave the center of the lane if someone else crowds me or goes over the center divider

Experience, not in the database.

> knowing what part of I-605 floods

> Where's the gravel bed on more mountainous passes?

That goes in the database but it's less than one byte per meter.

> How many "bytes" is that information, times every neighborhood?

I don't know why you would want that data, you should be wary of blind traffic at all times, but that's easy math. There's less than a million neighborhoods and time based activity levels for each neighborhood would be about a hundred bytes. So: Less than 1 byte per meter and less than 100MB total.

> If this was easy/simple/solved, waymo et al would be bragging about it

This doesn't happen for two reasons. One they are collecting orders of magnitude more data than road info, two like I keep saying the collection is extremely difficult and I'm only defending the storage and use as being feasible.

> This reminded me a bit of the idea that somewhere in the US there's a database of every sms sent to or from US cellular phones. "it's just text; it'll compress well" - belies how much text there is, there.

Well we know how many meters of road there are. So it's basic multiplication.

I can tell you how many hard drives you need to store a trillion texts. It's five hard drives.

Google thinks the human race sends almost ten trillion text messages per year. So I guess you could store them all very easily? Why do you think it's not doable?

> Your claim is that a mere 1000x more data is enough to autonomously self-drive anywhere in the US, at any time of day or year, etc...

My claim is that 1000x is enough for utterly exhaustive road maps. Figuring out how to drive is another thing entirely.
by kamaal | 2025-06-06 02:53:46+00:00
Im always confused about this. I think my brain has rewritten memories to a large extent.

While its ok to have fictional memories for fun, I think this is disastrous for legal reasons.

Plus I do think memory recall is strong for a lot of people. Wanting retribution for harm done long back, or even life long trauma for bad things that happen to people early life is real.
by jsnell | 2025-06-06 02:54:49+00:00
Yes, there are some additional operating costs, but they're really marginal compared to the cost of the compute. Your suggestion was personnel: Anthropic is reportedly on a run-rate of $3B with O(1k) employees, most of whom aren't directly doing ops. Likewise they also have to pay for non-compute infra, but it is a rounding error.

Training is a fixed cost, not a variable cost. My initial comment was on the unit economics, so fixed costs don't matter. But including the full training costs doesn't actually change the math that much as far as I can tell for any of the popular models. E.g. the alleged leaked OpenAI financials for 2024 projected $4B spent on inference, $3B on training. And the inference workloads are currently growing insanely fast, meaning the training gets amortized over a larger volume of inference (e.g. Google showed a graph of their inference volume at Google I/O -- 50x growth in a year, now at 480T tokens / month[0])

[0] https://blog.google/technology/ai/io-2025-keynote/
by jjk166 | 2025-06-06 02:55:51+00:00
It most certainly was the case. As you correctly point out, people were collecting such statistics at the time, we know how much they worked and they worked a lot. In London from 1750 to 1800 the average male laborer worked over 4000 hours per year, and the typical year had 307 workdays. We have records of employment that list who worked which days at particular businesses, and court cases where witnesses testified about their work schedules, and we know of complaints from people at this time about the excessive amount of time they worked.

Take the Philadelphia carpenters' strike in 1791, where they were on strike demanding a reduction in hours to a 60 hour work week. The strike was unsuccessful. In the 1820s there was a so called "10 Hour Day" labor movement in New York City (note that at this time people worked 6 days a week). In the 1840s mill workers in Massachusetts attempted to get the state legislature to intervene and reduce their 74 hour workweeks. This was also unsuccessful. Martin Van Buren signed an executive order limiting workdays for federal employees to 10 hours per day. The first enforceable labor law in the US came in 1874, which set a limit of 60 hours in a workweek for women in Massachusetts.
by FireBeyond | 2025-06-06 02:56:29+00:00
Sure, OpenAI, I will absolutely trust you.

> The content covered by the court order is stored separately in a secure system. It’s protected under legal hold, meaning it can’t be accessed or used for purposes other than meeting legal obligations.

That's horse shit and OpenAI knows it. It means no such thing. A legal hold is just a 'preservation order'. It says absolutely nothing about other access or use.
by philsnow | 2025-06-06 02:57:45+00:00
My experience is nearly identical to this, except that I’m not aphantasic. I’m not trying to minimize the effects of aphantasia, but I also don’t think the thrust of the article is about aphantasia nearly as much as it is about SDAM.

The map view in Google photos / Apple photos is often my key to looking up the date of a memory. Well... really is that I know I’ve been to certain places, but have no actual memory of being there, so I look up the locations in the map view of Photos, see the photos, and that triggers actual memories.

I’m sentimental about objects for a similar reason. I don’t recall lots of memories with people, but when I see or touch an object that is associated with an extant-but-inaccessible memory, the memory comes back to me in living color, so to speak.

My late wife passed way six years and six days ago, and I’m still in the process of giving her clothes and things away to charity / finding new homes for them. It’s extremely difficult for me, because I don’t have much recall of particular memories of the 12 years we were married or the 8 years we were together before that, and I worry that losing access to these totems will cut off even the tenuous access to the memories I have of her.
by dangus | 2025-06-06 02:59:38+00:00
I think the court order doesn’t quite go against as many norms as OpenAI is claiming. It’s very reasonable to retain data pertinent to a case, and NYT’s case almost certainly revolves around finding out copyright infringement damages, which are calculated based on the number of violations (how many users queried ChatGPT and were returned verbatim copyrighted material from NYT).

If you don’t retain that data you’re destroying evidence for the case.

It’s not like the data is going to be given to anyone, it’s only gong to be used for limited legal purposes for the lawsuit (as OpenAI confirms in this article).

And honestly, OpenAI should have just not used copyrighted data illegally and they would have never had this problem. I saw NYT’s filing and it had very compelling evidence that you could get ChatGPT to distribute verbatim copyrighted text from the Times without citation.
by paxys | 2025-06-06 02:59:52+00:00
If LLMs were a sustainable business then Anthropic would have no problem selling Claude to a competitor. Heck they'd brag about it ("see OpenAI uses our models to code instead of their own!"). You see this in the industry all the time. Large tech companies compete with each other and sue each other and have deep business relationships at the same time.

What this change really says is that Anthropic doesn't want to burn VC money to help a competitor. And that is the reality of "I just want stuff to work". It won't just work because there's no stable business underneath it. Until that business can be found things will keep changing and get shittier.
by lmeyerov | 2025-06-06 03:00:29+00:00
I think you miss 2 big aspects:

1. High volume providers get efficiencies that low volume do not. It comes from both more workload giving more optimization opportunities, and staffing to do better engineering to begin with. The result is break even for lower volume firms is profitable for higher volume, and as high volume is magnitudes more scale, this quickly pays for many people. By being the high-volume API, this game can be played. If they choose not to bother, it is likely because strategic views on opportunity cost, not inability.

That's not even the interesting analysis, which is what the real stock value is, or whatever corp structure scheme they're doing nowadays:

2. Growth for growths sake. Uber was exactly this kind of growth-at-all-costs play, going more into debt with every customer and fundraise. My understanding is they were able to tame costs and find side businesses (delivery, ...), with the threat becoming more about category shift of self-driving. By having the channel, they could be the one to monetize as that got figured out better.

Whether tokens or something else becomes what is charged for at the profit layers (with breakeven tokens as cost of business), or subsidization ends and competitive pricing dominates, being the user interface to chat and the API interface to devs gives them channel. Historically, it is a lot of hubris to believe channel is worthless, and especially in an era of fast cloning.
by _jab | 2025-06-06 03:00:50+00:00
> How will you store my data and who can access it?

> The content covered by the court order is stored separately in a secure system. It’s protected under legal hold, meaning it can’t be accessed or used for purposes other than meeting legal obligations.

> Only a small, audited OpenAI legal and security team would be able to access this data as necessary to comply with our legal obligations.

So, by OpenAI's own admission, they are taking abundant and presumably effective steps to protect user privacy here? In the unlikely event that this data did somehow leak, I'd personally be blaming OpenAI, not the NYT.

Some of the other language in this post, like repeatedly calling the lawsuit "baseless", really makes this just read like an unconvincing attempt at a spin piece. Nothing to see here.
by bb88 | 2025-06-06 03:01:40+00:00
I don't think it's fair to say C++ is safe and reliable as is. The only way it could be made safe is with a restricted version of C++.

I'm reminded by mozilla's sign "You must be this tall to write threaded code." [1] How much do you restrict your language and libraries to make it safe? Like custom templates? How do you define ownership of objects and lifetimes -- or just malloc everything all at once?

[1] https://bholley.net/blog/2015/must-be-this-tall-to-write-mul...
by const_cast | 2025-06-06 03:01:47+00:00
> Taxing land will be passed through 100% to the renter.

Taxing land, though, forcing more economical use of said land. It's wasteful to spend your land on single units to rent, and then you're not going to be competitive when other developers are putting in apartments around you.

So, you're going to be smart and try to score a better unit/land ratio. Maybe you'll build apartments, or dingbats, or townhomes. The end result is that, per tenant, they're going to be paying significantly less rent.

The reason we build sparse and stupid housing is because it works and it makes money for the builder. But it really, really shouldn't - at least not all the time. We have the wrong incentives.
by neuroelectron | 2025-06-06 03:03:43+00:00
Everyone knows OpenAI is guilty here but they need to prove it. That's what the logs are for. The huge online astroturfing on this subject clearly illustrates how well OpenAI has automated this part of their defense (astroturfing, public outcry).

However, I find it unlikely the OpenAI hasn't already built filters to prevent their output from appearing to be regurgitated NYTimes content.
by artdigital | 2025-06-06 03:05:14+00:00
Windsurf users can still plug their own Anthropic key and continue using the models. It’s Windsurf subscribers (eg OpenAI customers) that use the models through the Windsurf service (through their servers as proxy, that’s now OpenAI) are getting cut off

I don’t see how this is irrelevant. Windsurf is a first party product of their most direct competitor. Imagine a car company integrating the cloud tech of a different manufacturer
by zahlman | 2025-06-06 03:06:07+00:00
I'll try to simplify: you can't readily adjust the tuning of a bagpipe; it's tuned in a way that would make it sound horribly dissonant against other instruments (for important music-theory reasons); and it doesn't even play all the notes, so you can't play in all the major and minor keys of Western (== European from c. 1580 onward + American) music tradition - you're stuck with scales that only make sense for the genre of music that's specifically written for the instrument.
by Nevermark | 2025-06-06 03:07:01+00:00
> It's more work for me to harbor a grudge.

Sounds like functional forgiveness, as apposed to decision or emotional arc forgiveness. "Letting go" being a very strong default, that would require special maintenance to avoid doing.

I am this way in the long run. Regardless of the situation, at some point I just realize I completely don't care.

Once I know someone operates in a problematic way, I spend some time figuring out how they tick. People really do operate differently internally, and understanding the variety of cognitive damage that nature and nurture can inflict goes a long way to being able to be objective about people's shortcomings.

Then I use common sense to avoid any recurring problems, without negative feelings. I may not want to be connected with someone anymore, but if I run into them, or we are thrown together for some practical purpose, I can be amiable, without any conflicted feelings.
by AStonesThrow | 2025-06-06 03:07:32+00:00
Sorry, but I use a search engine where I can specify "site:x.com" for example, or better yet, "site:m.xkcd.com", and it shows me exclusively results on that site’s domain, rather than clumsily trying to pretend with a content keyword.

X.com is distinctive and unambiguous. Wikipedia has entertained at least 12 proposals to change the article name; 100% of them have failed, and they are issuing 3-month moratoriums on discussion now.

Honestly the new name is a bit of a prank on porn addicts. If someone is watching over your shoulder while you try to type "x.com" into the URL bar, autocomplete may reveal how many other sites begin with "x" that you’ve visited lately.
by const_cast | 2025-06-06 03:09:09+00:00
But if we follow that definition of harm we get to an untenable place. Big boys gotta eat, and broccoli is good for you. We have to draw the line somewhere, and I see no reason to draw the line so far back that we're considering clumps of cells on the same level as us.

We can do that, sure, but what do we gain? More heartache, harder decisions, more prison time? What's the benefit?
by steve_adams_86 | 2025-06-06 03:09:24+00:00
As I read this I thought “this sounds a lot like having ADHD”. Sure enough…

Feeling like a spectator in your own mind is a very difficult phenomenon to deal with and to explain to people who don’t experience it. In a sense, sometimes it almost seems like other peoples lives are more real than mine, because I experience my own from such a peculiar lens. The experience of others seems much less adulterated by that interference. Of course, this is far from true, and only another illusion produced by my weird brain.

Like you I can’t sell myself at all. Not only is the recollection poor, but I give equal weight to my success and failures. I’m far too objective about myself in settings where I’m not supposed to be.
by Animats | 2025-06-06 03:09:47+00:00
How many inventions were invented multiple times because the first inventor ran out of money before reaching a viable product? That's a worthwhile analysis.

Edison got a workable lightbulb by having a whole staff trying different materials. The concept was known - find some resistive material that will tolerate high temperature and run some power through it. Works fine with platinum, but costs too much. Many materials can be carbonized but the filaments don't last. Swan maxed out at 14 hours. Edison's lab just kept trying materials until they got carbonized bamboo to work for 1200 hours.

It's the power of money.
by protocolture | 2025-06-06 03:11:43+00:00
If your laptop stalls out you turn it off and on again.

If you rock up to a pedestrian crossing, and you dont know if the button has been pressed, you give it a good tap to make sure its been done.

If theres 2 handsets you havent even examined, without humans, and a line behind human A using a phone you can be reasonably expected to go jingle the handset of one of the unused ones.

And the repeatable result is still both interesting and novel to me.
by wat10000 | 2025-06-06 03:12:24+00:00
I don’t know much about it, but a source used by Wikipedia says:

“It is also possible for a non-disjunction to happen after fertilization (about a 1-2% chance). In this case, some of the patient's cells are normal and some contain the extra chromosome. This is called mosaicism. Patients with this type of Down syndrome have milder symptoms.”

https://www.medschool.lsuhsc.edu/genetics/down_syndrome.aspx
by demosthanos | 2025-06-06 03:12:55+00:00
> What if Apple stopped allowing you to use an iPhone if you worked at Google?

This wouldn't be remotely comparable. This is targeting of a competitor's employees, not targeting a competitor's subsidiaries.

If you want to go the Apple-Google route a better comparison would be that this is like Apple refusing to allow you to hook up an Air Tag on an Android phone. Which is something that they do, in fact, do.
by const_cast | 2025-06-06 03:12:56+00:00
You're absolutely correct. We have to acknowledge and face the reality that Trump-ism is a personality cult, not a rational movement or ideology. There is no platform, there is only faith. He could eat children and be excused, because a God is omnipotent. If he is wrong, it is actually us who are wrong, because who are we to question God?
by paxys | 2025-06-06 03:13:33+00:00
> Does this court order violate GDPR or my rights under European or other privacy laws?

> We are taking steps to comply at this time because we must follow the law, but The New York Times’ demand does not align with our privacy standards. That is why we’re challenging it.

That's a lot of words to say "yes, we are violating GDPR".
by jmward01 | 2025-06-06 03:14:03+00:00
Decisions like this may shoot them in the foot later as opensource and cheaper compute continues to push into frontier model territory. I know I have no loyalty to the big providers and would take a minor quality/cost hit to jump off. Right now it isn't a minor quality / cost hit though. Knowing that they can cut you off if they think you are going to end up competing with them makes me tolerate an even bigger gap.
by bb88 | 2025-06-06 03:14:25+00:00
> Even worse it has a community full of elitism and obscurantism.

I've never experienced that per se, I have experienced it in other fields or orgs where the bar to entry is super high. And keeping the bar to entry is often the goal of those that are elitist. Google interviews were that way 15 years ago.

I think the issue I keep coming back to with type safety is how do you make sure a value in meters is not mistakenly used as feet without some kind of translation. If you're going to have type safety, I feel the language should prevent that.

And if it can't prevent that, then it's not really "typesafe".
by lxgr | 2025-06-06 03:15:03+00:00
The NYT is, in my view, exploiting a systematic weakness of the US legal system here, i.e. extremely wide reaching discovery laws with almost no regard for the privacy of parties not involved to a given dispute, or aspects of their lives not relevant to the dispute at hand.

Of course it's out of self-serving interests, but I find it hard to disagree with OpenAI on this one.
by protocolture | 2025-06-06 03:17:07+00:00
>This is exactly what I experience, and for me, this is a huge issue when it comes to 'selling myself', whether it is in an interview, or writing a self-assessment for a review.

I wonder if this is genetic. I have had a significant number of interviews with people from a couple specific geographic regions that cant relay to me details of a situation where they did XYZ. But given the question simply tell me how they would deal with it.

It made me super curious, because you could see in their job history that they definitely had those experiences but could not recall them.
by Arainach | 2025-06-06 03:17:42+00:00
What right to privacy? There is no right to have your interactions with a company (1) remain private, nor should there be. Even if there was you agree to let OpenAI do essentially whatever they want with your data - including hand it over to the courts in response to a subpoena.

(1) With limited well scoped exclusions for lawyers, medical records, erc.
by lxgr | 2025-06-06 03:17:55+00:00
It absolutely goes against norms in many countries other than the US, and the data of residents/citizens of these countries are affected too.

> It’s not like the data is going to be given to anyone, it’s only gong to be used for limited legal purposes for the lawsuit (as OpenAI confirms in this article).

Nobody other than both parties to the case, their lawyers, the court, and whatever case file storage system they use. In my view, that's already way too much given the amount and value of this data.
by Perenti | 2025-06-06 03:17:56+00:00
In the third paragraph the authors state:

"For example, the Lotka-Volterra model accurately captures predator-prey dynamics using systems of differential equations."

This is incorrect. The validation of the L-V predator/prey model was considered to be the population dynamics of the Snow Shoe Hare and Canada Lynx as seen in Hudson Bay Company records. The data actually models the fashion cycles in Europe, showing prices and demand from Europe drove the efforts of the Company and the trappers. This is in the standard texts from at least the mid 90s AFAIK.
by const_cast | 2025-06-06 03:19:09+00:00
Yes, actually, when women are not doing things, historically that's usually men's fault. Like women not having jobs, women not having bank accounts, women not having a higher education...

I'm not saying that's the case here, but society and patriarchy are very complex. Women, and yes men, are not 100% autonomous, and are, in fact, influenced by the society and socialization they received. It's not as simple as "women should be doctors", or whatever. We also need things like representation, outreach, what have you.
by zellyn | 2025-06-06 03:21:52+00:00
Ask people you worked with who have a good impression of you for a list. Better yet, book an hour of video chat and talk through it with them. They will have a lot of examples. Write them down.

I mostly blundered my way through this through this recent round of tons of interviews, and by the end of it, my "Tell me about a time when…" doc is actually what it should/could have been at the start!
by mikeshi42 | 2025-06-06 03:22:57+00:00
There's a version that we call local mode which is intended for engineers using it as part of their local debugging workflow: https://clickhouse.com/docs/use-cases/observability/clicksta...

Otherwise yes you can authenticate against the other versions with a email/password (really the email doesn't do anything in the open source distribution, just a user identifier but we keep there to be consistent)