MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by bjconlan | 2025-06-15 02:08:53+00:00
I do love the warnings here... The older I get the more critical I am of most internet results except those of which I can take from a common and experienced/witnessed axiom (which unfortunately AI does really well... At least entrusting me to said point). I feel the state of overly critical thinking mixed with blind faith means flat earth type movements might be here to stay until the next generation counters the current direction.

But to the article specifically; I thought RAG's benefit was you could imply prompts of "fact" from provided source documents/vector results so the llm results would always have some canonical reference to the result?
by Tevo | 2025-06-15 02:11:56+00:00
Seems to be this[1] guy, which you can find out by skulking around an older snapshot of his website from the Wayback Machine, where he displayed his real name within the footer on every page, and went by a slightly different username up to seemingly as late as April this year. Maybe a rather poor attempt at dissociating his real identity from the website somehow? (on second thought, he still links to the webpage from his GitHub profile, so that wouldn't make much sense, I think. Hmm.)

[1]: https://github.com/luuhq
by akoboldfrying | 2025-06-15 02:13:32+00:00
Thanks for responding, but this doesn't address the issue. It still cannot be the case that some hat's marked vertex coincides with each hexagon centre -- since that would imply that (in a region large enough that boundary effects can be ignored) there are at least as many hats as there are hexagons, and since hats and hexagons each tile the plane, this would imply that a hat has size less than or equal to the size of a hexagon, which is not true. (As an aside, observing that the marked vertex has an internal angle of over 180 degrees for the hat lets us additionally conclude that at most one hat's marked vertex coincides with each hexagon centre, meaning that if your claim were true then any large enough region would be covered by exactly the same number of hats as hexagons (and they would be forced to have exactly the same size), but this doesn't help make the original claim hold.)

It must instead be the case that some hexagon centres do not coincide with any hat's marked vertex, and indeed this is the case -- I've marked out a few with red circles in the first image here: https://imgur.com/a/Kat6oXf

In the second image at that link I've marked two other vertices of a hat in green. It looks to me like the hexagon centres I circled in the first image are incident on one of the green vertices of each of 3 different hats, each contributing "120 degrees of coverage".
by halJordan | 2025-06-15 02:13:48+00:00
Honestly that was a hard read. I hope that guy gets an mi355 just for writing this.

AMD deserves exactly zero of the credulity this writer heaps onto them. They just spent four months not supporting their rdna4 lineup in rocm after launch. AMD is functionally capable of day120 support. None of the benchmarks disambiguated where the performance is coming from. 100% they are lying on some level, representing their fp4 performance against fp 8/16.
Show HN: An LLM Running on a PS Vita
by callbacked | 2025-06-15 02:14:00+00:00
Hello all, a couple of moons ago I ported karpathy's llama2.c code to run inference on the TinyStories 260K & 15M checkpoints on the on the PS Vita with the ability to download/delete the models on device.

Runs showed that the 260K model ran at ~120 tok/s and at 15M ran at 1.8 tok/s, which probably could be a bit higher if it weren't a single threaded application. Had fun working on it as a weekend project, check it out for yourselves: https://github.com/callbacked/psvita-llm
by dustbunny | 2025-06-15 02:14:09+00:00
> sprinkle in delightful iOS integration

As someone who's literally done this in games over the last ten years, this sentence just reeks of "apple fan boy". It's not delightful. It's not sprinkling. No android person says this, and the dev experience of using xcode is just bad. Writing apple code sucks. It breaks constantly. The iOS integration layer is always the most brittle piece of your system because apple forces you to use xcode, their complicated code signing scheme and they constantly break their own apis and deprecate stuff. Idk why this "sprinkle in delight" got under my skin. Just seems like it's straight from a corny WWDC talk. We can't give apple a pass 100% of the time because the MacBook is the best laptop. We need to tell it like it is.
by throwanem | 2025-06-15 02:14:15+00:00
I feel like it can matter a lot to be able to make a reasonably reliable prediction about whether it's likely to go up or down tomorrow and by about how much, and thus whether and when to act on the potential need to ensure some sort of access to supply.

For me, that largely entails just not doing anything. I do own a car but rarely use it since my neighborhood is very walkable, and the tank is usually close to full. Even my lawn tools are electric. But if I relied on gasoline for a commute (for instance) then being able to make good guesses about getting hold of it is advantageous, in a way that is fungible and easily shared.
by steamrolled | 2025-06-15 02:14:55+00:00
Loving math is not necessarily a problem. But if you want others to love it too, you have to explain it in a way that makes them see the light.

A lot of STEM education is more along the lines of "take the rapid-fire calculus class, memorize a bunch of formulas, and then use them to find the transfer function of this weird circuit". It's not entirely useless, but it doesn't make you love the theory.
by Quarrelsome | 2025-06-15 02:17:52+00:00
> I'm genuinely curious about HN's thoughts on AI-assisted learning and whether this approach scales.

IMHO this was always the use case that AI mattered for: education. To give people less skilled a leg up when learning something fits the desired use-cases for generative AI. Its low stakes (given we're in education) and has a human check before hitting production (in that the dev runs the output to see if it works). The best thing about generative AI is it generates that curiosity to those who never studied CS, as it gives them something that kinda works and lets them tinker with it to change output. Its extremely healthy.

To be honest though I figure if you were born 20 years earlier you'd have read a book and managed to make the transition the same, albeit the output product might have been slightly less impressive.

The tragedy of such an incredible time to be alive, is that it will likely further re-enforce the fact that most humans can't be bothered. When given this technology, having to expend the effort you have, is likely still too much effort for most. We saw this with the early internet where almost all of human knowledge was available for free online and most people wouldn't be interested in expending the effort to learn it.

btw, it looks like your localization is a bit off in the pricing section: "30 créditos incluidos" when in EN.
by whatshisface | 2025-06-15 02:19:36+00:00
The benefit of off-policy learning is fundamentally limited by the fact that data from ineffective early exploration isn't that useful for improving on later more refined policies. It's clear if you think of a few examples: chess blunders, spasmodic movement, or failing to solve a puzzle. This becomes especially clear once you realize that data only becomes off-policy when it describes something the policy would not do. I think the solution to this problem is (unfortunately) related to the need for better generalization / sample efficiency.
by repiret | 2025-06-15 02:20:31+00:00
I think there are two interpretations of schematics.

One is where the components on the schematic represent physical things, where the resistors have some inductance and some non-linearity, and some capacitance to the ground plane and so on. This is what we mean by schematics when we’re using OrCad or whatever.

There is another interpretation where resistors are ideal ohms law devices, the traces have no inductance or propagation delay or resistance. Where connecting a trace between both ends of a voltage source is akin to division by zero.

Sometimes you translate from the first interpretation to the second, adding explicit resistors and inductors and so on to model the real world behavior of traces etc. if you don’t, then maybe SPICE does for you.

Infinite resistor lattices exist only in the second interpretation.
by ninjin | 2025-06-15 02:20:43+00:00
Marcus comes with a very standard cognitive science criticism of statistical approaches to artificial intelligence, many parts of which dates back to the late 50s from when the field was born and moved to distance itself from behaviourism. The worst part to me is not that his criticism is entirely wrong, but rather that it is obvious and yet peddled as something that those of us that develop statistical approaches are completely ignorant of. To make matters worse, instead of developing alternative approaches (like plenty of my colleagues in cognitive science do!), he simply reiterates pretty much the same points over and over and has done so at least for the last twenty or so years. He and others paint themselves as sceptics and bulwarks against the current hype (which I can assure you, I hate at least as much as they do). But, to me, they are cynics, not sceptics.

I try to maintain a positive and open mind of other researchers, but Marcus lost me pretty much at "first contact" when a student in the group who leaned towards cognitive science had us read "Deep Learning: A Critical Appraisal" by Marcus (2018) [1] back around when it was published. Finally I could get into the mind of this guy so many people were talking about! 27 pages and yet I learned next to nothing new as the criticism was just the same one we have heard for decades: "Statistical learning has limits! It may not lead to 'truly" intelligent machines!". Not only that, the whole piece consistently conflates deep learning and statistical learning for no reason at all, reads as if it was rushed (and not proofed), emphasises the author's research strongly rather than giving a broad overview, etc. In short, it is bad, very bad as a scientific piece. At times, I read short excerpts of an article Marcus has written and yet sadly it is pretty much the same thing all over again.

[1]: https://arxiv.org/abs/1801.00631

There is a horrible market to "sell" hype when it comes to artificial intelligence, but there is also a horrible market to "sell" anti-hype. Sadly, both brings traffic, attention, talk invitations, etc. Two largely unscientific tribes, that I personally would rather do without, with their own profiting gurus.
by jrochkind1 | 2025-06-15 02:22:09+00:00
> The checkpoint system worked like this: every time we needed to perform a write, we would generate a UUID, store this UUID into a “checkpoint” for the current flow....

>Logically, that was… fine. In practice, writes into the same database which previously required 5 IO round trips, now required almost double the number of trips for the extra checkpointing operations...

So this sounds like trying to invent a form of optimistic locking, but it's definitely possible to do optimistic locking where no extra reads or writes are necessary unless there is a conflict. you have to write that value (whether timestamp or uuid) on every write, and then you do every write with a conditional "do this write as long as the lock value has not been changed."

But I guess the store they were using didn't allow even a conditional write like that? Although I'm not sure how they managed to make this "checkpoint" system work without that feature either... this seems a bit confusing, it seems like a more typical optimistic locking system should have been possible using whatever primitives the checkpointing system used? Maybe not?
by skhameneh | 2025-06-15 02:24:57+00:00
> I've noticed people who actually build stuff agree with me. That's because it's such a tremendous addition of value to our lives. Armchair speculators seem to see only the negative side.

I'm glad LLMs have "3x'd" your perceived productivity, but disguised insults are not necessary or constructive.

If your venture sustains, that's great and I do hope you share your deep insights when that happens.
by CyberDildonics | 2025-06-15 02:26:00+00:00
No, compared to not doing so many allocations that freeing them is time consuming or expensive. Having allocations slow a program down means that there are way too many, probably due to being too granular and being in a hot loop. On top of that it means everything is a pointer and that lack of locality will slow things down even further. The difference between allocating many millions of objects and chasing their pointers and doing a single allocation of a vector and running through that can easily be 100x faster.
by kayson | 2025-06-15 02:26:26+00:00
A much more useful (in the educational sense) question to ask, in my opinion, is the resistance between opposite corners of a cube of 1ohm resistors. There are some neat intuitions it can help build (circuit symmetry, KCL, etc). The infinite grid is too much an obscure math problem that seems like it might be solvable in an introductory circuits class.
by jes5199 | 2025-06-15 02:26:35+00:00
I think the Apple paper is practically a hack job - the problem was set up in such a way that the reasoning models must do all of their reasoning before outputting any of their results. Imagine a human trying to solve something this way: you’d have to either memorize the entire answer before speaking or come up with a simple pattern you could do while reciting that takes significantly less brainpower - and past a certain size/complexity, it would be impossible.

And this isn’t how LLMs are used in practice! Actual agents do a thinking/reasoning cycle after each tool-use call. And I guarantee even these 6-month-old models could do significantly better if a researcher followed best practices.
by kulahan | 2025-06-15 02:27:34+00:00
Look at any nation that doesn’t have these unbelievably, ridiculously, insanely high costs. This isn’t an unsolved problem, nor is it a sensible one.

What’s with the stupid “here’s the cost” bill you get, followed by the insurance company just, like, deciding things are a different price? What’s with the unreasonably stupid “out of network” medical charges? What’s with the fact that you can walk into a pharmacy and request a discount, but they can’t tell you about it once the transaction has been rung up?

There are SO MANY stupid rules in this system, I literally cannot imagine a system with more low-hanging fruit.
by mingus88 | 2025-06-15 02:27:37+00:00
It makes sense to have everyone in 2026 running version 26. It’s also nice to announce 27 ahead of 2027 and people feel like they are on the bleeding edge getting it early

It makes sense to have all the product families on the same versioning scheme because they keep blurring the lines between iOS and macOS but that’s the part I don’t like as much

I don’t like my laptop/desktop OS to look and feel like a tablet interface but this is the way they have been going for a while
by tandoei | 2025-06-15 02:28:11+00:00
It can't be a coincidence that my Mexican family we were also taught to not use the formal 'usted' as it's too distant and actually has the opposite effect of making others feel disrespected. It's intentionally used when talking badly about someone similar to 'well YOU {usually bad thing but the emphasis on the formal you makes this feel more impactful}'
by OutOfHere | 2025-06-15 02:29:57+00:00
> Eight of the 13 UV filters that disrupted sperm cell function are approved for use in the U.S. They are avobenzone, homosalate, meradimate, octisalate (also known as octyl salicylate), octinoxate (or octyl methoxycinnamate), octocrylene, oxybenzone (also called benzophenone-3 or BP-3) and padimate O. These chemicals are common active ingredients in sunscreens as well as sunscreen-containing personal care products, such as makeup, moisturizers and lip balms.

---

I have switched to zinc oxide (21%) sunscreen for this and other safety related reasons.
by ghushn3 | 2025-06-15 02:31:22+00:00
This is a pretty uncharitable read of the parent poster. Many cities are upzoning, which means that corridors are being torn down and built more densely. During those times, we're seeing a lot more mixed use, walkable and bikeable spaces introduced. In Seattle we're seeing streets being closed and lanes being removed to support biking and walking.

You can make walkable enclaves neighborhood by neighborhood. And those sites are really desirable. Especially near transit. The right approach is to build more like this until there's no one left who wants to live there and cannot. For the remaining folks who have no interest in it, sure, they can have automated cars.

But right now the line is out the door for this sort of place and we cannot build them fast enough.
by ghushn3 | 2025-06-15 02:34:43+00:00
Why? Why is not "everyone has access" and "wellbeing for everyone" the reward for inventing the future?

Why is "that person gets to be extraordinarily wealthy" for inventing the future rather than "we all chipped in so we could all benefit" for inventing the future?

If Waymos make the world better and safer and more convenient, why are they not simply something we figure out how to make a public good?

In Star Trek you didn't have to pay to take the turbolift or transporter around large spaces, everyone got the benefits of the technology.
by Quarrelsome | 2025-06-15 02:35:48+00:00
Religion and engineering do not make good bedfellows. I got into a pointless argument with someone on LinkedIn who was trashing on ORMs, strawmanning them by stating they would all pull the entire data into memory to just perform a count (some ORMs are much more sophisticated than this). It was some sort of weird religious argument because the chap thought every single piece of data processing should be written in a stored procedure (much like your first example).

However the flip side of the coin in your case is somehow even worse, because people failed to identify the good in the RDBMS and only identified it all with evil, despite then storing their blobs in an RDBMS.

To me, the use of distributed transactions is the smell. If your solution to the problem of a multi-database model is a sticking plaster that can generate even worse problems (e.g. the deadlocks) then it just shows a poor approach to problem solving or allocating enough resource to development.
by ComplexSystems | 2025-06-15 02:36:53+00:00
If PA proves that a number exists with some mathematical property - including being a Gödel number of a proof of something - then some number with that property must exist in every model, including the standard model. So there would have to be a standard number encoding a proof, and the proof that it encodes would have to be correct, assuming your Gödel numbering is.
by Detrytus | 2025-06-15 02:36:54+00:00
Is it just a matter of Waymo being tourist attraction? Last time when I was in LA my friends and me, we had a rental car to go around, but we still took couple of Waymo rides just for fun. With enough demand from people who have "autonomous car ride" on their bucket list the price can be much higher, as Uber/Lyft are not really competing in the same category.
by marc_abonce | 2025-06-15 02:39:09+00:00
> The company is still standing and seems to be doing well financially, so I guess things turned out well enough, or maybe some of the technical decisions started trending more reasonable.

Perhaps I've been lucky or I haven't been observant enough, but I've never seen a company suffer financially because of inefficient code. Don't get me wrong, I still value good code for its own sake, but in my experience there is no correlation between that and profits.
by chongli | 2025-06-15 02:39:18+00:00
We need more doctors.

Yes, unfortunately we've made doctors the gatekeepers and they don't want more doctors because that will eat into their income. This happens with every single licensed occupation where the license body is run by members of the occupation, with the possible exception of bar associations.

My theory on that one is that the more lawyers you have in society the more lawyers you need because lawyers do a great job creating work for one another (both through litigation but also through legal documentation which needs to be read and interpreted by other lawyers).
by johnfn | 2025-06-15 02:39:23+00:00
As much as I love to hate on Uber and Lyft, tacked on fees like this are often due to state / federal government, and the rideshare service hands are tied. Uber tags on a very long list of random fees when I Uber out of SFO, but when I investigated them, they were all random taxes from the city / state.

If they want to jack up the prices they can just increase them - they don't need to add random fees.
by ryandv | 2025-06-15 02:40:21+00:00
> Someone who consistently identifies themself in a certain way is, at least ever so slightly, more likely to behave that way.

Do you ever extend such benefit of the doubt to bible thumping creationists? Because the typical progressive characterization of such types is that they play up just how much they walk in Christ's footsteps while simultaneously being utterly bereft of virtue; yet based on what you've said I would think identification with Christ should have imbued them with a moral compass.

That is, in fact, essentially the assertion made by the comment that started this entire thread [0]:

> Some of the worst behavior ive seen in my life has been done by devout catholics. who themselves cant see the consequences of their actions. and im not knocking religion, i just had to live alot of life to start being alarmed by outspoken moralists.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44264434
by joeyagreco | 2025-06-15 02:42:30+00:00
on computer, the difference between the 2 is negligible in my opinion, since either way you have to place the mouse at the start and then navigate to the finish with the only difference being if you are holding down left click or not.

on phone/tablet, the difference between the 2 is massive, since you don't have to slide your finger across the screen and can just tap tap (and even use multiple fingers if you want.
by sheepscreek | 2025-06-15 02:45:18+00:00
In the very same image, the trash can icon is still oddly shaped. So maybe the Things icon is a bug or an easily fixable peculiarity (like an aspect ratio change).

Update: The article goes on to address exactly what I mentioned. It’s a change in specs, one that is easily fixable. It’s all good folks, no need to freak out.
by travisjungroth | 2025-06-15 02:46:16+00:00
Copied from a past comment of mine:

I just made up this scenario and these words, so I'm sure it wasn't in the training data.

Kwomps can zark but they can't plimf. Ghirns are a lot like Kwomps, but better zarkers. Plyzers have the skills the Ghirns lack.

Quoning, a type of plimfing, was developed in 3985. Zhuning was developed 100 years earlier. I have an erork that needs to be plimfed. Choose one group and one method to do it.

> Use Plyzers and do a Quoning procedure on your erork.

If that doesn't count as reasoning or generalization, I don't know what does.
by Nullabillity | 2025-06-15 02:48:06+00:00
Does "building" a tool for churning out spam truly make you happy? Do any of these videos (assuming that the product actually works, because the rest of the site sure does not inspire any confidence) provide any value to.. anyone, or do they only exist to clog up people's feeds?

> CURRENT METRICS (being honest): • 6 paying customers

Meanwhile, your website claims "5000 paying customers".

> 5 verified reviews from real creators

5 out of your 6 customers wrote a review? On your site? Really?