MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by JackSlateur | 2025-06-09 10:49:39+00:00
Do not think about republicans vs democrats: you are being lured

Remember that in the US, since its early days, money is everything (and money is amoral in itself)

Regarding the energy topic and stuff, check out "breeder reactor" in the internet. It's a kind of nuclear reactor which was discarded half a century ago because uranium is cheap and because we do not care about nuclear waste.

The interesting thing is, they consume almost all the energy from the raw material, leaving a worthless waste (half-life: around 30 years => not an big deal)

They are a bit more expensive (probably due to being 50 years late in innovation), but nothing dramatic

Their outputs are equivalent to light water reactors (most common types of power plant)

India has been working on this for decades, because it can work with Thorium (and there are massive deposite on it on their soil)
by TheOtherHobbes | 2025-06-09 10:50:01+00:00
Ai can also nudge content choices towards autarch-sanctioned beliefs without the viewer being aware of it.

This has been happening for decades already. But AI can make it personal in a way that mass media can't.

Combine it with the kinds of psychological triggers and manipulations used in PR and advertising and you can convert almost anyone. You don't even need violence - just repetition.

This has already happened, btw. The Q phenomenon successfully radicalised entire demographics through careful use of emotional triggers and techniques to enhance suggestibility and addictiveness.
by uecker | 2025-06-09 10:51:02+00:00
Basically any code that does not use pointer arithmetic or raw pointer dereferences and instead puts string handling and buffer management behind abstractions.

The new feature we will put in are not to enable safe programming, but to make it more convenient and to make safety demonstrable.

And I wish there was actually some real industry interest to pushing this forward. Industry seems more interested into claiming this an unfixable problem and we all have to switch to Rust, which gives them another decade of punting the problems with existing code.
by akoboldfrying | 2025-06-09 10:51:44+00:00
> obnoxious shouting on every channel about how these AI models have solved the Turing test (one wonders just how stupid these "evaluators" were)

Huh? Schoolteachers and university professors complaining about being unable to distinguish ChatGPT-written essay answers from student-written essay answers is literally ChatGPT passing the Turing test in real time.
by snakeboy | 2025-06-09 10:54:20+00:00
This feels like the same type of critique people have about code-assistant LLMs. We need to be a lot more realistic about their role as a 'next-gen autocomplete' who can write some boilerplate code, not a replacement for a mid-level software developer.

These apps seem useful to reduce the friction of entering your meal's calorie contents from 30 seconds of ingredient estimating, to 20 seconds (auto-filling main ingredients and a baseline portion estimate). As everyone points out, it's impossible for these to get any better than that (GIGO). But reducing the overhead for calorie-counting seems like a reasonable goal and a valuable service. Of course the marketing departments for these companies is going to say whatever bullshit they want; that's their prerogative...
by lordnacho | 2025-06-09 10:54:21+00:00
The article skirts around a central question: what defines humans? Specifically, intelligence and emotions?

The entire article is saying "it looks kinds like a human in some ways, but people are being fooled!"

You can't really say that without at least attempting the admittedly very deep question of what an authentic human is.

To me, it's intelligent because I can't distinguish its output from a person's output, for much of the time.

It's not a human, because I've compartmentalized ChatGPT into its own box and I'm actively disbelieving. The weak form is to say I don't think my ChatGPT messages are being sent to the 3rd world and answered by a human, though I don't think anyone was claiming that.

But it is also abundantly clear to me that if you stripped away the labels, it acts like a person acts a lot of the time. Say you were to go back just a few years, maybe to covid. Let's say OpenAI travels back with me in a time machine, and makes an obscure web chat service where I can write to it.

Back in covid times, I didn't think AI could really do anything outside of a lab, so I would not suspect I was talking to a computer. I would think I was talking to a person. That person would be very knowledgeable and able to answer a lot of questions. What could I possibly ask it that would give away that it wasn't real person? Lots of people can't answer simple questions, so there isn't really a way to ask it something specific that would work. I've had perhaps one interaction with AI that would make it obvious, in thousands of messages. (On that occasion, Claude started speaking Chinese with me, super weird.)

Another thing that I hear from time to time is an argument along the line of "it just predicts the next word, it doesn't actually understand it". Rather than an argument against AI being intelligent, isn't this also telling us what "understanding" is? Before we all had computers, how did people judge whether another person understood something? Well, they would ask the person something and the person would respond. One word at a time. If the words were satisfactory, the interviewer would conclude that you understood the topic and call you Doctor.
by spacecadet | 2025-06-09 10:54:23+00:00
It's strange anyone believed their intentions to begin with. Ive said it here often and I'll say it again- When they say they want to change the world for the better, stop and ponder their alignment. Even better, stop and realize someones public alignment does not equal their true intentions... Change might always happen, but it doesn't mean its "good" for humanity.
by adrian_b | 2025-06-09 10:55:23+00:00
For homemade food it should be easier to make reliable estimates of the calorie content, because you know with certainty all the food ingredients and their amounts.

The food ingredients with the highest calorie content, like various kinds of seeds or nuts or flour or meal or oil or fat or sugar or dried fruits or dairy products, come usually with calorie estimates from their vendors.

For other ingredients, like various kinds of meat or of fresh vegetables or fruits, there are online databases with typical nutritional information, like the USDA database. Some of that information can even be found in the corresponding Wikipedia pages.
by TeMPOraL | 2025-06-09 10:55:45+00:00
> Since they clearly could alter the schedule, offering a limited number of later slots and comparing results would seem like the prudent response.

There's a difference between a doctor entertaining a medically-irrelevant suggestion from a patient (or patient's family), vs. assuming that the subsequent improvement was related to it, and then making that decision for some other patients (or suggesting it to them). The former is being accommodating, the latter is making treatment changes without good reason.

Improvement or no change aren't the only two possible outcomes for a patient. They could also get worse. What's worse, often neither improvement nor decline are obviously related to the treatment, or treatment changes.

Maybe it's the circadian rhythm thing. Maybe it's some delayed effects of something unrelated about the patient, that just coincided with your intervention. Maybe it's just a response to a change - any change. Or maybe it's just completely random. The point is, you don't know. You might feel like you do, or maybe it really looks obvious - but from N=1 you don't actually know, not enough to potentially bet other people's health on it.

Because maybe you do go ahead, and make a schedule change to another few patients - and few days later, suddenly and for no apparent reason, one of them goes into critical condition and dies soon after. Good luck convincing the grieving family, your colleagues, the board - and your own conscience - that the schedule change could not have possibly caused this. You won't, because you don't actually know.
by ta1243 | 2025-06-09 10:56:17+00:00
> Literally not one country initiated combat against Nazi Germany before being attacked itself.

The UK and France both declared war at the same time after Germany invaded Poland.

I think the UK fired the first bullets -- or rather depth charges, on Sep 3rd. That resulted in damage and no deaths. A few hours later Germany attacked a UK passenger liner and killed over 100 civilians - not just Brits but also Canadians and Americans.

The day later the RAF bombed a German naval port, causing little damage, but again attacks.

France had the Saar offensive within days, so France fired the first shots between France and Germany. Nazi invasion of the Benelux and France was inevitable, but technically France attacked Germany before Germany attacked France.

> The British parliament were generally happy to let Hitler have his way.

Britain was mobilising throughout the late 30s. Declaring war at Munich could well have resulted in a British loss - the RAF wasn't really capable of running the Battle of Britain, it barely survived even with the extra year of preparation. On the other hand Nazis were less prepared too. Who knows what that would have done - perhaps a coup against Hitler would have succeeded. On the other hand perhaps there would have been no support for war - leading to a resignation of Chamberlain, Halifax becoming PM who was even more stronger into appeasement, and a swift truce hammered out, with no the UK abandoning Poland.

Churchill was of course more wary of Hitler, but Chamberlain is the one who declared war.
by theK | 2025-06-09 10:57:23+00:00
I don't disagree. The EU needs to commit to running FOSS Desktop OSes. But I am concerned a "OS for the EU" Initiative will end up like all EU IT projects, that being smothered by red tape and (political) comitee stewardship.

I think the EU Public sector has too much variance in it to be safely serviced by just one distro. Just thinking on the hifdes of legacy infrastructure that needs to be kept integrated (storage, auth, etc).

I think a better approach would be to have a programme in the EU to allow local administration and PS agencies to establish their own FOSS desktop solutions and base information exchange on truly open standards would go a long way. Couple that with an incentive to utilize small shops for the execution instead of corporations and we might have a chance to emerge from the bug pile of mud that is current Public Sector IT before anybody else in the world.
by quitit | 2025-06-09 10:57:25+00:00
Apple asking for what are effectively lead fees was easily the most news-worthy and reported change made for the EU market.

Which raises the question: how are we this far into that change with Apple being informed that the EU meant something else?

To me, the optics are terrible on both sides. It's easy to be uncharitable to Apple for preserving their income stream, but it's equally just to be uncharitable to the EU for fishing for reasons to leverage what will certainly be a disproportionate fine instead of clarifying their position early. It's quite clear what they want is fine-revenue, not actual developer protections.
by gizmo | 2025-06-09 10:58:34+00:00
This is all sizzle no steak. Marketing without substance, frankly.

A proof-of-concept doesn't provide any value. For Linux to gain further adoption a gargantuan effort is needed to get things from 90% done (or 90% working) to fully working. Any Linux distribution is already suitable for government use. Manjaro, Fedora, Ubuntu, Debian. They're all fine distros. The only remaining problem is quality. Things don't work or suddenly stop working for no apparent reason. For government use that's a deal-breaker. It's also a deal-breaker for gamers. Which is why SteamOS has been relentlessly fixing reliability issues. So if I had to bet on a linux distro going mainstream, it would be that one.
by TheOtherHobbes | 2025-06-09 10:58:39+00:00
With enough money, you absolutely could persuade Trump voters to vote for Democrats.

This isn't up for debate. PR and advertising exist because this is absolutely possible, and has been for a long time.

AI makes it much, much easier and more cost-effective.

This was how Cambridge Analytica and Facebook swung the Brexit vote. They didn't send out blanket "EU bad, vote Brexit" content. They created targeted ads that addressed hot-button fear points for individuals and niche demographics and used Facebook's ad targetting system to deliver them.

So some people were concerned about money for the UK's health system. They saw ads promising that Brexit would mean more money for the NHS. Others were concerned about potholes, or education, or - often - immigration.

Every group saw ads that triggered their personal hot-button issues and persuaded them to vote against their interests.
by prox | 2025-06-09 10:58:44+00:00
Furthermore, a rebellion or freedom fighters in a moral framework is when you have an authoritarian regime, aka “the monster that comes for us all” (Andor S2) that needs to be overcome.

An authoritarian regime has no representation of the population, has no need for feedback, and is ruled by a few. In the work of Thomas Payne he says “When all rights have been taken away, the right of rebellion has been made perfect.”
by ty6853 | 2025-06-09 10:58:55+00:00
There is a constitutional way to remove people, and an unconstitutional way. When the unconstitutional way is intentionally chosen, the agency doing it is an enemy of the USA and we don't have due process to ensure individual rights are protected.

The 'entire point' of the thing of the government is to protect the rights of individuals in our borders, and all else falls downstream from that.

As for secession, I agree the states should have that right, however the civil war and subsequent litigation established that states have no right to secession.
by CamouflagedKiwi | 2025-06-09 11:00:42+00:00
Disease was a really big problem. The history suggests there was far too much of it for gardens to make much of an impact in it. There was also a lot of horse urine to deal with too.

There are a bunch of problems with cars, but I'd much rather live in one of those cities as they are today than with no cars but mountains of horse manure everywhere.
by net01 | 2025-06-09 11:01:04+00:00
this is what your looking for then

> https://interoperable-europe.ec.europa.eu/interoperable-euro...

and this too

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Interoperability_Fram...

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

quote

Draft Version 2 of the EIF[2] was the subject of a political debate, where the main technology/commercial issues relate to the role of lobbying for proprietary software.[4]

EIF 2 was adopted by the European Commission as the Annex II - EIF (European Interoperability Framework) of the Communication “Towards interoperability for European public services” on 16 December 2010.[5]
by p0w3n3d | 2025-06-09 11:01:21+00:00
First thought I had - I never thought that one can bend harmonica (I used to play it as a child and found it quite impossible). Since that time I have no usable harmonica in my home. Another thought I had - I'll test it on learning violin vibrato.

And when I tried it - WOW! This software has very good responsiveness and those rectangles show tune in really clear way. It turns playing musical instrument into some sort of game which objective is "just keep in the middle of all squares". I've just used it to exercise violin piece and it's really helpful in showing me when I'm playing out of tune.

Great help! Thanks!

Could you please add 'no-screen-fadeoff' patch on android? It seems that I have to manually wake up phone every few seconds (depends on phone settings). Also manipulating scale to show lower G would be terrific, however I understand this is not intended for violin playing...
by blagie | 2025-06-09 11:01:46+00:00
> If entire commit is generated by AI then it is obvious what created it - it’s AI.

This is not the case. The output of a compiler is 100% created by a compiler too. Copyright is based on where the creative aspect comes from.

I have had very little luck having 2025-era AIs manage the creative aspects of coding -- design, architecture, and similar -- and that's doubly true for what appears to be the relatively simplistic model in codex (as far as I can tell, codex trades off model complexity for model time; the model does a massive amount of work for a relatively small change).

However, it is much better than I am at the mechanical aspects. LLMs can fix mechanical bugs almost instantly (the sort of thing with a cut-and-paste fix in some build process from Stack Overflow), and generate massive amounts of code without typos or shallow bugs.

A good analogy is working with powertools versus handtools. I can do much more in one step, but I'm still in creative control.

The codebase I'm working on is pretty sophisticated, and I might imagine they could implement more cookiecutter things (e.g. a standard oauth workflow) more automatically.

However, even there -- or in discussions with larger models about my existing codebase -- what they do is in part based their creativity on human contributions to their training set. I'm not sure how to weigh that. An LLM oauth workflow might be considered the creative median of a lot of human-written code.

I write a lot of AGPL code, and at least in the 3.5 era, they were clearly trained on my code, and would happily print it out more-or-less verbatim. Indeed, it was to the point where I complained to OpenAI about it at the time, but never got a response. I suspect a lot of generated code will include some fractional contribution from me now (an infinitesimal fraction most of the time, but more substantial for niche code similar to my codebase).

So in generated code, we have a mixture of at least a few different pieces:

- User's contributions, in prompt, review, etc.

- Machine contributions

- Training set contributions
by tikhonj | 2025-06-09 11:01:55+00:00
The motivation is doing research to better understand AI?

People's time and attention is not fungible—especially in inherently creative pursuits like research—and the mindset in your comment is exactly the sort of superficial administrative reasoning that leads to hype bubbles unconstrained by reality.

"Why are you wasting your time trying to understand what we're doing instead of rushing ahead without thinking" is absolutely something I've heard from managers and executives, albeit phrased more politically, and it never ends well in a holistic accounting.
by dcow | 2025-06-09 11:02:22+00:00
Of course. Either way you’re getting what you pay for and there’s no way to select “I don’t want a free phone every two years take $15 off my monthly payment please”. It kinda is moving that way now, though. The monthly cost for new hardware is increasingly more optional and better delineated from the phone service. But thats’s new stuff—it will take awhile for things to percolate down.
by zeta0134 | 2025-06-09 11:02:34+00:00
Honestly the main thing was learning that perfectly satisfying food I cook at home tends to land around 600-800 cal for a meal, where eating out almost anywhere is often twice that, even if my beverage is water. Just being aware how how heavy those otherwise delightful meals are gives me pause. Granted these figures are all a side effect of my personal eating habits and preferences, but that's rather the point of the exercise isn't it? There's a lot of individual variation, and the individual is probably best served by a personalized approach.
by nehal3m | 2025-06-09 11:03:00+00:00
That would remove all interpretability as a side effect, wouldn't it? I'm not religious either, but I imagine that would make all sorts of literal claims problematic as measured against modern ethics, and make it impossible for contradictory claims to be resolved.

Personally I do think interpreting rather than following the word of your chosen supreme being is the height of hubris. Intentionally interpreting it such that you can ignore the ostensibly obvious meaning even more so.

Then again if a text allows for ways to skirt the spirit of a prescription then maybe the 'supreme' being that is supposed to have dictated it isn't all that.
by K0balt | 2025-06-09 11:03:16+00:00
If we applied the same standards to people…

As a sounding board and source of generally useful information, even my small locally hosted models generally outperform a substantial slice of the population.

We all know people we would not ask anything that mattered, because their ideas and opinions are typically not insightful or informative. Conversing with a 24b model is likely to have higher utility. Do these people then not exhibit “general intelligence”? I really think we generally accept pattern matching and next-token ramblings, hallucinations, and rampant failures of reasoning in stride from people, while applying a much, much higher bar to LLMs.

To me this makes no sense, because LLMs are compilations of human culture and their only functionality is to replicate human behavior. I think on average they do a pretty good job vs a random sampling of people, most of the time.

I guess we see this IRL when we internally label some people as “NPC’s”.
by radicalbyte | 2025-06-09 11:03:16+00:00
What we need at EU is a full build chain, infra and resourcing for one of the top-tier Linux distributions. Given the nature of Linux that's no easy thing but we're well placed to deliver on it. And I'd argue that it'll be cheaper to fund all of that as part of a generational (20 year) transition away from Microsoft for all key and 90% of non-key governmental systems.
by r721 | 2025-06-09 11:04:35+00:00
The thing with Yandex is that it's required by Russian law to not include websites which are blocked in Russia (and that's many thousands of websites: https://github.com/zapret-info/z-i). But it's not clear what does it mean for international users - I doubt it outright doesn't include bbc.com or facebook.com for them, but what if it pessimizes those websites somehow? How would anyone detect that?
by BryantD | 2025-06-09 11:05:25+00:00
"Communication" has a fairly big surface area, and "at the same time" is not sufficient if there's any ability for the LLM to persist data. E.g.: if it can write to a file, it could check for outside communication ability and upload that file only when that ability exists.

And then, depending on what threat profiles you're concerned about, you may need to be thinking about side-channel attacks.
Show HN: Soko64 – A Low-Res Sokoban Game Built in 24 Hours with Dart
by joemanaco | 2025-06-09 11:06:04+00:00
Hi HN,

I built a small game in just 24 hours for a 64x64 pixel art lowrez game jam. The result is soko64, a tiny Sokoban game written in Dart.

This project was primarily a first test for a new web game library I've been developing for Dart (Bullseye2D). I wanted to see how quickly I could build a complete, playable game with it.

You can play soko64 directly in your browser: https://joemanaco.itch.io/soko64

The source code is on GitHub: https://github.com/JochenHeizmann/soko64

Happy to answer any questions! :)
by yreg | 2025-06-09 11:06:05+00:00
FAQ:

> Is EU OS another Linux distribution that I can try out?

> EU OS is not another Linux distribution. EU OS is a community-led Proof-of-Concept, which employs existing Linux distributions. The challenge of the proof is not that an individual can use Linux on their own computer. Instead, the challenge is to proof [prove] that an admin team can manage users and their data, software and devices with or without Active Directory and without Microsoft Windows within a migration period of rather 2 years than 20 years.