MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by whilenot-dev | 2025-06-19 17:37:07+00:00
I watched Karpathy's Intro to Large Language Models[0] not so long ago and must say that I'm a bit confused by this presentation, and it's a bit unclear to me what it adds.

1,5 years ago he saw all the tool uses in agent systems as the future of LLMs, which seemed reasonable to me. There was (and maybe still is) potential for a lot of business cases to be explored, but every system is defined by its boundaries nonetheless. We still don't know all the challenges we face at that boundaries, whether these could be modelled into a virtual space, handled by software, and therefor also potentially AI and businesses.

Now it all just seems to be analogies and what role LLMs could play in our modern landscape. We should treat LLMs as encapsulated systems of their own ...but sometimes an LLM becomes the operating system, sometimes it's the CPU, sometimes it's the mainframe from the 60s with time-sharing, a big fab complex, or even outright electricity itself?

He's showing an iOS app, which seems to be, sorry for the dismissive tone, an example for a better looking counter. This demo app was in a presentable state for a demo after a day, and it took him a week to implement Googles OAuth2 stuff. Is that somehow exciting? What was that?

The only way I could interpret this is that it just shows a big divide we're currently in. LLMs are a final API product for some, but an unoptimized generative software-model with sophisticated-but-opaque algorithms for others. Both are utterly in need for real world use cases - the product side for the fresh training data, and the business side for insights, integrations and shareholder value.

Am I all of a sudden the one lacking imagination? Is he just slurping the CEO cool aid and still has his investments in OpenAI? Can we at least agree that we're still dealing with software here?

[0]: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zjkBMFhNj_g
by FeepingCreature | 2025-06-19 17:37:41+00:00
In AI finetuning, there's a theory that the model already contains the right ideas and skills, and the finetuning just raises them to prominence. Similarly in philosophic pedagogy, there's huge value in taking ideas that are correct but unintuitive and maybe have 30% buy-in and saying "actually, this is obviously correct, also here's an analysis of why you wouldn't believe it anyway and how you have to think to become able to believe it". That's most of what the Sequences are: they take from every field of philosophy the ideas that are actually correct, and say "okay actually, we don't need to debate this anymore, this just seems to be the truth because so-and-so." (Though the comments section vociferously disagrees.)

And it turns out if you do this, you can discard 90% of philosophy as historical detritus. You're still taking ideas from philosophy, but which ideas matters, and how you present them matters. The massive advantage of the Sequences is they have justified and well-defended confidence where appropriate. And if you manage to pick the right answers again and again, you get a system that actually hangs together, and IMO it's to philosophy's detriment that it doesn't do this itself much more aggressively.

For instance, 60% of philosophers are compatibilists. Compatibilism is really obviously correct. "What are you complaining about, that's a majority, isn't that good?" What is wrong with those 40% though? If you're in those 40%, what arguments may convince you? Repeat to taste.
by kingkongjaffa | 2025-06-19 17:37:55+00:00
Its not what you asked, but on the off chance you use local LLM’s for anything, getting a macbook with unified memory is a great price/performance ratio without spending tons on graphics cards.

Personally if I was in the market for a new laptop I would be upgrading my 16gb M1 macbook pro, to whatever the latest MBP is with as much RAM as I could afford.

16gb can run 14b models slowly and they are semi usable, good for small tasks.

24gb or 32gb can get you into 27b models that start getting pretty usable.
by bko | 2025-06-19 17:37:59+00:00
I'm very skeptical of systems that claim to help with trading signals. Primarily because if you had a system, then you would use it yourself. Trading is pretty much a zero sum game especially when it comes to signals. If you had a profitable signal and you publicized it, it would disappear almost immediately.

If your performance is correct and you're getting 200% per year, why sell the sauce for $20 a month?

I would just post the historical and open trades. Charge a subscription if you want to get exactly when you're selling them, otherwise release them on a few week lag to incentivize subscription. But give the rest away for free as you want others to pile in to your trade.
by unshavedyak | 2025-06-19 17:40:54+00:00
Maybe i'm not "vibing" enough, but i've actually been testing this recently. So far i think the thing "vibing" helps most with for me personally is just making decisions which i'm often too tired to do after work.

I've been coming to the realization that working with LLMs offer a different set of considerations than working on your own. Notably i find that i often obsess about design, code location, etc because if i get it wrong then my precious after-work time and energy are wasted on refactoring. The larger the code base, the more crippling this becomes for me.

However refactoring is almost not an issue with LLMs. They do it very quickly and aggressively. So the areas i'm not vibing on is just reviewing, and ensuring it isn't committing any insane sins. .. because it definitely will. But the structure i'm accepting is far from what i'd make myself. We'll see how this pans out long term for me, but it's a strategy that i'm exploring.

On the downside, my biggest difficulty with LLMs is getting them to just.. not. To produce less. Choosing too large of tasks is very easy and the code can snowball before you have a chance to pump the breaks and course correct.

Still, it's been a positive experience so far. I still consider it vibing though because i'm accepting far less quality work than what i'd normally produce. In areas where it matters though, i enforce correctness, and have to review everything as a result.
by agentultra | 2025-06-19 17:41:17+00:00
100% this. There have been generations of tools built to help realize this idea and there is... not a lot of demand for it. COBOL, BASIC, Hypercard, the wasteland of no-code and low-code tools. The audience for these is incredibly small.

A doctor has an idea. Great. Takes a lot more than a eureka moment to make it reality. Even if you had a magic machine that could turn it into the application you thought of. All of the iterations, testing with users, refining, telemetry, managing data, policies and compliance... it's a lot of work. Code is such a small part. Most doctors want to do doctor stuff.

We've had mind-blowing music production software available to the masses for decades now... not a significant shift in people lining up to be the musicians they always wanted to be but were held back by limited access to the tools to record their ideas.
by mcv | 2025-06-19 17:41:31+00:00
Great how he calls out the "shove these ethical concerns up your ass" argument. That's not the kind of thing to brush aside like that.

In general, I really appreciate how Ludic gives some much needed pushback against the AI hype. Sure, AI is interesting, but when everything has to shove AI into everything (or at least pretend to) in order to have a chance at funding, you know things have gotten way out of control.
by herval | 2025-06-19 17:41:53+00:00
yep, that's the latest of a long lineage of such projects (one of which I worked on myself). Ohers include kubero, dokku, porter, kr0, etc. There was a moment back in 2019 where every big tech company was trying to roll out their own K8s DSL (I know of Twitter, Airbnb, WeWork, etc).

For me, the only thing that really changed was LLMs - chatgpt is exceptional at understanding and generating valid k8s configs (much more accurately than it can do coding). It's still complex, but it feels I have a second brain to look at it now
by bcyn | 2025-06-19 17:42:00+00:00
This doesn't make as much sense as you think it does. If you could predictably trade a flip from bearish to bullish (for example, of course there are other trend-based signals), you would not share that signal because others would overcrowd your trade (by buying/shorting and moving the price more quickly towards the trending direction than you).

A potential argument is that these signals are only applicable to a certain bracket of portfolio sizes (e.g. larger AUM funds would not be able to trade this strategy) -- but you are sharing this with folks presumably in your range of portfolio size.
by Mond_ | 2025-06-19 17:42:12+00:00
Look, it's just an internet community of people who write blog posts and discuss their interests on web forums.

Asking "What do they do?" is like asking "What do Hackernewsers do?"

It's not exactly a coherent question. Rationalists are a somewhat tighter group, but in the end the point stands. They write and discuss their common interests, e.g. the progress of AI, psychiatry stuff, bayesianism, thought experiments, etc.
by karaterobot | 2025-06-19 17:42:58+00:00
It's an unexpected position to take, though. You said you had been interested in Zed until they integrated AI. The response was "the AI is completely optional", which I'd expect would make you more likely to use Zed, since it removes your objection. But it doesn't change your position at all, which makes me suspect it's not that you're worried the AI would interfere with your workflow, but that it's there at all. So, is your position that the very fact that Zed allowed AI to touch it has infected it in some way?
by notahacker | 2025-06-19 17:43:28+00:00
I mean, I was responding to a thread implying that the Apollo programme had access to fewer resources than Volkswagen firmware updates...

Obviously percentage of GDP isn't an ideal multiplier for reasons you've mentioned, but then inflation indexed mainly to mass produced common consumer goods tends to significantly underestimate the increase in cost over time of running complex operations involving the world's smartest and most on-demand minds and an almost unfathomably large number of subcontractors. Either way, NASA's overall budget is half that of the 1960s in regular inflation adjusted dollars, and whilst its current research and satellite/ISS maintenance maybe aren't as exciting as the first lunar landing, they're not obviously dramatically lower cost (the %GDP argument gets brought up nearly as often to suggest the Apollo programme wasn't worth it...)

Sat in a lecture theatre with NASA's last chief economist using both metrics earlier this week. Although those slides were looking at cumulative funds spent on Robert Goddard's programme, which was about the size of a largish Series A using the inflation metric or Series B using the GDP adjustment. Whether that's value for money or not depends on whether you're considering being the father of modern rocketry more impressive than sending a handful of moderately complex 16U Cubesats or rideshares or note that the actual rockets were no more sophisticated than some student projects, I guess...
by 9rx | 2025-06-19 17:44:13+00:00
It's not that it would be terrible, but in the real world people are generally lazy and will only do what they actually want to see happen. Surprisingly, we don't yet have magical AI robots that autonomously go around turning all imagined ideas into reality without the need for human grit.

Since nobody really wants passenger rail in the US, they don't put in the effort to see that it exists (outside of some particular routes where they do want it). In many other countries, people do want board access to passenger rail (because that's all they can afford), so they put in the effort to have it.

~200 years ago the US did want passenger rail, they put in the work to realize it, and it did have a pretty good passenger rail network at the time given the period. But, again, better technology came along, so people stopped maintaining/improving what was there. They could do it again if they wanted to... But they don't.
by renegat0x0 | 2025-06-19 17:44:32+00:00
Whoa, this is what I have been wondering for some time, for my crawler.

Crawler results depend on domain authority. If page owner, or page contents page change the ranking may, or should change.

However original author also could change contents, and page ranking should not be changed. So this is not easy to determine what to do with domain of it becomes inactive, or changes contents dramatically.

Currently I use only 30 day window to keep track of domains. After that period inactive domain is thrown out of the window.

However valuable domains, even if dead, reside longer. My UI provides easy link to wayback machine. So even for dead links I can browse them.

I noticed also that some domains, even if expired do serve contents, even if author left it alone. Page contents is served, but with a text that it expired.
by kccqzy | 2025-06-19 17:45:13+00:00
> $99 per app

Meaningless distinction. Most starting indie developers don't have more than one app anyway. It's like going to a fancy steakhouse and being offered a $99 all-you-can-eat where the only menu item is a 18oz porterhouse.

> $99 isn’t a huge amount

It isn't if this is your main job. It could be if this is merely a hobby.
by geoctl | 2025-06-19 17:45:51+00:00
Apart from 1 and 3, probably everything else can be added today if the people in charge have the will to do that, and that's assuming that I am right and these points are actually that important to be standardized. However the big enterprise-tier money in Kubernetes is made from dumbing down the official k8s interfaces especially those related to access control (e.g. k8s own NetworkPolicy compared to Istio's access control related resources).
by nyeah | 2025-06-19 17:45:56+00:00
Yes, there's a name for it. They're dumbasses.

“[...] Clevinger was one of those people with lots of intelligence and no brains, and everyone knew it except those who soon found it out. In short, he was a dope." - Joseph Heller, Catch-22 https://www.goodreads.com/quotes/7522733-in-short-clevinger-...
by aeternum | 2025-06-19 17:45:57+00:00
Is this actually true?

Amazon was pretty notorious for poor culture and high employee turnover yet the company performance has been stellar. Covid-era twitter clearly cared a ton about employee morale but the product stagnated.

I find it's often the opposite causality, IE the success/trajectory of the company is the primary component that determines morale. An increasing stock price makes employees happy.
by danans | 2025-06-19 17:46:07+00:00
> In the US, "between cities" is more like New York to Las Vegas, not Las Vegas to... uh, I couldn't think of another city in Nevada off the top of my head. What under-serviced route were you thinking of there?

Why would you constrain the route to within a specific state? In fact, right now a high-speed rail line is being planned between Las Vegas and LA.

But outside of Nevada, there are many equivalent distance routes in the US between major population centers, including:

Chicago/Detroit

Dallas/Houston

LA/SF

Atlanta/Charlotte
by nsagent | 2025-06-19 17:46:20+00:00
Having worked with game designers writing code for their missions/levels in a scripting language, I'd say this has been the case for quite a long while.

They start with the code from another level, then modify it until it seems to do what they want. During the alpha testing phase, we'd have a programmer read through the code and remove all the useless cruft and fix any associated bugs.

In some sense that's what vibe coding with an AI is like if you don't know how to code. You have the AI make some initial set of code that you can't evaluate for correctness, then slowly modify it until it seems to behave generally like you want. You might even learn to recognize a few things in the code over time, at which point you can directly change some variables or structures in the code directly.
by riobard | 2025-06-19 17:46:25+00:00
There's a difference between binary is/isn't fragmented and degree of fragmentation. The browser market is obviously not very fragmented with Chrome taking the majority of the market share, and top 3 choices together account for almost 90% of total market.

However you like/dislike any of the popular choices, the point is that other players in the ecosystem can mostly target the top choices and be reasonably sure that they cover the vast majority of user bases, so that upper layers could flourish. Except for Edge being the default on Windows, sane companies wouldn't care about minor players like Opera/Brave/Arc.

(You could also argue the degree of open source in these cases but that would be a different issue.)
by FeepingCreature | 2025-06-19 17:46:29+00:00
If you want a book on the rationalists that's not a smear dictated by a person who is banned from their Wikipedia page for massive npov violations, I hear Chivers' The AI Does Not Hate You and Rationalist's Guide to the Galaxy are good.

(Disclaimer: Chivers kinda likes us, so if you like one book you'll probably dislike the other.)
by overfeed | 2025-06-19 17:47:17+00:00
> I've completely forgotten the story but remember it was unsurprising given the more recent developments of the Wachowskis.

I think you mean recent developments at WB. The movie was a self-parody, describing in painful detail the demands from the studio for a sequel Matrix movi- er, "game", even when the creator was so over it.
by voidhorse | 2025-06-19 17:47:17+00:00
Assuming you do believe that genocide is extremely shitty, wouldn't that imply that defense of (actual) genocide, or the principle of it, is in all likelihood shitter than a false accusation of genocide? Otherwise I think you'd have to claim that a false accusation is somehow worse than the actuality or possibility of mass murder, which seems preposterous if you have even a mote of empathy for your fellow human beings.

As others have pointed out, the fact that you would like to make light of cities being decimated and innocent civilians being murdered at scale in itself suggests a lot about your inability to concretize the reality of human existence beyond yourself (lack of empathy). It's this kind of outright callousness toward actual human beings that I think many of these so called "rationalists" share. I can't fault them too much. After all, when your approach to social problems is highly if not strictly quantitative you are already primed to nullify your own aptitude for empathy, since you view other human beings as nothing more than numerical quantities whenever you attempt to address their problems.

I have seen no defense for what's happening in gaza that anyone who actually values human life, for all humans, would find rational. Recall the root of the word ratio—in proportion. What is happening in this case is quite blatantly a matter of an inproportinate response.
by nis0s | 2025-06-19 17:47:35+00:00
Research which needs to be a secret already is treated as such, so there’s no real benefit to adding further restrictions.

Trade control is a useful tool, which is also already used where applicable, and researchers have observed that trade restrictions (high wall, deep moat, etc.) don’t necessarily produce the desired effect. For example, see Deepseek and compute restrictions.

In general, science, research, technology, and coding benefits from open-sourced collaboration based on the nature of how activities in these domains are conducted. IMO, scientists and researchers would benefit from worrying less about the distractions of politics, unless they’re explicitly told not to share secrets. Great ideas and work can come from anywhere.
by tptacek | 2025-06-19 17:48:09+00:00
Well that was a whole thing. I especially liked the existential threat of Cade Metz. But ultimately, I think the great oracle of Chicago got this whole thing right when he said:

-Ism's in my opinion are not good. A person should not believe in an -ism, he should believe in himself. I quote John Lennon, "I don't believe in Beatles, I just believe in me." Good point there. After all, he was the walrus. I could be the walrus. I'd still have to bum rides off people.
by billy99k | 2025-06-19 17:48:45+00:00
"Why are programmers so violently opposed to these laws? "

With AI, these views have now been reversed.

It seems when a group of people think they have the power, they only want the rules to apply to them. When someone more powerful comes along (or someone that the masses disagree with politically) and wants to follow the same rules, there is outrage and calls for legislation.

My term for it is authoritarians with no power. Most activists/hacktivists fall into this group.

"Imagine an American president saying that today. Like the remarks of an outspoken old grandmother, the sayings of the founding fathers have embarrassed generations of their less confident successors. They remind us where we come from. They remind us that it is the people who break rules that are the source of America's wealth and power."

This is pretty universal. If you follow the rules and keep your head down, you won't get too far in life.
by MyOutfitIsVague | 2025-06-19 17:49:16+00:00
For a dual boot configuration, you might as well not copy anything over. You'd be better off mounting the Windows partition in the Linux install. There's not a great reason to dual-boot for non-technical users, though. The point is to end up on a system that works for them, not to have one that works for them and a derelict system that they don't know how to remove, and that can destroy their dual-boot setup if MS decides to push an update that overwrites the boot loader, leaving them unable to access the Linux install.

It's not just shrinking and copying over to the new `/home` because of the locality of the data. If your NTFS partition is taking the entirety of the disk (minus EFI and system partitions), shrinking it will then make it take up the first X% of the disk. Then you have to make the linux installation on the last (100-X)% of the disk, copy the files over, and then when you delete the NTFS partition, your Linux filesystem is on the last half of the disk with a big blank unallocated area on the beginning. BTRFS or LVM2 could help a little bit there, but that's far from ideal in any case.

Probably the best approach would be to shrink NTFS, create a new partition at the end of at least the right size, copy the files over, then wipe the NTFS partition, install Linux as the first partition (after system/EFI and such), then copy the files into the user's home, and then remove the documents partition. That's still not super reliable, though. You are at the mercy of your documents sizes, filesystem fragmentation (remember, even if your filesystem is mostly empty, you might not be able to shrink if fragmentation is in a bad place. You could defrag, but then the install time can balloon up many hours for the defrag process alone, just to shrink a filesystem that you're going to delete anyway), how big the Linux install will end up being, and many other factors. You'd have a lot of people who simply can't copy their documents over on install who will be simply SOL. I can't think of a situation where this kind of thing wouldn't be better served by just telling the user to backup their documents to a USB drive and move them back afterward, because many people are going to have to do that anyway.
by lucb1e | 2025-06-19 17:49:19+00:00
Manufacturing newer CPUs makes sense only if the device it's meant to replace is like 25 years old:

"The emissions from production of computing devices far exceed the emissions from operating them" [...] "the European Environmental Bureau [7] makes the scale of the problem very clear. For laptops and similar computers, manufacturing, distribution and disposal account for 52% of their Global Warming Potential [...]. For mobile phones, this is 72%. The report calculates that the lifetime of these devices should be at least 25 years" https://wimvanderbauwhede.codeberg.page/articles/frugal-comp...