MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by mackenziebowes | 2025-06-15 00:55:30+00:00
You can forward user keys to OpenAI on behalf of a user as a dev.

Maybe there’s a world where it’s like bring your own keys and pay $3-$5 for my UX work and could rental delivering that to you.

I also see a world where web app devs shift to distributing free self hosted versions of products; new tools like CLAY make transitioning from web dev UI to local GUI pretty easy :)
by jibal | 2025-06-15 00:55:45+00:00
"Intelligence, as I understand the concept, logically requires properties such as volition and self-awareness, which in turn require life."

It doesn't logically require that and you can't provide any sort of logical argument for the claim. And what the heck is "life"? Biologists have a 7-prong definition, and most of those prongs are not needed for intelligence, "volition" whatever the heck that is, or self-awareness.
by goochphd | 2025-06-15 01:00:08+00:00
I was about to say "they still torture students this way" but stopped myself when I remembered I took Circuits 1 and 2 back in 2007. So maybe my knowledge is dated too...

It's a weird butterfly effect moment in my career though. I had an awesome professor for circuits 1, and ended up switching majors to EE after that. Then got two more degrees on top of the bachelor's
by Ferret7446 | 2025-06-15 01:01:19+00:00
> Click and click is slower than click+drag, it’s just obviously two extra movements (a full extra press and an extra release).

From a pure physics standpoint, maybe, but humans aren't ideal physics actuators. Your muscles' ability to fire, your nerves' ability to fire, and your brain's ability to drive those (and also recover from each action) affects the dynamics.

In particular, your ability to precisely release heavily obstructs your hypothesis. There's a reason that sharpshooting guns still fire on trigger pull and not on trigger release.

Imagine a game where you need to precisely hit many targets quickly, and you can either click on a target or release a click on a target. You will be much more precise and quick only clicking even though you're doing "extra movements" releasing between each.
by dmurray | 2025-06-15 01:01:48+00:00
Yes, it seems like the same method (a thin polymer mask of which a computer record exists) could be used in a completely human-driven process. Just allowing restorers to try a few different things to see what works would probably speed up their process immensely.

There's probably some other grant money they can get down the line for a completely AI-less process, but obviously there's a lot more funding for AI than for art restoration.
by jibal | 2025-06-15 01:02:42+00:00
It's not a "pop culture" interpretation, it's what Turing actually wrote in his 1950 paper "Computing Machinery and Intelligence" where he described his "imitation game", first framing it as a man trying to convince judges that he, not a woman he was competing against, was the woman. It was all about human perception--if some large fraction of human judges were fooled then the man (or the computer, in the shifted version of a computer trying to convince judges that it was the human) won. And the computer winning was operationally defined as the computer being able to think. The flaws in this are glaring.
by halostatue | 2025-06-15 01:02:57+00:00
In practice, investigations tend to find the results for which the investigation was started. At the beginning of the article, it was also suggested that such investigations in Amsterdam found no higher rate of actual fraud amongst the groups which were targeted more frequently via implicit bias by human reviewers.

In North America, we know that white people use hard drugs at a slightly higher rate than non-whites. However, the arrest and conviction rate of hard drug users is multiples higher for non-white people than whites. (I mention North America because similar data exist for both Canada and the USA, but the exact ratios and which groups are negatively impacted differ.)

Similarly, when it comes to accusations of welfare fraud, there is substantial bias in the investigations of non-whites and there are deep-seated racist stereotypes (thanks for that, Reagan) that don't hold up to scrutiny especially when the proportion of welfare recipients is slightly higher amongst whites than amongst non-whites[1].

So…saying that the goal is to avoid penalizing people for [innate characteristics] is more correct and a better use of time. The city of Amsterdam already knew that its fraud investigations were flawed.

[1] In the US based on 2022 data, https://www.census.gov/library/stories/2022/05/who-is-receiv... shows that excluding Medicaid/CHIP, the rate of welfare is higher for whites.
by mackenziebowes | 2025-06-15 01:03:55+00:00
Most startups are massively over capexed, yea.

I think it’s still reasonable for solo devs or polymaths to shoot for solving small $5-$10/mo problems. Finding 1000 folks for $10/mo out of all 1,000,000,000 in anglosphere countries seems not hard, it just doesn’t make you a millionaire or afford staff.
by jesuslop | 2025-06-15 01:07:08+00:00
If all you mind is the EE curriculum then ok. Or else there is an interesting work of Gerald Westendorp on the web [1] on how allowing other classical passive components (Ls & Cs) you can get discretizations (and hence alternative views) of a very wide class of iconic Physics partial differential equations (to the point that the question is more what cannot be fit to this technique). G. W. is alive and kicking in mathstodon.

[1] https://westy31.nl/Electric.html
by bluGill | 2025-06-15 01:07:10+00:00
Nobody else knows how it works, which is why every configure script checks for a working fortran compiler. that is also why you can never be sure things like cross compiling work even though it can.

i use cmake - not a great system but at least it isn't hard and it always works. I've heard good things about a few others as well. There is no reason to use autotools.
by chongli | 2025-06-15 01:09:48+00:00
It's especially weird argument considering that LLMs are already ahead of humans in Tower of Hanoi

No one cares about Towers of Hanoi. Nor do they care about any other logic puzzles like this. People want AIs that solve novel problems for their businesses. The kind of problems regular business employees solve every single day yet LLMs make a mess of.

The purpose of the Apple paper is not to reveal the fact that LLMs routinely fail to solve these problems. Everyone who uses them already knows this. The paper is an argument for why this happens (lack of reasoning skills).

No number of demonstrations of LLMs solving well-known logic puzzles (or other problems humans have already solved) will prove reasoning. It's not interesting at all to solve a problem that humans have already solved (with working software to solve every instance of the problem).
by hnburnsy | 2025-06-15 01:10:08+00:00
>The article is a bit vague on some points

Yeah, it even starts with...

"a disinformation network that promotes pro-Russian narratives and infiltrates Europe’s media landscape by pushing fake news through a network of cloned website"

But doesn't give any examples of this happening and goes off on tangents like Switzerland, Dating sites, traffic monetization, and Breaking Bad
by userbinator | 2025-06-15 01:10:22+00:00
No, unreal mode was not the state at reset, at least as far as I know (my knowledge of the details ends around the time of the 3rd-generation i7.) Disassembling from the reset vector of any reset BIOS can confirm/deny whether that's still the case; notably, InsydeH2O BIOS enters unreal mode in around a dozen instructions from the reset vector.
by jibal | 2025-06-15 01:10:42+00:00
LLMs have no intelligence or problem solving skills and don't use tools. What they do is statistically pattern match a prompt against a vast set of tokenized utterances by humans, who do have intelligence and complex problem solving skills. If the LLM's training data were the writings of a billion monkeys banging on typewriters, any appearance of intelligence and problem solving skills would disappear.
by jart | 2025-06-15 01:10:43+00:00
MacOS security has been making the platform unfriendly to developers in a similar way that Windows has since Vista.

Is Bazel using Landlock LSM yet for sandboxing? That's what I use with GNU Make and it's great. Nothing is faster.

The downside is it requires ~3 syscalls per file. If only I could send it all the mappings at once like you did.
by iwontberude | 2025-06-15 01:12:05+00:00
So why don't you catch up with the evolution for a moment? Just like language evolved in Silicon Valley to use uber as a verb during the mid 2010s, it has quickly devolved out of it especially as uber the company has become irrelevant.

I dont know anyone using it as a verb. I hear "im calling/ordering/taking an waymo/uber/lyft/taxi" in 2025.
by Workaccount2 | 2025-06-15 01:13:26+00:00
What gets me, and the author talks about it in the post, is that people will readily attribute correct answers to "its in the training set" but nobody says anything about incorrect answers that are in the training set. LLMs get stuff in the training set wrong all the time, but nobody uses it as evidence that it probably can't lean too hard on it's memorization for complex questions it does get right.

It puts LLMs in an impossible position; if they are right, they memorized it, if they are wrong, they cannot reason.
by ComplexSystems | 2025-06-15 01:14:13+00:00
I am not sure I follow and it is possible I may not be on the same wavelength, but here is another thought.

For any sentence S, if first-order PA (or any first-order theory) proves S, then that means that S holds true in every model of that theory, via the completeness (not incompleteness) theorem.

The statement "PA proves x" is equivalent to saying "there exists a natural number N which is a Gödel number encoding a proof of x." The letter "x", here, is a natural number that is assumed to encode some sentence we want to prove, that is, x = #S for some sentence S.

The above is a predicate with one existential quantifier: Provable(x) = there exists N such that IsProof(N, x) holds true, where IsProof says that N is the Gödel number of a valid proof ending in x.

If PA proves "Provable(x)", that means that the predicate "Provable(x)" holds in every model of PA. This means every model of PA would have some natural number N that satisfies IsProof(N, x). Of course, this number can vary from model to model.

However: the standard model, which has only standard natural numbers, is also another model of PA. So if PA proves "Provable(x)," and Provable(x) thus holds in every model, it must also hold in the standard model of PA. This means that there must be a regular, standard, finite natural number N_st that encodes a proof of x.

Since the standard model is an initial segment of every other model of PA, then every other model includes the standard model and all the standard natural numbers. Thus, if PA proves Provable(x), then the standard number N_st must exist in all models.

So we cannot have a situation where PA proves Provable(x) but all proofs of x must be nonstandard and infinite in length. This would mean no such proof exists in the standard model of PA - but then, via completeness, PA would not be able to prove "Provable(x)".
by genocidicbunny | 2025-06-15 01:15:01+00:00
It is absolutely also about genders too.

I get a tingle in my balls? Here's an expedited ultrasound that we can do tomorrow. We can get you in for a blood test for cancer markers in two days.

My whole pelvis hurts when I have my period? Here's a motrin and an ibuprofen. Come back if it doesn't stop bleeding after a few days.

Like an effervescent abscess, the difference in treatment between males and females remains to this day. It's not even particularly hard to find female doctors that will outright dismiss symptoms in female patients because that's what they were taught.
by mackenziebowes | 2025-06-15 01:16:28+00:00
I ask ChatGPT o3 for “how do I” primers on new concepts then use my cmd+i keybind in vs code whenever I forget syntax for doing something like Object.entries(map.entries()).map().

I feel like it’s pretty low tech, but I’m very happy with it. I’m getting exposure to new concepts in a very low friction way and sailing through tasks in a satisfying way.

I think coding agents are… not quite a psyop, but a marketing egregore designed to sell as many tokens as possible to non technical folks. I often don’t get what I ask for or things I’m embarrassed to put my name on when I let an agent do it’s thing.

I do load up the Claude Code CLI for documenting my stuff when I’m done, my backlog has a todo that’s basically using Block’s Goose + local R1 for that kind of thing because it’s a non-interactive batch job.
by ryandrake | 2025-06-15 01:17:13+00:00
> I'm skeptical we save a lot of time with our technology-mediated world. I think I could say "one medium pizza with pepperoni" and hear back "ok it'll be ready in 20 minutes" on a phone call quicker than I can put that order in with a device.

Apps could beat this in terms of speed, but they don't seem to prioritize it. Every native app and web app I have ever used to do any kind of commerce (not just ordering food) is a grind of tap this, wait, tap that, wait, tap to enter your username, tap to enter your password, tap, tap, tap, wait, wait, wait, do you want these deals?, tap, wait, tap to enter credit card number, tap to enter expiration date, tap to enter ccv code, confirm order, wait, processing, wait...

I should be able to just invoke my phone's voice assistant function, say "one medium pizza with pepperoni, pick up" and that's it. It already knows where I am, what my usual pizza joint is, what I use to pay, all that. But, we're not there yet for some reason.
by bbor | 2025-06-15 01:18:07+00:00
As I said, this is literally the only thing I can be 100% sure exists.

How can you be 100% confident something exists if you don't even know what it is? That's literally impossible, on a logical level. You can't hold a belief about a concept you don't have -- it would be like a pointer to memory that doesn't exist (i.e. useless, invalid, and erroneous).

Certainly you're aware of things. There are some relevant phenomenological concepts that you hold beliefs about, just like there were real symptoms being described by the Humours system. But you have no justification for bundling them all together into something called "consciousness", which coincidentally comes packed with other, completely unproven assertions.
by bsder | 2025-06-15 01:18:10+00:00
> It's interesting how American cultural expectations of forced social interaction may be having the effect of promoting automated systems as a reaction.

That's not it. The issue is that it is FAR easier for me to interact with automation than some completely incompetent service worker.

Yes, I get it. The service jobs pay so poorly that nobody competent wants to work them. However, at the end of the day, I simply want to accomplish my task and get going. For example, if you're drunk or stoned off your ass, to pick a totally random (not) example, you're probably in my way.

Because of general levels of incompetence, automated systems are quite often better than most service workers I'm interacting with. Additionally, the service worker probably is limited to the same authority as me ie. totally unable to help because they are completely stuck with the same shitty web interface to solve my problem as I am.
by ordu | 2025-06-15 01:18:20+00:00
> The solution should not be to change the data but educate that group to change their behavior.

1. This is easier to say than to do.

2. In reality what you see is a correlation. If you try to educate all 20 year old females to not become a connected to organized crime CEOs of construction companies, your efforts will be wasted with 99% of these people, because they are either not connected to organized crime or are not going to become CEOs. Moreover the very your efforts will lead to a discrimination of 20 years old females, if not due to public perception of them, then because you've just increased difficulties for them of becoming a CEO.

> The goal is to identify and flag fraud cases.

Not quite. The goal is to reduce the amount of fraud cases. To identify and flag is a method of achieving that goal. But policymakers has a lot of other goals, like avoiding discrimination or reducing rate of murders. By focusing on one goal policymakers might undermine other goals.

As a side (almost methaphisical) note: it is one of the reason, why techies are bad at social problems. Their math education taught them to ignore all irrelevant details, when dealing with a problem, but society is a big complex system where everything is connected, so in general you can't ignore anything, because everything is relevant. But education have the upper hand, so techies tend to throw away as much complexity as it is needed to make the problem solvable. They will never accept that they don't know how to solve a problem.
by JumpCrisscross | 2025-06-15 01:18:23+00:00
> Aren’t you PE?

No. VC.

> Just look up the lawsuits bro

Can you name one? I’ve been in a single taxi accident. Liability was never even questionably mine.

> don’t think Google or Tesla will take on that liability once we get to scale

Based on what? Centralising liability tends to facilitate its transfer.
by jerf | 2025-06-15 01:18:25+00:00
I can tell you've not been involved in defending against an active attack. You, as the defender, do not get to play the game of "well, if I squint and read it that way, that attack wouldn't work". The attackers get to play "well, hey, if it turns out I do this and that and push it through the other thing, I get access". They are the ones who get to flow through any crack they can find. They are the ones who get to do logic chopping like you're trying to do. You don't get to argue "Well gosh, that team shouldn't have left that one permission open on that one system, that's not a best practice, if they'd followed best practices 100% of the time the attackers couldn't have gotten in...". Your job is to pick up the pieces.
by aspenmayer | 2025-06-15 01:20:02+00:00
Greyball[0] is an interesting solution to a usually intractable problem while freebooting, how to prevent avoidable contact with interested parties, to the degree of identifying and tracking said parties. I’m surprised In-Q-Tel never made an investment, as these kinds of dual-use products and services are in their wheelhouse.

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Controversies_surrounding_Uber...
by mlinhares | 2025-06-15 01:20:15+00:00
Its as if every single person had to be an expert in every field to be able to function, that's really not a thing and we expect the actual experts to know how to extract the needed information.

That's one of the main differences between mediocre and incredible engineers, being able to figure out what the problem that needs to be solved is and not work on whatever a stakeholder asks them to build.
by yndoendo | 2025-06-15 01:21:49+00:00
Take all human knowledge as a whole pie. Out of that is, the experts only know 1/100 of a slice. We maybe experts in some minute context, yet there are so many that know so much more when removed from that context.

Or rephrased, that Person who has to deal with something 80 percent of their life knows more than the person having to deal with it 20 percent of their life.
by phil21 | 2025-06-15 01:21:50+00:00
I pretty much just use it to book black cars these days - at least in my local city where those require licensed livery drivers. Good experience there for the most part. Most of the time I’m using Uber it’s either a business expense to the airport or I’m booking for a large party anyways.

That and I guess UberXL - otherwise it’s pretty fungible.

The interesting bit is that black is often pretty much the same price a UberX about a third of the time.
by dlcarrier | 2025-06-15 01:23:37+00:00
In my neighborhood, children still play in the street. It's a small 80 acre unincorporated neighborhood completely surrounded by two otherwise bordering cities, so most of the streets dead end, with through traffic on only one street along the edge of the neighborhood. This probably helps a lot. Also, it's old enough that more houses don't have sidewalks than do, and the streets are wide, so everyone walks on the streets anyway, making it less awkward to have children running around on them.
by nradov | 2025-06-15 01:25:35+00:00
Nonsense. The clinicians working in the healthcare system have zero incentive to keep patients chronically ill. This isn't a matter of keeping patients coming back: most doctors already have more workload than they can even handle.

Most chronic diseases are primarily caused by lifestyle choices. This is largely outside the scope of medical practice. A doctor can prescribe metformin to treat type-2 diabetes and a statin to reduce cholesterol but they can't force you to clean up your diet and get some exercise.

https://peterattiamd.com/outlive/
by ddq | 2025-06-15 01:27:20+00:00
Yes, a lot of us feel the same way. It's clear to me the next step is for us to start coming together, grouping up and sharing our ideas. I read on the internet every single day people expressing these feelings and for some reason we remain impotent and helpless when we could be uniting and inventing. Where is the will? I can only hope it's simply happening outside the scope of my vision. But it really needs to be happening faster.

We are coming face to face with the concept of exponential growth itself. Humanity versus the feedback loop. And it will take coordinated genius to best such a naturally powerful foe.
by pixl97 | 2025-06-15 01:27:23+00:00
Guess we'll have to wait for an actual answer on dark energy and universal expansion.

What it collapses into depends on the time for the bits to coalesce into. If it's a slow collapse you could get a mass large enough to form a neutron star (like thing) instead of black holes.

If those neutron stars crash into each other they can release a large amount of 'recycled' matter from all over the atomic spectrum back into this universe.
by NoahZuniga | 2025-06-15 01:29:46+00:00
I feel like most other comments are missing something important, the o3-pro thought process you see in the chatgpt ui is a summary. So although the model might think in different languages, the summary (presumably done by a different model) will translate it into your UI language. It seems like this summarization AI messed up, and gave you some text in a different language.
by magicalhippo | 2025-06-15 01:29:56+00:00
I just skimmed through parts of the video as I'm about to head to bed, but at least the bits I listened to sounded more like arguing for why 24bit audio isn't necessary for playback, 16bit will do just fine.

Back in the days I made ray tracers and such, and going from an internal SDR representation to an internal HDR representation was a complete game changer, especially for multiple reflections. That was a decade or more before any consumer HDR monitors were released, so it was all tonemapped to SDR before displaying.

That said, I would really like to see his two monitors display something with really high dynamic range. From the stills I saw in the video, they all seemed quite limited.

Anyway, something to watch fully tomorrow, perhaps he addresses this.
by 0xbadcafebee | 2025-06-15 01:30:52+00:00
Say you want to pick up some groceries. In most US cities there is no nearby small market; in some cities there are, but it varies widely. So either you can get takeout, or you can go from 1 (median) to 2.6 (average) miles to a grocery store. You could bike, but most US cities don't have good bike infrastructure (and let's face it, we're lazy). If there is public transit it's slow and unreliable.

Rideshare prices can also be 2x more expensive depending on the city. One city's average price is $7, another's is $17. Some cities are more compact, some are more spread out, some have fewer drivers, some have more, some have a lower cost of living, some higher, some have more suburban drivers, some fewer.