MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by doctorpangloss | 2025-06-14 17:52:24+00:00
Reference implementations are unmaintained and buggy.

For example https://github.com/huggingface/transformers/issues/27961 OpenAI's tokenizer for CLIP is buggy, it's a reference implementation, it isn't the one they used for training, and the problems with it go unsolved and get copied endlessly by other projects.

What about Flux? They don't say it was used for training, it wasn't, there are bugs with it that break cudagraphs or similar that aren't that impactful. On the other hand, it uses CLIP reference, and CLIP reference is buggy, so this is buggy...
by kragen | 2025-06-14 17:53:07+00:00
Yeah, obviously you do want to do the "byzantine" bitops, not just ship code that's vulnerable to timing side channels due to conditional jumps depending on secret data. But you can do that pretty easily on RISC-V, and it doesn't even cost much performance. It's four register-to-register instructions instead of the one you'd have with CMOV:

.globl minop minop: slt t0, a0, a1 # set t0 to "is a0 < a1?" (0 or 1) addi t0, t0, -1 # convert 0 to -1 (a0 ≥ a1) and 1 to 0 (a0 < a1) sub t1, a1, a0 # set t1 := a1 - a0 and t1, t0, t1 # t1 is now either 0 or, if a0 ≥ a1, a1 - a0 add a0, a0, t1 # transform a0 into a1 if a0 ≥ a1 ret

Possibly what you meant by "byzantine bitops" is this version:

minop: slt t0, a0, a1 addi t0, t0, -1 xor t1, a1, a0 # set t1 := a1 ^ a0 and t1, t0, t1 xor a0, a0, t1 # transform a0 into a1 using xor ret

(http://canonical.org/~kragen/sw/dev3/minop.S http://canonical.org/~kragen/sw/dev3/testminop.c http://canonical.org/~kragen/sw/dev3/minoptests)

I'm interested in knowing if there's a faster way to do this! You could do it in one less instruction with a multiply, but it's pretty common for a multiply to take multiple cycles.

Apparently CMOV isn't such a big win for superscalar architectures, which is what you'd normally use when performance is critical. But I don't know enough about superscalar architectures to really understand that assertion. And, for low-power architectures, people are moving to shorter pipeline lengths, like Cortex-M0 (3 stages) to Cortex-M0+ (2 stages).

In general, the RISC-V standard doesn't make any guarantees about execution time at all. That's out of its scope.
by andrew_bbb | 2025-06-14 17:53:22+00:00
Hey Paddy. Vim uses horrible vimscrip, neovim - cool lua. I have two idea for plugins: - 1. Rich events system on backend side. e.g. write golang code for plugins, recomplire editor. done. pros: good performance, autocomplete for plugins out-of-the-box. golang. cons: feedback loop is lonfer. recomplier, restart, repeat. - 2. Use lua. pros: fast development cycle. cons: harder to implement. two languages, communication overhead.

I also use Emacs, btw.
by btilly | 2025-06-14 17:55:02+00:00
> Of course it can! For example, if some logic theory contains the theorem that a particular realisable polynomial-time algorithm that can solve an EXPTIME-hard problem, that would contradict physical reality.

It would only contradict physical reality if a machine to calculate that algorithm failed to solve the EXPTIME-hard problem as promised. And if it failed to do that, I am confident that the problem is a mistake in the logic theory proof.

As for your long quote from Hilbert, I understand it very differently from you. He is saying that our interest in ideal mathematics starts with real mathematics. But ideal mathematics is something to engage with on its own terms, whether or not it corresponds with anything real.

Basically he's just saying, "Math is a formal game. People got interested in this game because part of the game corresponds to things we experience in reality." But that doesn't mean that the game itself depends in any way upon physical reality - it exists in its own terms.
by refurb | 2025-06-14 17:56:53+00:00
I know a few doctors and the vast, vast majority of patients have what you thought they had when they walked in the door. Boring, could-have-guessed illnesses (or maybe not).

99 times out a 100, if the doctor thinks it's something else, it's not.

So when someone comes in who doesn't fit that mold, they get shuttled around to a bunch of doctors until it gets bad enough someone is forced to think outside the box.
by RobinL | 2025-06-14 17:57:25+00:00
> "the video game people model it differently because they're doing different analysis, and if you unify the base layer to support everybody's type of analysis, it's not going to change that there's still a bunch of independent, not-talking-to-each-other analysis going on"

This resonates. Moreover, it's very easy for architects to assume that because different areas of the business use data about the 'same' thing, the thing must be the same.

But often the analysis requires a slightly different thing. Like: we want a master list of prisons. But is a prison a building, a collection of prisoners (such that the male prison and the female prison on the same site are different prisons), or the institution with that name managed under a particular contract?
by pxc | 2025-06-14 17:58:13+00:00
Sometimes it's useful, imo, to pick apart the differences in intellectual temperament, intuition, foundational beliefs, etc., that drive disagreements. But I agree, sometimes it's a lot of clumsy fumbling.

I'll say this against your perspective (or perhaps just use of language), though: it seems to leave little room for skepticism of the greatest general (not product-specific) claims made today in the AI industry. You either buy into the notion that the path we're on is contiguous with "AGI", or you're dismissive of AI! This is nearly as deflationary as your view of consciousness. ;)

I would expect "dismissive" to describe more categorically dismissive views, and not to extend, e.g., to views which admit that AI is in principle possible, non-eliminativist materialism (e.g., functionalists who say we just don't have good reason to say LLMs or other neural networks have the requisite structure for consciousness), etc.

Since you brought him up, Gödel himself seemed to have a much more "miraculous" notion of human cognition that came out in (IIRC) letters in which he explains why he doesn't think human mathematicians' work is hindered by his second incompleteness theorem. That, I would say is dismissive of AI.

But if any view not grounded in illusionism is dismissive of AI, what can a non-dismissive person possibly identify as AI hype? Just particular marketing claims about the concrete capabilities of particular models? If that's true, than rather than characterizing extreme or marginal views, a view is "dismissive" just for refusing to buy into the highest degree of contemporary AI hype.
by rincebrain | 2025-06-14 17:58:22+00:00
Why does it matter if they do?

I've seen a lot of doctors who insist patients must be making up things when they say "but XYZ", and my question becomes...so what?

If someone credibly lies to you and gets codeine or ritalin or something once or twice...that's not really significant, in terms of negative outcomes.

If someone lies to reach a medical professional, then you treat them like any other bad customer interaction and stop doing business with them after some point.
by clacker-o-matic | 2025-06-14 17:58:54+00:00
Hack Club is amazing! I've gotten so many amazing opportunities to build stuff and help out with events. I got to build and run waka.hackclub.com (selfhosted wakatime backend) and at its peak we got over 21 thousand kids tracking over a quarter million hours in the software i built. Crazy experience. Getting to talk and interact with other techy teens is the best part about it though; we have a massive slack which generates the best techy conversations I typically have on a day to day basis.

[source i'm a teenager in hackclub]
by Barrin92 | 2025-06-14 17:59:53+00:00
>They NEED to be able to hire the very best of the best,

This is literally why they've chosen Ocaml. Yaron Minsky has often stated that interest in a language like this is effectively a filter and magnet for extremely smart and curious people, he credits Ocaml with being an advantage in that regard.

They don't care about transferable skills either. People at Jane Street earn hundreds of thousands per year starting out, virtually nobody ever leaves, you're set for life after a decade there.

Aso Ocaml is a pretty standard ML. If you think it's unreadable alien hieroglyphs its fair to say you're not the demographic they're trying to attract, so the system is working.
by matsemann | 2025-06-14 18:03:11+00:00
Yeah, was kinda my point, but wasn't a popular one based on the down votes. But my question is genuine. When you see 5 officers, all in various colors and personal gear, how can you actually know it's not just a gang dressing up? If they would come for me, why shouldn't I fight back with my life if I cannot be assured it's real cops?
by floydnoel | 2025-06-14 18:03:56+00:00
> Sometimes you need to flip a switch, and you can't spare a team working one year to refactor the whole thing.

This seems to imply that the person in charge at G was right to cause this outage... and that Google is very short-staffed and too poor to afford to do proper engineering work?

Somehow that doesn't inspire confidence in their engineering prowess. Sure seems to me that bad engineering leadership decisions is equivalent to bad engineering.
by nfc | 2025-06-14 18:05:09+00:00
Thank you for your reply, I may have misinterpreted what Weatherby was saying and I admit I did not spend enough time reading it. I've re-skimmed it and think you may be right.

With respect to the use of LLMs for my original comment. I think however that this is a useful use for them. It started a conversation on an article that had not comments on it and helped at least one person (me but hopefully others too) to get a better understanding of what was said (thanks to your comment). But it's not a hill I'm willing to die on, specially after already having been wrong once in this thread :)
by dwohnitmok | 2025-06-14 18:05:34+00:00
Your comment to JoJoModding in Math Stackexchange is incorrect.

"That's because there are nonstandard models of PA which contain infinite natural numbers. So PA may be able to prove that it produces a proof, but can't prove that the proof is of finite length. And therefore it might not be a valid proof."

If PA proves "PA proves X" then PA can prove X. This is because the key observation is not that there are nonstandard models, but rather that the standard natural numbers model PA.

Therefore if PA proves "PA proves X", then there is in fact a standard, finite natural number that corresponds to the encoded proof of "PA proves X". That finite natural number can be used then to construct a proof of X in PA.
by halper | 2025-06-14 18:06:27+00:00
In short: in some, yes. In my country, one's private insurance company may pay damages for injuries caused by medical malpractice. This may be included in the home insurance or some health/injury/accident insurance. Otherwise and in addition, you are covered by the provider's malpractice insurance. Private medical providers must have malpractice insurance. There is also a national scheme, regulated by law, that covers all public providers, which in practice would be all the emergency departments etc.
by AdityaPatwa07 | 2025-06-14 18:07:34+00:00
Hey I'm Aditya,

I built Persona to explore how AI can be more than just a tool—it can be a companion. It’s for those moments when you just want to talk, laugh, or escape, with personalities that feel alive.

Built with Next.js, Supabase,the Vercel AI SDK and lots of love.
by gonzalohm | 2025-06-14 18:09:21+00:00
The other day I decided to compare Uber and Waymo. I ordered a Waymo and it was slightly annoyed because it took 5 minutes to do a left turn and almost went into the wrong way.

On the way back I ordered an Uber, one driver cancelled the drive, the other started driving in the other direction, possibly using multiple car sharing apps and finishing another ride.

I ended up cancelling and requesting a Waymo. It may not be perfect but at least it comes when requested
by beloch | 2025-06-14 18:09:31+00:00
This made me nostalgic for GLTron. After a round of that, I decided to look for a more up-to-date lightcycle game but, surprisingly, there aren't any that capture the look of the 80's Tron movie with a similar level of faithfulness.

Armagetron was roughly contemporary with GLTron, but has a zoomed out perspective that doesn't capture the claustrophobic feeling of not knowing what's on the other side of that trail you're next to. There are also games based on the lightcycle sequences from the newer TRON movies. I have nothing against them, but they're not the same thing.

Seems like an underserved audience might possibly exist for this sort of thing.
by sundarurfriend | 2025-06-14 18:10:06+00:00
The only real experience I've had with logic programming is via Brachylog[1], and I enjoyed it very much.

It's a golfing language that I used on codegolf.SE, so my experience is probably very different from that of someone who used logic programming for "real" coding. But I found the experience very pleasurable: the fun in codegolfing is largely from bending your mind in unusual ways to approach the problem (and its sub-problems) differently to solve it with terser code. Brachylog added to this by providing its own set of (what to me were) unusual approaches, thus making sure that the process was always fresh and weird enough to be fun.

[1] https://github.com/JCumin/Brachylog/wiki
by sarchertech | 2025-06-14 18:11:08+00:00
Bed sharing isn’t just about SIDS, it’s about litterally just rolling over and smothering your child (sometimes those do get lumped in together, but increasingly they are separated if they can be).

If you are overweight, sleep on a standard western style mattress, have any sleep disorders, smoke, drink, use illegal drugs, or even some prescription medications, you are much more likely to smother your infant.

The risk of all sleep related causes of death is around 1/1000 in the US, but you can reduce that risk 100x if you follow all of the safe sleeping recommendations.

1/1000 is pretty low but it’s higher than the chance of your infant dying in a car accident, disease, or any other cause of death for full term healthy babies.

My wife (pediatric ER doctor) has had to declare numerous babies dead from a parent rolling over and suffocating their infant and usually the parents weren’t intoxicated at the time.

I have 2 kids (and a 3rd on the way). I know how hard it is to follow all the safe sleeping recommendations, but the risk is real and the cost is so high.
by kathir05 | 2025-06-14 18:12:04+00:00
Always keep in touch with them.

Create a private network with them via whatsapp or community

Understand what these people are upto now and think how you can help them with your knowledge

Share current trends with them, current developments with them as they might be unaware about contemporary advancements

Share your career growth with them

These above basic humane things that you can do to your mentors!
by dwohnitmok | 2025-06-14 18:14:15+00:00
I haven't had the time to go through your argument in more detail, but it's important to note (because the natural language version of what you've presented is ambiguous) that you haven't shown "PA proves 'Provable(forall n, G(n))'" in which case it would be the case that in fact "PA proves 'forall n, G(n)'", but rather "PA proves 'forall n, Provable(G(n))'".

My logic is very rusty at this point, but if someone could give me an argument that you cannot move the 'Provable' outside the 'forall', I would really appreciate that, without making reference to Goodstein sequences. In other words, that in general for propositions 'P' it is not true that proving "forall n, Provable(P(n))" implies you can prove "Provable(forall n, P(n))".
by standardUser | 2025-06-14 18:14:33+00:00
> But on an economic level, a subset of blue-collar workers (which numbers in the tens of thousands in San Francisco) would find themselves either regionally displaced or outright vocationally exterminated by a branch of artificial intelligence.

A lot to unpack there, but it does act as a reminder that most people have been highly critical of the rideshare business model, considering these jobs to be profoundly unfair an unsustainable for drivers. So it comes off as disingenuous to hear claims that we're going to lose an important working class profession. No, we're going to lose a profession that, outside of the densest cities, never made economic sense in the 21st century. It's a profession we want to see disappear. Not that it entirely matters considering that consumers are inevitably going to choose the cheaper, safer option regardless of which jobs may be at stake.
by BillyTheMage | 2025-06-14 18:17:44+00:00
As an anarchist these dem/rep comment chains always make me feel sad. Literally everyone in there is wrong because they're so caught up in their team, and it's even worse because they're basically the same team: they're all right-wingers who can't comprehend a world that doesn't revolve around the profit of a few parasites.

Everyone feeling welcome (which is explicitly stated in that project's README) is a good thing. But that's not what DEI is. DEI is when someone gets picked over someone else solely because of their association with a particular group. That's bigotry. Bigotry is bad. Diversity and inclusion are good; bigotry is bad. Bigotry is bad. Bigotry is bad. Bigotry is bad.

Bigotry is bad.

It's not just MAGA idiots who are against DEI just because the TV told them to. People who actually know what they're talking about are against it too. Support for DEI is limited to the left edge of the right wing. The fact that MAGAts are against it is simply a case of a broken clock being right twice a day.
by BriggyDwiggs42 | 2025-06-14 18:18:56+00:00
I was gonna dig up the quote but found something even worse

>The Daily Beast first reported that Stallman wrote in 2003, "I think that everyone age 14 or above ought to take part in sex, though not indiscriminately. (Some people are ready earlier.)" In 2006, he wrote, "I am skeptical of the claim that voluntarily [sic] pedophilia harms children. The arguments that it causes harm seem to be based on cases which aren't voluntary, which are then stretched by parents who are horrified by the idea that their little baby is maturing."

I actually think this is a perfect example of lacking empathy. Stallman is a great developer, but can’t seem to wrap his head around the way such relationships can be immensely traumatic for a person, even if they think they agree to it as a kid.
by aquafox | 2025-06-14 18:18:56+00:00
Could someone maybe give a high-level explanation into why commercial ILP solvers (e.g. Gurobi) are that much better than free/open-source ones? Is it because ILP is inherently that difficult to solve (I know it's NP-hard), that the best solvers are just a large ensemble of heuristics for very specific sub-problems and thus no general "good" strategy has made it's way into the public domain?
by jijijijij | 2025-06-14 18:18:57+00:00
There is this popular video of a crow repeatedly riding down a snow covered roof on a piece of plastic, basically snowboarding. Seemingly just for fun/play.

For me, it's hard to imagine how such behavior could be expressed without the pure conscious experience of abstract joy and anticipation thereof. It's not the sort of play, which may prepare a young animal for the specific challenges of their species (e.g. hunting, or fighting). I don't think you could snowboard on a piece of bark or something. Maybe ice, but not repeatedly by dragging it up the hill again. It's an activity greatly inspired by man-made, light and smooth materials, novelties considering evolutionary timescales. May even be inspired by observing humans...

I think it's all there, but the question about degree of ability vs. qualitative difference may be moot. I mean, trivially there is a continuous evolutionary lineage of "feature progression", unless we would expect our extend of consciousness being down to "a single gene". But it's also moot, because evolutionary specialization may as well be as fundamental a difference as the existence of a whole new organ. E.g. the energy economics of a bird are restricted by gravity. We wouldn't see central nervous systems without the evolutionary legacy of predation -> movement -> directionality -> sensory concentration at the front. And we simply cannot relate to solitary animals (who just don't care about love and friendship)... Abilities are somewhat locked-in by niche and physics constraints.

I think the fundamental difference between humans and animals, is the degree of freedom we progressively gained over the environment, life, death and reproduction. Of course we are governed by the wider idea of evolution like all matter, but in the sense of classical theory we don't really have a specific niche, except "doing whatever with our big, expensive brain". I mean, we're at a point where we play meta-evolution in the laboratory. This freedom may have brought extended universality into cognition. Energy economics, omnivorous diet, bipedal walking, hands with freely movable thumbs, language, useful lifespan, ... I think the sum of all these make the difference. In some way, I think we are like we are, exactly because we are like that. Getting here wasn't guided by plans and abstractions.

If it's a concert of all the things in our past and present, we may never find a simpler line between us and the crow, yet we are fundamentally different.
by mcepl | 2025-06-14 18:19:20+00:00
I don’t think it is that simple. Itanium was for years supported for example by RHEL (including GCC working of course, if anybody cared enough they could invest into optimising that), it is not like the whole fiasco happened in one moment. No, Itanium was genuinely a bad design, which never got fixed, because it apparently couldn’t be.
by bigstrat2003 | 2025-06-14 18:19:29+00:00
> Look at John Romero, he knocked it out of the park with Doom 1, 2 and some of Quake, but all his projects after have been flops of catastrophic proportions.

And the other guys from id haven't exactly recaptured the same magic either. It's a shame they broke up, it turns out that the team was way stronger together than any of them has been on their own.
by beret4breakfast | 2025-06-14 18:19:50+00:00
It feels like there’s a significant lack of “ML/AI” based approaches applied to these kinds of problems. I’ve seen a lot of example of RL/GNN papers that do attempt to solve smaller problems but it always feels like the best option is to just pay for a gurobi license and have at it. I’ve been doing some scheduling optimisation recently (close to job shop scheduling) and while there’s some examples of using RL they just don’t seem to cut it. I’ve resorted to evolutionary algorithms to get reasonable solutions to some big problems. Maybe it’s just always more efficient to using OR type approaches when you can formulate the problem well.
Ask HN: Will LLMs Replace "Google" as Our Default Search Verb?
by arkj | 2025-06-14 18:19:55+00:00
Ask HN: Will LLMs Replace "Google" as Our Default Search Verb?

It took Google a decade to become a verb. As for LLMs, it's not even 3 years since the big bang, but it's begging for a new verb. Here are some sentences; which ones look natural to the community?

She ChatGPTed the quarterly report. He Geminied through legal jargon. They Llamafied raw research papers. We DeepSeeked for hidden equations. The code was Clauded for a poetic touch. Colorless green ideas Grokked furiously.

What does the HN community think? Will LLMs replace Google as our default verb, or will we see a different pattern emerge? Personally, I feel Grok got the name right for a verb.

Note: In my own time tracking, last week I spent 22h 25m in the browser, of which I spent 2h 7m with LLMs (mostly ChatGPT) and only 33m on Google. Often, it feels like an axiom: the clarity of the answer is proportional to the clarity of the question.