MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by gpm | 2025-06-16 04:40:48+00:00
Generally I think it matters a great deal to get the facts right when discussing something with nuance.

Is this specific fact required to make my beliefs consistent... Yes I think it is, but if you disagree with me in other ways it might not be important to your beliefs.

Legally (note: not a lawyer) I'm generally of the opinion that

A) Torrenting these books was probably copyright infringement on Meta's part. They should have done so legally by scanning lawfully acquired copies like Google did with Google Books.

B) Everything else here that Meta did falls under the fair use and de minimis exceptions to copyrights prohibition on copying copyrighted works without a license.

And if it was copying significant amounts of a work that appeared only once in its training set into the model the de minimis argument would fall apart.

Morally I'm of the opinion that copyright law's prohibition on deeply interacting with our cultural artifacts by creating derivative works is incredibly unfair and bad for society. This extends to a belief that the communities that do this should not be excluded from technological developments because there entire existence is unjustly outlawed.

Incidentally I don't believe that browsing a site that complies with the DMCA and viewing what it lawfully serves you constitutes piracy, so I can't agree with your characterization of events either. The fanfiction was not pirated just because it was likely unlawful to produce in the US.
by grandiego | 2025-06-16 04:41:16+00:00
Applets died because of many reasons, like absurd startup time for the JRE (often just for silly animations), absurd memory requirements (for the time) and associated crashes, weird compatibility issues in the initial releases of the Java platform, a silly security model based on the assumption that only good actors will be able to get a CA certificate in order to do whatever they want in your PC, an immature sandboxing technology in browsers (not only IE), etc.
by DSingularity | 2025-06-16 04:43:18+00:00
The Zionist terrorist groups went around murdering villagers and after villagers fled Zionists took their land.

You strike me as a person who repeats the “a land without a people for a people without a land” lies. You just leave out why you didn’t find people in one of the oldest continually inhabited land on earth: you displaced them.
by amendegree | 2025-06-16 04:44:28+00:00
Lol k. So you opinion is that maybe if the rest of the world lets Iran build up a huge stockpile of weapons and enrich uranium 50% of the way to a nuke, they’ll not be as evil?

I guess that’s an opinion someone could have…

Regarding your sources, yes those are the naive experts I was talking about. The same ones who allowed Iran to build a secret facility right under their nose, the same one that finally admitted years too late that actually Iran is far out of compliance. They’re about as effective as UNIFIL.
by jitl | 2025-06-16 04:44:37+00:00
Thanks for contributing. I see Mihai implemented the UUID type in Calcite (https://issues.apache.org/jira/browse/CALCITE-6738) back in January which is one of the issues I hit, so for sure my experience with Feldera is 6 months out of date and y'all move pretty quick.

Most of what I mean is places where Feldera/Calcite has slightly different syntax from Postgres for things. For example, Postgres syntax for cast to bigint is `some_expresion::bigint` although Postgres also supports ANSI SQL `CAST(some_expression AS bigint)`, most examples I find in the wild and in my own Postgres SQL use the Postgres special syntax. JSON syntax also differs; Feldera uses its own pretty elegant `VARIANT` type and `some_expression[key_expression]` to access properties, where Postgres calls this `json` or `jsonb`, and uses `some_expression->key_expression` to access properties. In those cases it's not like Feldera is wrong or lacks some support, but it's a bit harder to work with for me because I'm so used to Postgres syntax and I need to do some regex replace whenever I bring a query from Postgres over to Feldera.

Definitely not a deal-breaker, I am a Feldera enjoyer, but it does add some friction.
by gete6data | 2025-06-16 04:45:30+00:00
Vector and semantic search let lakehouse teams unlock 80% of enterprise data that lives in free-form text, images, and other unstructured formats. By embedding high-dimensional vectors directly into the SQL optimizer, e6data’s “Unify, Don’t Migrate” engine runs cosine-similarity joins faster without extra ETL or a separate vector database. The result: lower costs, simpler pipelines, and far richer insights from customer voice, support chats, docs, and more.
by MangoToupe | 2025-06-16 04:47:08+00:00
I don't think GPTs reflect much of us at all, because we ultimately must translate into language what chatbots lack (motivation, caring about things, emotions, biased stimulation like pain and pleasure, etc)

Language is a large part of how we think about ourselves, but I don't think chatbots can tap much into what it is to be human or what we care about/feel outside of what we've already written, and are thus kind of useless as fetishes for humanity. So far, anyway.
by Javantea_ | 2025-06-16 04:48:08+00:00
I'm surprised no one in the comments has mentioned overfitting. Perhaps this is too obvious but I think of it as a very clear bug in a model if it asserts something to be true because it has heard it once. I realize that training a model is not easy, but this is something that should've been caught before it was released. Either QA is sleeping on the job or they have intentionally released a model with serious flaws in its design/training. I also understand the intense pressure to release early and often, but this type of thing isn't a warning.
by theptip | 2025-06-16 04:49:40+00:00
I think Eliezer’s take here is extremely bad, ie the AI doesn’t “know it’s making people insane”.

But I think the author's point is apt. There are a bunch of social issues that will arise or worsen when people can plug themselves into a world of their choosing instead of having to figure out how to deal with this one.

> Now this belief system encounters AI, a technology that seems to vindicate its core premise even more acutely than all the technologies that came before it. ChatGPT does respond to your intentions, does create any reality you prompt it to imagine, does act like a spiritual intelligence

This goes beyond spirituality of course. AI boyfriend/girlfriend, infinite AAA-grade content, infinite insta feeds at much higher quality and relevance levels than current; it’s easy to see where this is going, harder to see how we stay sane through it all.
by amendegree | 2025-06-16 04:50:06+00:00
> I have shown the specific claim that Iran does in fact not end up with more powerful weapons as a result of a nuclear deal.

No you haven’t at all.

The problem with your opinion is it’s false on its face with regards to Iran: part of the treaty is that Iran is allowed to build more powerful conventional weapons… and guess what: that’s exactly what they did, in addition to also pursuing nuclear arms. They just only had to hide the nuke development, while the more powerful conventional weapons they were able to develop out in the open. 15 years ago they didn’t have weapons capable of reaching France… now they do. All your other equivocation and high minded ideas about what a rogue colonial, genocidal theocracy might do if you offer enough appeasement are moot. Reality shows that’s not what happened.

Not to mention the other rogue destabilizing things Iran did in the ensuing years, such as supporting Syria in the genocidial war against their own people as well as supporting the Houthis in terrorizing Yemen into a civil war and using that base to also terrorize SA. The treaty completely failed long before trump pulled out. Any claim to the opposite is ignoring all of reality.

I’d also note: I’ve gone back through your comment history… it’s not pretty. You’re willing to give anyone who wants to kill zionists (aka semites aka Jews) as wide a latitude as possible and you make up justification after justification for why it’s ok and really they don’t intend that and really they mean something else, while specifically for one small seaside nation you think has no right to exist, and no matter what they do it’s not ok, and there’s no possible justification for literally anything they do. You also have a very problematic and honestly bigoted view of Jews, where you try to take control of their religion and dictate their core beliefs. It’s really a shame because I never thought of the Icelandic people as so prejudiced.

Hopefully this sort of behavior isn’t tolerated much longer here.
by random3 | 2025-06-16 04:52:12+00:00
Heres a title “some LLMs can detect to some degree some evaluation scenarios” is this catchy?

There are likely 50 papers on the topic. This one made it to the top of HN. Why? Did it have a good review? No, it had a catchy title. Is it good research? Are the results relevant to the conclusions? Are the results relevant to any conclusion? I wasn’t able to answer these questions from a quick scan through the paper. However I did notice pointers to superhuman capabilities, existential risk, etc.

So I argue that the choice of title may be in fact more informative than the rest of the possible answers.
by jMyles | 2025-06-16 04:53:05+00:00
I do not think it's creators that are the constituency holding up deprecation.

As a full-time professional musician, I'm convinced I'll benefit much more from its deprecation than continuing to flog it into posterity. I don't think I know any musicians who believe that IP is career-relevant for them at this point.

(Granted, I play bluegrass, which has never fit into the copyright model of music in the first place)
by Retric | 2025-06-16 04:57:00+00:00
Those quotes are directly talking about fittest as classification.

“preservation of favourable variations, and the destruction of injurious variations, I call Natural Selection, or the Survival of the Fittest”

“varieties which possess”

Fit in those quotes means having favorable variations and not having injurious variations, at no point does it refer to a specific organism’s survival.

> You don't cut anything bad if you don't filter out bad/fit for good, but instead have dumb luck making dumb choices.

Sperm which successfully fertilize an egg are more likely to have specific characteristics, that’s all that matters here as that alone results in survival of the fittest.

Sperm with identical characteristics die clinging to a sock on your bedroom floor, but they quite literally don’t matter because of the Trillions of sperm being produced. Humans are large animals we can take the minor metabolic hit to produce a for us a trivial number of cells each of which have extraordinarily low odds of success. Producing even more so fertilized eggs have a marginally higher probability of live birth is a winning strategy.
by Vetch | 2025-06-16 04:58:51+00:00
The non-o-series models from OpenAI and non-Opus (although I have not tried the latest, so it's possible that it too joins them) from Anthropic are cloyingly sycophantic, with every other sentence of yours containing a brilliant and fascinating insight.

It's possible that someone already on the verge of a break or otherwise in a fragile state of mind asking for help with their theories could end up with an LLM telling them how incredibly groundbreaking their insights are, perhaps pushing them quicker, deeper more unmoored in the direction they were already headed.
by workworkwork71 | 2025-06-16 05:00:27+00:00
For sure! Let's take a pension fund as an example. When asset managers are looking at getting the returns to meet future obligations they are not simply looking at a simple formula of risk-adjusted returns. What they're actually doing is combining factors such as liquidity, time-horizon, hedging across multiple countries, geographies and (most importantly) asset classes. All of that is to say that they need to be sure that on date "X" they are able to meet forecasted obligation "Y".

That's the approach we've taken here. Pooling capital market expectations for 30+ global asset classes and taking into consideration the risk basis, time horizon, the financial goal (ie. is this a general wealth building portfolio or your retirement fund) and then yes, creating rules & heuristics around the type of asset classes that are appropriate for that unique situation. Then as the portfolio ages and your "path" matures (we use a glidepath structure to maintain a volatility cap over the lifetime of the portfolio), the portfolio dynamically adjusts the risk downwards and into a less volatile portfolio that favors capital preservation over accumulation.

All that is done through publicly traded ETFs that represent the asset classes but it's more granular then the way you typed it out. Rather then just being "large cap" it would be "US Large Cap", "ex-US Large Cap", "European Large Cap", "APAC Large Cap", etc. It's not just about risk though, with the most obvious modern example being crypto. Most advisors in 2025 are saying 2.5-5% of a portfolio can go into the asset class but does that make sense if you're investing for a down payment on a house in 5 years? You're going to want higher returning assets that are less volatile like infrastructure equity or private credit (same return profile, less volatile).

The net result is far greater risk adjusted returns and likelihood of actually achieving your financial goals because you've built your overall portfolio piece by piece with the goals as the building blocks.
by TheAceOfHearts | 2025-06-16 05:01:12+00:00
I'll play devil's advocate. There could be many explanations: maybe the teachers don't consider it torture and they're true believers. Personally, I remember growing up sometimes teachers would start complaining about having to cover certain topics in specific ways that were mandated by the department of education, and being forced to stick to a strict curriculum that was sent down by faceless figures. If teachers aren't empowered to push back and execute on their conception of the best possible lesson plan, and any complaint puts their future pension at risk, they might just gradually lose interest in being an exceptional teacher while continuing to show up for the paycheck. This is a common occurrence in other domains, so it wouldn't surprise me if it's true about some teachers. Reflecting back on some of my most exceptional teachers, they would often invest a lot of their own money, extra time, and resources in order to give students the best possible educational experience.

There is also a bit of diffusion of responsibility. Maybe no single act can be interpreted as particularly tortuous, so it's easily excused by the person doing it. But taken collectively, it adds up into a harmful outcome.

This might vary depending on where you were educated, but a lot of my education growing up was lacking in epistemic exploration. We were often just fed a ton of facts by authority figures and expected to memorize and recite them at will, without diving into how those things were known or exploring concepts of epistemic uncertainty and the framing of historical contexts. Oftentimes this would result in people memorizing a bunch of facts for a test, after which the information was discarded, because there was no effort put into integrating newly acquired knowledge. One example for me was imaginary numbers in an early pre-calculus course, where we learned that these things existed and the basic rules for how they functioned, but it wasn't until many years later that I finally got to see how this concept could be applied and used.
by throwaway2037 | 2025-06-16 05:03:13+00:00
> the line in the Talmud that said "whoever saves a life, it is considered as if he saved an entire world."

I am not Jewish but I learned about this phrase watching the film Schindler's List in high school. That phrase, and listening to Ben Kingsley's character say it, has lived, rent-free, in my mind for the last umpteen years.
by crooked-v | 2025-06-16 05:04:17+00:00
> I think Eliezer’s take here is extremely bad

Same here.

I think fundamentally it's very simple, with no need for Yudkowsky's weird conspiratorial tone: current LLMs are very effective at being blind sycophancy machines completely unanchored from reality, and human psychology just isn't evolved to handle an endless stream of sycophancy and flattery like that.
by OhNotAPaper | 2025-06-16 05:04:26+00:00
> I can’t believe riding a horse and carriage wouldn’t make you better at riding a horse.

Surely you mean "would"? Because riding a horse and carriage doesn't imply any ability at riding a horse, but the reverse relation would actually make sense, as you already have historical, experiential, intimate knowledge of a horse despite no contemporaneous, immediate physical contact.

Similarly, already knowing what you want to write would make you more proficient at operating a chatbot to produce what you want to write faster—but telling a chatbot a vague sense of the meaning you want to communicate wouldn't make you better at communicating. How would you communicate with the chatbot what you want if you never developed the ability to articulate what you want by learning to write?

EDIT: I sort of understand what you might be getting at—you can learn to write by using a chatbot if you mimic the chatbot like the chatbot mimics humans—but I'd still prefer humans learn directly from humans rather than rephrased by some corporate middle-man with unknown quality and zero liability.
by zaharqoops | 2025-06-16 05:05:02+00:00
Open Source... Claimed functions:

Shotstars will help find and expose naked kings and their retinue (fact: stars in some repositories are inflated).

Shotstars calculates parameters: aggressive marketing, trend, fake stars, peak of popularity and its date.

Shotstars will calculate progress or regression over the last month (median - trend in percentage change and average - calculated in fact in times).

Shotstars Shotstars will calculate the names of the months that had the most and the least stars (mode / anti-mode).

Shotstars will output the longest period of time without adding stars. Shotstars scans repositories for stars added and removed with statistics for a selected time period.

Shotstars reports the real date of the repository (fact: developers can declare/fake/change the date of their projects commits, but Shotstars will not fool them, the utility will display real numbers).

Shotstars will show ~ the size of any public repository. Shotstars will also provide a short description of the repository. Shotstars offers a scan history with a selection of previously registered projects for quick checking.

Shotstars generates CLI/HTML reports (stats, time periods, duplicate user activity, urls, graphs and json). Shotstars can simulate results, documented hack: a function designed to check the utility's operation (to make sure) on dead/stable repositories without moving stars.

Shotstars finds users that overlap across Github projects, including those with hidden/private profiles.

Shotstars calculates to the minute and displays the time when the github rescan restriction is lifted (if token is not used).

Shotstars is created for people and works out of the box, OS support: Windows7+, GNU/Linux, Android (the user does not need: technical skills; registration/authorization on Github and even the presence of Python).

Shotstars processes tasks with jet speed and for free (cross-platform open source software, donations are welcome).
by Jaygles | 2025-06-16 05:05:45+00:00
> I can record myself reciting the full Harry Potter book then distribute it on YouTube.

At this point you've created an entirely new copy in an audio/visual digital format and took the steps to make it available to the masses. This would almost certainly cross the line into violating copyright laws.

> Could do the exact same thing with an LLM. The potential for distribution exists in both cases. Why is one illegal and the other not?

To my knowledge, the legality of LLMs are still being tested in the courts, like in the NYT vs Microsoft/OpenAI lawsuit. But your video copy and distribution on YouTube would be much more similar to how LLMs are being used than your initial example of reading and memorizing HP just by yourself.
by MyOutfitIsVague | 2025-06-16 05:05:47+00:00
Psychosis is not a binary, and there are strong genetic components, but it's not the entire story. People develop psychoses where there weren't any before all the time, often but not necessarily in response to trauma. Some people are more predisposed to it than others.

Even if you hold that you need that genetic predisposition, and that a perfectly sane person can never become "insane" as a result of an experience (not a position I agree with), there is still the very real possibility that many people with the predisposition would never have had this "already insane" condition ever triggered or exposed. Think about the suicide cults that have formed, notably Jonestown. It's easy to consider the mass suicide (and murder of the members' own children) as "insane" behavior. What are the odds that every single person was genetically insane? Comparatively, what are the odds that an extremely persuasive and charismatic personality can rewire a person's reasoning to believe something "insane"?

If you think of ChatGPT as capable of being an automated Jim Jones, I think the danger becomes more clear. These tools are not incapable of being dangerous.
by jameson | 2025-06-16 05:05:48+00:00
> The LLM undeniably reduced the friction involved in answering participants' questions compared to the Search Engine. However, this convenience came at a cognitive cost, diminishing users' inclination to critically evaluate the LLM's output or ”opinions” (probabilistic answers based on the training datasets). This highlights a concerning evolution of the 'echo chamber' effect: rather than disappearing, it has adapted to shape user exposure through algorithmically curated content. What is ranked as “top” is ultimately influenced by the priorities of the LLM's shareholders [123, 125].
by adeon | 2025-06-16 05:06:27+00:00
The task of riding a horse can be almost entirely offsourced to the professional horse riders. If they take your carriage from point A to point B, sure, you care about just getting somewhere.

Taking the article's task of essay writing: someone presumably is supposed to read them. It's not a carriage task from point A to point B anymore. If the LLM-assisted writers begin to not even understand their own work (quoting from abstract "LLM users also struggled to accurately quote their own work.") how do they know they are not putting out nonsense?
by Andrew_nenakhov | 2025-06-16 05:07:14+00:00
> Aren't starlink have some kind of geolock?

Perhaps. Apparently, it isn't applied in RV mode

> All data shows that Russia have one of the strongest and best firewall in the world

If you have a pile of shit in the world right in front of your house, it is pathetic, even if it is the biggest and the stinkiest pile of shit in the world.

> And all the Russians I spoke with say that VPN is not blocked and any service for a couple of bucks does its job.

I am Russian. This is not true. All regular vpn protocols (OpenVPN, Wireguard) are outright blocked. Shadowsocks is blocked on most ISPs, including all major mobile ones. VLESS works, for now, mostly, but sometimes the IP address of the server I run become unavailable.
by nashashmi | 2025-06-16 05:07:55+00:00
I would have recommended Go but if it increases file size, please don't. Anyways, it is very fast and quick so keep it the way it is. I can't find a reason to change it.

It can even do comments. But I would like to see more comment tools, especially measurement tools.

And since you are using Windows, do you think it would be worthwhile to add Windows OCR?