MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by simonw | 2025-06-26 21:19:31+00:00
> US standards for copyrightability require human creativity and model weights likely don’t have the right kind of human creativity in them to be copyrightable in the US. No court to my knowledge has ruled on the question as yet, but that’s the US Copyright Office’s official stance.

Has the US copyright office said that about model weights? I've only heard them saying that about images produced entirely from a prompt to a model.
by serbuvlad | 2025-06-26 21:19:32+00:00
I live in Romania so I have different problems. I understand that Americans have problems with rent and healthcare. We have problem with other stuff, like food prices.

But at the end of the day, it's extremely unhealthy to let these problems force us into feeling like we have to make a lot of money. You can find cheap solutions for almost everything almost everywhere if you compromise.
by refulgentis | 2025-06-26 21:20:17+00:00
> Mostly because 3P support has not been a engineering priority.

Got it: assuming you're at Google, in eng. parlance, it's okay if it's not Prioritized™ but then product/marketing/whoever shouldn't be publishing posts around the premise it's running 60 fps multimodal experiences on device.

They're very, very, lucky that ratio of people vaguely interested in this, to people follow through on using it, is high, so comments like mine end up at -1.
by m_dupont | 2025-06-26 21:20:31+00:00
Small piece of product feeback related to grammar:

The landing page asks, how are you feeling? For which the possible responses are "Anxiety", "Procrastination" ... "Overwhelm".

When a person says, I a X, X is always an adjective. One doesn't say "I am Irritability" one says "I am irritable".

All of these options are nouns, except for "Overwhelm" which is actually only a verb but is being used incorrectly as a noun.

The correct responses would be "Anxious", "Hyperactive", "Overwhelmed", "Irritable".

Except for "Procrastination", which doesn't have any associated adjective. You might need to rephrase the whole header
by botro | 2025-06-26 21:20:39+00:00
Thanks for sharing your real world experience, it helps in seeing how regular folk are affected by policy decisions.

I understand from your post that you are a business person, buying product, performing value added services and selling for profit. Although I know little about business, I would guess that if one of your suppliers raised the prices on one of the inputs to your finished goods, you would likely increase the price of your product to preserve your profits and continue your business as a venture. I would guess that you would not pay the additional cost out of your own pocket.

My question is; why did you not expect the same logic to play out in the tariffs situation? That any country would pay the additional cost of doing business out of their own pocket and not pass it on to the consumer?
by nullc | 2025-06-26 21:20:40+00:00
> It’s only homogenizing your thoughts if you don’t think for yourself.

Uh oh...

More seriously, if you have non-techie (or less techie) friends or family using ChatGPT please ask to see their conversations.

You're likely to be shocked by at a least few of them... many people really don't understand what these tools are and are using them in crazy and damaging ways.

For example, one friends brother in law has his ChatGPT telling him about varrious penny stocks and obscure cryptocurrencies and promising him 10000x returns, which he absolutely believes and is making investments based on.

Other people are allowing ChatGPT to convince them that God has chosen to speak to them through ChatGPT and is commanding them to do all sorts of nonsense.

The commercial LLMs work well enough that people who don't know how they work are frequently bamboozled.

Consider how much your own skepticism of the output comes from cases where it was confidently but objectively wrong and what happens to someone who never uses it on something where objective correctness can be easily judged.
by vlovich123 | 2025-06-26 21:21:02+00:00
Sure, such "optimizers" exist already and are well deployed in the field but I've not seen anything that makes runtime decisions about every for loops within a program; these are developers applying their domain knowledge to say "it's important to parallelize here" and the framework has capabilities to do so efficiently because the workload can leverage it.

I'm not saying it'll never happen, but to apply it to every for loop is very different from a framework that speeds up a kind of pattern (which as I said is already a thing). The vast majority of loops don't benefit from this which is why you don't see #openmp pragmas on top of every for loop. The gains are likely minimal from doing it for every loop, you can introduce serious performance regressions when you guess wrong because you don't know about the data pattern within the loop (e.g. you introduce cache contention because the multiple threads end up writing to the same cache line), & most loops don't benefit from parallelization in the first place meaning you're doing a lot of work for no benefit. Maybe bad timing but my hunch is that I'm unlikely to see something like this in my lifetime.
by lcnPylGDnU4H9OF | 2025-06-26 21:21:08+00:00
> especially

The problem with shallow dismissals in general is that it is a low bar for a comment. The problem with shallow dismissals in the context of someone else's work is that it's invalidating something which should be celebrated. They're both problems for different reasons. A comment explaining why one thinks the quote is ridiculous is more substantive than simply laughing at it.
by beanshadow | 2025-06-26 21:21:23+00:00
Differing individuals with similarly shaped axiomatic structures will discover similar theorems. Some people that are members of ideologies believe they are thinking just for themselves.

It's strong for members of a community to think alike. On the other hand, some people like to search in todash meme space for a useful idea or strategy in the rough. Problem is this treasure hunter strategy is only available to those with resources to try lots of untested and potentially quite harmful ideas.
by ChadNauseam | 2025-06-26 21:21:47+00:00
That the type system is responsible for rust's slow builds is a common and enduring myth. `cargo check` (which just does typechecking) is actually usually pretty fast. Most of the build time is spent in the code generation phase. Some macros do cause problems as you mention, since the code that contains the macro must be compiled before the code that uses it, so they reduce parallelism.
by stego-tech | 2025-06-26 21:22:10+00:00
The problem in the case of AI is who is curating that homogeneity, and to what end. Dynamic systems like IRC and messengers let folks connect and gravitate more “naturally”, while AI - being a walled garden curated by for-profit entities funded by billionaire Capitalists - naturally have a vested interest in forcing a sort of homogeneity that benefits their bottom line and minimizes risk to their business model.

That’s the real threat: reality authoring.
by com2kid | 2025-06-26 21:22:24+00:00
People now days don't understand how genius MS was in the 90s.

Their strategy and execution was insanely good, and I doubt we'll ever see anything so comprehensive ever again.

1. Clear mission statement: A PC in very house.

2. A nationwide training + certification program for software engineers and system admins across all of Microsoft's tooling

3. Programming lessons in schools and community centers across the country to ensure kids got started using MS tooling first

4. Their developer operations divisions was an insane powerhouse, they had an army of in house technical writers creating some of the best documentation that has ever existed. Microsoft contracted out to real software engineering companies to create fully fledged demo apps to show off new technologies, these weren't hello world sample apps, they were real applications that had months of effort and testing put into them.

5. Because the internet wasn't a distribution platform yet, Microsoft mailed out huge binders of physical CDs with sample code, documentation, and dev editions of all their software.

6. Microsoft hired the top technical writers to write books on the top MS software stacks and SDKs.

7. Their internal test labs had thousands upon thousands of manual testers whose job was to run through manual tests of all the most popular software, dating back a decade+, ensuring it kept working with each new build of Windows.

8. Microsoft pressed PC OEMs to lower prices again and again. MS also put their weight behind standards like AC'97 to further drop costs.

9. Microsoft innovated relentlessly, from online gaming to smart TVs to tablets. Microsoft was an early entrant in a ton of fields. The first Windows tablet PC was in 1991! Microsoft tried to make smart TVs a thing before there was any content, or even wide spread internet adoption (oops). They created some of the first e-readers, the first multimedia PDAs, the first smart infotainment systems, and so on and so forth.

And they did all this with a far leaner team than what they have now!

(IIRC the Windows CE kernel team was less than a dozen people!)
by tim333 | 2025-06-26 21:22:58+00:00
>The push to adopt AI is, at its core, a political project of dehumanization

I can't really say I've seen that. The article seems to be about adoption of AI in the Canadian public sector, not something I'm really familiar with as a Brit. The government here hopes to boost the economy with it and Hassabis at Deepmind hopes to advance science and cure diseases.

I think AI may well make the world more humane by dealing with a variety of our problems.
by Lerc | 2025-06-26 21:23:02+00:00
Why misleading?

I am advocating adopting methods of improvement rather than abandoning the persuit of beneficial results.

I think science was just a part of the solution to healthcare, much of the advance was also in what was considered allowable or ethical. There remains a great deal of harmful medical practices that are used today in places where regulation is weak.

Science has done little to stop those harms. The advances that led to the requirement for a scientific backing were social. That those practices persist in some places is not a scientific issue but a social one.
by forty | 2025-06-26 21:23:32+00:00
Since there was a lot of confusion in some people/president heads about VAT: this is more or less the equivalent of Sales Tax that you can have in the US. The rate is different depending on which country you are in (in France the main rate for most products is 20%).

If you are traveling or sell in Europe: in Europe, it is generally expected (or even mandatory) that customers are displayed the price all taxes included.
by nullc | 2025-06-26 21:23:50+00:00
It's worse because they're often more confident in the AI output than they ever were of the google results, and the results are not-infrequently-enough so bad that no human would have made that error. When they do doubt, they can ask, and the AI will often defend its dumb position -- especially when they explicitly ask it to counter the rebuttal they received.

Skepticism also seems to be reduced because we're armored against people telling us lies in their own self interest and against ours, while AI will make stuff up that benefits no one. (And even where it could benefit someone, people assume the AI isn't trying to benefit itself).
by maxwellg | 2025-06-26 21:23:56+00:00
On days I write code, I try to do one "cleanup" PR a day just to get myself warmed up. Sometimes it is removing a feature flag, sometimes it is rewriting a file to use some new standards like a better logger library or test pattern. None of this is ticketed work, and if something takes longer than ten minutes or so I drop it and work on whatever I was going to work on originally. Make (trivial) cleanups a fun treat and a break from real work and it is easier to get other people excited about them.

Of course, lately anything trivial I ask codex to do - but there is still fun in figuring out what trivial thing I should have it take on next.
by mariano54 | 2025-06-26 21:24:09+00:00
Our market is different - ISSEN is more focused on intermediate and advanced students, and especially those that are willing to use a more difficult app in order to learn faster.

Also, having the AI voice tutor as our main feature allows us to iterate quickly, and be well positioned for future improvements in AI models.

As for marketing and GTM, we're in the super early stages, and there is definitely a lot of competition out there, it won't be easy.
by refulgentis | 2025-06-26 21:24:20+00:00
My post politely describing this blog post does not match Google's own app, running inference on Pixel, is downvoted to -1, below dead posts with one-off short jokes.

I am posting again because I've been here 16 years now, it is very suspicious that happened, and given the replies to it, we now know this blog post is false.

There is no open model that you can download today and run at even 1% of the claims in the blog post.

You can read a reply from someone indicating they have inside knowledge on this, who notes this won't work as advertised unless you're Google (i.e. internally, they have it binding to a privileged system process that can access the Tensor core, and this isn't available to third parties. Anyone else is getting 1/100th of the speeds in the post)

This post promises $150K in prizes for on-device multimodal apps and tells you it's running at up to 60 fps, they know it runs at 0.1 fps, Engineering says it is because they haven't prioritized 3rd parties yet, and somehow, Google is getting away with this.
by haswell | 2025-06-26 21:24:49+00:00
> We should actively encourage fluidity in purpose

I don't think we should assume most people are capable of what you describe. Assigning "should" to this assumes what you're describing is psychologically tenable across a large population.

> too much rigidity or militant clinging to ideas is insecurity or attempts at absolving personal responsibility.

Or maybe some people have a singular focus in life and that's ok. And maybe we should be talking about the responsibility of the companies exploiting everyone's content to create these models, or the responsibility of government to provide relief and transition planning for people impacted, etc.

To frame this as a personal responsibility issue seems fairly disconnected from the reality that most people face. For most people, AI is something that is happening to them, not something they are responsible for.

And to whatever extent we each do have personal responsibility for our careers, this does not negate the incoming harms currently unfolding.
by duped | 2025-06-26 21:25:07+00:00
I think this is mostly a myth. If you look at Rust compiler benchmarks, while typechecking isn't _free_ it's also not the bottleneck.

A big reason that amalgamation builds of C and C++ can absolutely fly is because they aren't reparsing headers and generating exactly one object file so the linker has no work to do.

Once you add static linking to the toolchain (in all of its forms) things get really fucking slow.

Codegen is also a problem. Rust tends to generate a lot more code than C or C++, so while the compiler is done doing most of its typechecking work, the backend and assembler has a lot of things to chuck through.
by czhu12 | 2025-06-26 21:25:25+00:00
From what I understand from Econ 101, this is not true. The only reason you subtract imports is to avoid double counting because presumably the import was done by C, G or I.

The point of subtracting imports is so that it doesn't count as domestic production, and effectively zeros out the portion of C + G + I that was not produced domestically, but thats independent of how much is in exports.
by finnh | 2025-06-26 21:26:00+00:00
> Enabling allocation sampling profiling with a sampling period of 4 MB leads to a maximum time overhead of 25% in our benchmarks, over un-profiled regular execution

25% is not low overhead, but perhaps this example is the worse case and other tunings actually are low overhead. There's no exact definition I don't think, but anything much over 3% starts to feel like a lot of overhead to me.

Reading on:

> Our main technical insight is that the check whether an allocation should be sampled can be made free. This is done by folding it into the bump-pointer allocator check that PyPy’s GC uses to find out if it should start a minor collection. In this way the fast path with and without memory sampling are exactly the same.

That is cool, and means you only pay for the samples you produce = something you could leave enabled confidently, with a low-enough sample rate at least.
by whatevertrevor | 2025-06-26 21:26:04+00:00
I'm surprised you read my post and thought I was trying to say that using more public forums and less private chats will solve the so-called "human issue". My argument is not about making customer support more pleasant, or users less hostile. It's about making information more accessible so people can help themselves.

If we make information more accessible, support will reduce in volume. Currently there's a tendency for domain experts to hoard all relevant information in their heads, and dole it out at their discretion in various chat forums. Forums whose existence is often not widely known to begin with (not to mention gated behind making accounts in certain apps the users may or may not care about/want to).

So my point is: instead of trying to automate a decidedly bad solution to make it scalable and treating that as a selling point of AI, we could instead make the information more accessible in the first place?
by munificent | 2025-06-26 21:26:04+00:00
I don't think people feel like they have to make a lot of money.

I think they seek jobs and places to live that give them the maximum overall benefit. I currently live in Seattle, which is quite expensive.

If there was another city like Seattle with the same schools, healthcare, climate, and culture, but cheaper housing, I'd move there as long as the salaries there weren't so much lower that it more than canceled out the benefit of cheaper housing.

The problem in the US is that even though some cities are quite expensive, they are still overall the most economical choice for people who can get good jobs in those cities. The increased pay more than makes up for the higher prices.
by rjyoungling | 2025-06-26 21:26:19+00:00
accidentally entered vwww instead of www without noticing! Thanks for letting me know. https://vibeflirting.com/

Oh that's funny, I stumbled upon this a few weeks ago. Maybe via X? I like it. I think maybe a hot or not feature could be dope to help guys figure out which of their pics are most popular? Beautiful lander too btw man.. can't wait to be able to make stuff like that.
by HillRat | 2025-06-26 21:26:38+00:00
The class B bonds paid roughly 11% over LIBOR, so about 40% over three years, against the risk of a viral outbreak for five different families, defined as At least two countries experiencing at least 250 fatal cases increasing over twelve weeks, so the trigger did not have to be as globally-significant as COVID-19 turned out to be. That’s a pretty aggressive coupon, but the chance of a regional outbreak was also pretty high.
by lvl155 | 2025-06-26 21:26:59+00:00
This makes it sound like people are original and profound. No. 99% of day to day is just repetition. Critical thinking is innate and rare. This is why religion is such a successful social form. This is also why governments like North Korea exist. 99% live brain-dead lives doing uninspiring work…and they are happy to do it. Might also be the way we are designed and wired for survival.
by adamc | 2025-06-26 21:27:42+00:00
Because adopting having "doctors", for example, isn't really what made for better healthcare. We had doctors for centuries (arguably millenia) who were useful in very limited cases, and probably harmful most of the rest of the time. What made for better healthcare was changing the way we investigated problems.

That ultimately enabled "doctors" to be quite useful. But the fact that the "profession" existed earlier is not what allowed it to bloom.
by derefr | 2025-06-26 21:27:56+00:00
I've wondered about this for a while now (where e.g. some models of HuggingFace require clickwrap license agreements to download, that try to prohibit you from using the model in certain ways.)

It seems to me that if some anonymous ne'er-do-well were to publicly re-host the model files for separate download; and you acquired the files from that person, rather than from Google; then you wouldn't be subject to their license, as you never so much as saw the clickwrap.

(And you wouldn't be committing IP theft by acquiring it from that person, either, because of the non-copyrightability.)

I feel that there must be something wrong with that logic, but I can't for the life of me think of what it is.
by Eddy_Viscosity2 | 2025-06-26 21:28:15+00:00
There are absolutely situations were there can be constitutional ambiguity and in those cases, that can be taken into account by courts when assessing liability. Like if it was reasonable for a person in that position to assume they were acting in accordance with the law, then the court can find they aren't liable.

The problem is that pre-assigning blanket immunity means that government officials can (and do) knowingly violate people's rights because there is no penalty for doing so.
by tolerance | 2025-06-26 21:28:25+00:00
This headline is infuriating and the content is just a report on that one study that's been making the rounds on Hacker News all week.

AI chat bots enable passive consumption. Passive consumption homogenizes thought. It's not the only technology to do this.

I suspect that The New Yorker, and similar outlets, will stop caring when it becomes financially and socially advantageous to do so.

A culture that is ambivalent or disinterested in providing practical solutions to this problem is the greater issue.
by simonw | 2025-06-26 21:28:26+00:00
I tried my "Generate an SVG of a pelican riding a bicycle" prompt against Gemma 3n 7.5GB from Ollama and 15GB for mlx-vlm and got a pleasingly different result for the two quantization sizes: https://simonwillison.net/2025/Jun/26/gemma-3n/
by dragonwriter | 2025-06-26 21:28:43+00:00
> ComfyUI which can already run Flux and presumably will have native support for Kontext (dev) within a week or so

This was pessimistic, native support today, with workflow and pointer to an alternate fp8 model download for people that can't run the full fp16 checkpoint.

https://comfyanonymous.github.io/ComfyUI_examples/flux/#flux...
by cogman10 | 2025-06-26 21:28:59+00:00
Yes but I'd also add that Go specifically does not optimize well.

The compiler is optimized for compilation speed, not runtime performance. Generally speaking, it does well enough. Especially because it's usecase is often applications where "good enough" is good enough (IE, IO heavy applications).

You can see that with "gccgo". Slower to compile, faster to run.
by codingdave | 2025-06-26 21:29:01+00:00
Networking bottlenecks are not always on your box - they could be on the router your box is talking to. Or, depending on load, the ethernet packets themselves could be crowding the physical subnet. Do you have a way to mock 500 users playing the game that would truly keep all the traffic internal to your OS? Because if that works, but the lag persists for real players, the problem is external to your OS.
by davesque | 2025-06-26 21:29:08+00:00
I'm not usually a fan of progressive politics, but I thought Bernie Sanders made a great point the other day when he simply asked why adoption of AI would lead to layoffs instead of a 4-day work week. I don't think the question is naive. There really doesn't seem to be any good reason why the value of AI technology couldn't be distributed this way today, only that the people in charge of it don't want to do that, because they are so accustomed to claiming value instead of sharing it.