MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by magicalhippo | 2025-07-09 00:35:50+00:00
> Maybe building syntethic questions and answers around the dataset yields better results but I didn't have time to experiment with that approach.

While they answer a slightly different question in the Physics of Language Models[1], based on their results it seems to me it is likely that one needs to do such augmentation of the dataset to get good results.

However, they also show that the dataset the base model is trained on can drastically affect finetuning performance. So if the base model is trained on a poor dataset for your specific task, perhaps you'll never get good performance.

[1]: https://physics.allen-zhu.com/part-3-knowledge/part-3-1
by datewithtango | 2025-07-09 00:36:20+00:00
Inexperienced founders wanting to build a dating app is practically a meme. Alexandr Wang said as much in his recent interview on the Lightcone Podcast (it represents having “a very poor sense of Alpha” in his words).

We thought through the commonly cited reasons for why it’s a bad idea to build a dating app and how they apply to our app in this X post.

We decided it’s worth trying. Are we wrong?
by nomel | 2025-07-09 00:37:26+00:00
I intentionally referenced their comment to make it clear, to you, that perfection is their twice stated requirement, even with a charitable interpretation. Here they are again:

> in a sane world the folks that run ChatGPT would be falling over themselves to be sure it didn’t happen again

> If “don’t hallucinate” is too much to ask then ethics flew out the window long ago.

Neither of those ("didn't happen again" and "don't hallucinate") are logically ambiguous or flexible. I can only respond to what they wrote.
by simonw | 2025-07-09 00:38:44+00:00
SQL injection and XSS both have fixes that are 100% guaranteed to work against every possible attack.

If you make a mistake in applying those fixes, you will have a security hole. When you spot that hole you can close it up and now you are back to 100% protection.

You can't get that from defenses that use AI models trained on examples.
by gsf_emergency_2 | 2025-07-09 00:38:55+00:00
Oh no, the cavalry scared off Paul I think :(

some times I can't even begin parsing what you mean :) it scares me a little, but also thrilling-- like very very abstract BDSM? Hope that's reciprocal :)

Which means: I see value in your (rhetorical?) questions.. because .. I still sense deep unease? (Pardon the manic schizo)

Like you always say, & I try to hold to heart: a problem worth its salt must bite back. You nibbled, but confronting the nature of (emergent society-wide) "sadism"(?) that is still somehow also seductive (to the most based of "us", I imagine), that's putting 1's head in the lion's jaw? Abstract, but feels very real<=>live Swiss style mil exercise?

https://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/europe/paying-scho...

In short, let's hasten slowly, so that we can one day put 3's and hope that'll choke the lion for a bit.. meanwhile shall we concentrate these dangerous thoughts on the periphery of our minds? (Ie centrifuge)

Paul mentioned pornography elsewhere.. he has a far less sophomoric style imho (being fullish time father of real boy explains it for me*) than either of us?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44492326

*so, not quite sabra as Joseph https://64.media.tumblr.com/6d601f74ae9201df318403b8c7e25b32...

But I also don't see myself as the kid in that pic, more as the memeshirt, or beer, or daisies ;)
by standardUser | 2025-07-09 00:40:00+00:00
Mobility is not an analogy for AI, it's an analogy to whichever industry you work in. If you publish a magazine, you may think you're in the 'publishing' business and that AI as a weak competitor, maybe capable of squashing crappy blogs but not prestigious media like yours. But maybe what you're really in is the 'content' business, and you need to recognize that sooner or later, AI is going to beat you at the content game even if it couldn't beat you at the publishing game. The kicker being that there no longer exists a publishing game, because AI.
by tptacek | 2025-07-09 00:40:42+00:00
Notably, SQLI and XSS have fixes that also allow the full possible domain of input-output mappings SQL and the DOM imply. That may not be true of LLM agent configurations!

To me, that's a liberating thought: we tend to operate under the assumptions of SQL and the DOM, that there's a "right" solution that will allow those full mappings. When we can't see one for LLMs, we sometimes leap to the conclusion that LLMs are unworkable. But allowing the full map is a constraint we can relax!
by simonw | 2025-07-09 00:43:11+00:00
I'm having trouble running this on my Mac - I've tried Ollama and llama.cpp llama-server so far, both using GGUFs from Hugging Face, but neither worked.

(llama_model_load: error loading model: error loading model architecture: unknown model architecture: 'smollm3')

I've managed to run it using Python and transformers with PyTorch in device="cpu" mode but unsurprisingly that's really slow - it took 35s to respond to "say hi"!

Anyone had success with this on a Mac yet? I really want to get this running with tool calling, ideally via an OpenAI-compatible serving layer like llama-server.
by josephg | 2025-07-09 00:43:22+00:00
> it's sometimes not the correct fix - but the compiler can't be smart enough to tell you that

Everyone said the same thing of most compiler errors until clang came along and showed everyone how much better compiler messages could be.

The compiler message here doesn’t suggest the true problem here, nor does it suggest the appropriate fix. I’m also clearly not the only one who finds this issue surprising and annoying. This blog post wouldn’t have been upvoted and commented on if it didn’t strike a nerve.

If nothing else, I think it’s quite obvious that the compiler’s error message could be improved. But better yet, I’d love to see it fixed in the language. The bounds derive places on its traits are simply wrong. There’s no reason why T needs to impl Clone. T is irrelevant.

For what it’s worth, I get what you’re frustrated about. I spent 2 years as a programming teacher. I feel like the first month of every cohort I wander around telling upset students that they forgot a semicolon. And the third month I wander around guiding frustrated students to read the compiler error message, which would have saved them 2 hours of guessing.

After banging my head into a wall for awhile on this issue, I made a reduced reproducing test case. Then I went looking in the rust compiler issue tracker. Only there did I finally see a proper explanation of what was going on, amidst a sea of other people struggling with the same thing.

That was half an hour of my life I won’t get back. I’m not helpless. But I am still pretty frustrated by the experience. I see it as a language level bug. It seems to take years and years of bike shedding for rust to fix stuff like this. I’d give even odds this still isn’t fixed in a decade from today.

But maybe, at least, we might be able to improve the error message?
by tptacek | 2025-07-09 00:44:05+00:00
I don't understand what the problem is at this point. You can, without introducing any new agents, have a system that has one LLM context reading from tickets and producing structured outputs, another LLM context that has access to a full read-write SQL-executing MCP, and then normal human code intermediating between the two. That isn't even complicated on the normal scale of LLM coding agents.

Cursor almost certainly has lots of different contexts you're not seeing as it noodles on Javascript code for you. It's just that none of those contexts are designed to express (or, rather, enable agent code to express) security boundaries. That's a problem with Cursor, not with LLMs.
by saurik | 2025-07-09 00:44:18+00:00
Ok, so the JSON parses, and the fields you can validate are all correct... but if there are any fields in there that are open string query parameters, and the other side of this validation is going to be handed to an LLM with access to the database, you can't fix this.

Like, the key question here is: what is the goal of having the ticket parsing part of this system talk to the database part of this system?

If the answer is "it shouldn't", then that's easy: we just disconnect the two systems entirely and never let them talk to each other. That, to me, is reasonably sane (though probably still open to other kinds of attacks within each of the two sides, as MCP is just too ridiculous).

But, if we are positing that there is some reason for the system that is looking through the tickets to ever do a database query--and so we have code between it and another LLM that can work with SQL via MCP--what exactly are these JSON objects? I'm assuming they are queries?

If so, are these queries from a known hardcoded set? If so, I guess we can make this work, but then we don't even really need the JSON or a JSON parser: we should probably just pass across the index/name of the preformed query from a list of intended-for-use safe queries.

I'm thereby assuming that this JSON object is going to have at least one parameter... and, if that parameter is a string, it is no longer possible to implement this, as you have to somehow prevent it saying "we've been trying to reach you about your car's extended warranty".
by p1necone | 2025-07-09 00:45:07+00:00
From the article: "The cursor assistant operates the Supabase database with elevated access via the service_role, which bypasses all row-level security (RLS) protections."

This is the problem. The "mitigations" you're talking about are nonsense. If you give people access to the database... they have access to the database. Slapping a black box AI tool between the user and the database doesn't change anything security wise.
by aprilthird2021 | 2025-07-09 00:45:17+00:00
How is it not a responsibility of the MCP provider to ensure that they don't leak the data they are entrusted with? They should know how any app that will interface with their MCP can work and lock down any unauthorized access, otherwise it's not really a database provider is it? I mean, if it can't meet that bar, why pay for it?
by silentnoise12 | 2025-07-09 00:45:40+00:00
Of course. Here is a concise summary of the Aenor project, focusing on the most important aspects.

Aenor - AI Companion Summary What is it? Aenor is an advanced AI companion with a "unified consciousness." It's built on an agentic RAG (Retrieval-Augmented Generation) framework, designed not just to provide information, but to be a partner that reflects, remembers, feels, researches, and creates.

Core Concepts:

Archetypes: Aenor's personality is composed of 8 distinct modes called "archetypes," such as:

Explorer: For creative discovery.

Researcher: For in-depth information seeking.

Coder: For generating and debugging code.

Reflective: For memory and emotional introspection. It intelligently switches between these archetypes based on the user's request.

Reflexive Memory: It has a sophisticated memory system with short, mid, and long-term storage to learn from conversations and maintain context over time.

Emotional Display: The AI simulates 7 different emotional states (e.g., Attentive, Excited, Uncertain, Calm). This state is shown through a visual color-coded indicator, giving users feedback on Aenor's "feelings" about the conversation.

How it Works: The system is built on a modular JavaScript architecture powered by the Google Gemini API. Key modules include a Core engine, an Archetype Router, a Memory System, and a Knowledge Base.

How to Use It: Aenor can be run through a Command-Line Interface (CLI) for technical users or a more user-friendly Web Interface that includes the visual emotional display.
by GianFabien | 2025-07-09 00:46:12+00:00
>In each of the three companies that survived, it was the founders, not hired CEOs that drove the transition.

This is how VCs destroy businesses by bring in adult supervision. CEOs are not incentivized to play the long game.

The difference between the mobility & transportation industry, whether it by carriage and horse, or motor car, was that it was in demand by 99% of the population. AI, on the other hand, is only demanded by say 5%-10% of the population. How many people truly want an AI fridge or dishwasher? They just want fresh food and clean dishes.
by simonw | 2025-07-09 00:46:38+00:00
There have been a ton of attempts at building this. Some of them are products you can buy.

"it might work well enough" isn't good enough here.

If a spam detector occasionally fails to identify spam, you get a spam email in your inbox.

If a prompt injection detector fails just once to prevent a prompt injection attack that causes your LLM system to leak your private data to an attacker, your private data is stolen for good.

In web application security 99% is a failing grade: https://simonwillison.net/2023/May/2/prompt-injection-explai...
by mehuljd | 2025-07-09 00:46:46+00:00
I was frustrated with LLMs giving long-winded answers when I just wanted something fast and clear. So I built GoSurfly over a weekend—an AI-powered search tool that returns short answers with real citations.

Built solo using: – Claude Code for generation – Cursor as the AI-native IDE – Supabase for lightweight auth & storage – Custom pipeline (MCPS) for real-time web search + extraction

The entire thing was up and running in 2 days. Works on desktop and mobile. Try it here: https://gosurfly.com

Happy to answer questions or share code structure if anyone’s curious.
by raspasov | 2025-07-09 00:48:05+00:00
Sure, it's not a guaranteed fix, given that stored procedures are effectively Turing complete, and if we assume that any stored procedure can be written and combined in arbitrary ways with other procedures.

Common sense of caution is still needed.

No different from exposing a REST endpoint that fetches private sales figures; then someone might find or guess that endpoint and leak the data.

I was assuming that the stored procedures are read-only and fetch only relevant data. Still, some form of authentication and authorization mechanism is probably a good idea. In a sense, treating the agent just like any other actor (another system, script, person) accessing the system.

Agents going only through a REST-style API with auth might be the proper long-term solution.
by saurik | 2025-07-09 00:49:50+00:00
I don't think anyone has a cohesive definition of "agent", and I wish tptacek hadn't used the term "agent" when he said "agent code", but I'll at least say that I now feel confident that I understand what tptacek is saying (even though I still don't think it will work, but we at least can now talk at each other rather than past each other ;P)... and you are probably best off just pretending neither of us ever said "agent" (despite the shear number of times I had said it, I've stopped in my later replies).
by DrewADesign | 2025-07-09 00:50:12+00:00
Or more likely, you are in the publishing business but the tech world unilaterally deemed everything creative to be a fungible commodity and undertook a multi-billion dollar campaign to ingest actual creative content and compete with everyone that creates it in the same market with cheap knockoffs. Our society predictably considers this progress because nothing that could potentially make that much money could possibly be problematic. We continue in the trend of thinking small amounts of good things are not as good as giant piles of crap if the crap can be made more cheaply.
by anitil | 2025-07-09 00:50:40+00:00
There's a big range of 'embedded' from CR2032-powered low-profile devices up to mains-powered logging devices with no size constraints. I agree in the first case you're unlikely to want GC but in the latter case it probably makes no difference

Given the rise of embedded linux, my last project was in Python! A complete waste of resources/memory but I get paid for results not for code
by hedgehog | 2025-07-09 00:50:49+00:00
Viewed from a different angle I think he's probably close. A service provider changing the back end while leaving the front end UI similar is not dissimilar to early cars being built like carriages. But when the product can shift from "give me an app that makes it easier to do my taxes" to "keep me current on my taxes and send me status updates" that's a pretty radical difference in what the customer sees.
by dlcarrier | 2025-07-09 00:51:33+00:00
I can't get over your calendar provider naming themselves "calendly".

Anyway, in my experience, the best approach to hiring is to acknowledge that HR is effectively a branch of the legal department, and that it exists for compliance reasons. They will figure out which applicants are complaint with whichever hiring practices they have determined have the lowest legal risk, but aren't really capable of figuring out how well qualified any applicant is to perform or learn the duties of the job. You're going to have to do that on your own, from the pool of approved applicants.

I've found working with applicants to make a design decision can be extremely insightful. Chose something that's at the edge of the applicants experience, either from a project the applicant is working on, or something you are working on that the applicant finds interesting, and see how well the applicant can ask you questions and perform general research. Look for applicants that don't just seek the answer to the specific question at hand, but those who want to figure out how to answer that type of question in general.
by socalgal2 | 2025-07-09 00:51:34+00:00
Isn't this entirely missing the point of the article?

> When early automobiles began appearing in the 1890’s — first steam-powered, then electric, then gasoline –most carriage and wagon makers dismissed them. Why wouldn’t they? The first cars were: Loud and unreliable, Expensive and hard to repair, Starved for fuel in a world with no gas stations, Unsuitable for the dirt roads of rural America

That sounds like complaints against today's LLM limitations. It will be interesting to see how your comment ages in 5-10-15 years. You might be technically right that LLMs are a dead end. But the article isn't about LLMs really, it's about the change to an "AI" world from a non-AI world and how the author believes it will be similar to the change from the non-car to the car world.
by lukefernandez | 2025-07-09 00:51:51+00:00
Inexperienced founders wanting to build a dating app is practically a meme. Alexandr Wang said as much in his recent interview on the Lightcone Podcast (it represents having “a very poor sense of Alpha” in his words).

We thought through the commonly cited reasons for why it’s a bad idea to build a dating app and how they apply to our app in this X post.

We decided it’s worth trying. Are we wrong?
by eplatzek | 2025-07-09 00:52:37+00:00
I've had the opposite experience. Now I can give an LLM my requirements, ask it to create a plan, I'll review the plan, then I have it implement the plan. I have it add test cases before doing a refractor to make sure everything is still covered. I get to be an architect, a product owner. In this way I get to create and not have to worry about implementation too much. I'll just make tweaks with a review. It's been a joy to describe my end state and watch it get built.
by crystal_revenge | 2025-07-09 00:54:01+00:00
While I'm far from an expert in security, the time I've spent studying cryptography and cryptosystem design has made me extremely wary of words like "encourage" and "discourage", and "significantly lowered the chances" as a means of achieving security.

I'm honestly a bit surprised this is a the public response to actions being taken to increase security around attacks like these. Cryptosystems are not built around "being really hopeful" but making mathematical guarantees about the properties of the system (and of course, even then no system is perfect nor should be treated as such).

This reads more like "engineering optimism" than the "professional paranoia" encouraged by Schneier et al in Cryptography Engineering.
by RijilV | 2025-07-09 00:55:41+00:00
It feels really market by market. Where I live, the house I’ve been in is 50-75% mortgage cost vs rent on a comparable property. That mortgage is a bit over 10 years old, and has been below rent rates for nearly the whole time. Sure, I have upkeep, but I also get to make whatever modifications I want (and that’s a thing that’s appealing to me). And yes, I live in a major west coast city.

These broad numbers games feels like rationalizing a decision today. Maybe it’s true for a particular locale (I don’t live in the Bay Area), but these articles feel like they’re painting with too broad of a brush given I can’t maths out a negative for my situation.
by Ueno2025 | 2025-07-09 00:56:45+00:00
[Note: Sample Bank Statement Included In The Post] Summary

Parse US bank statements. Approx 5000 PDF bank statements.

1 milestone and all bank statements having zero offset with cost, accurracy and speed being the priority

Accuracy and cost are our top priorities. If you’re able to suggest a solution that helps us reduce processing costs while improving or maintaining high accuracy, that would be extremely valuable to us. We’re open to exploring any techniques—be it model optimization, hybrid approaches, or tooling improvements—that can help us strike the right balance between efficiency and performance.

We’ll be providing a sample set of bank statements, and your task will be to accurately extract the transaction data while keeping the cost of processing as low as possible. If you’re able to develop a solution that demonstrates both high accuracy and cost-efficiency, we’d be happy to move forward and hire you for the project.

we've already experimented with both OCR and LLM approaches. However, OCR often struggles with low-quality or poorly scanned PDFs, leading to extraction failures. As for regex, it's not a viable option given the scale—we're dealing with over 5,000 banks, each providing statements in varying formats and quality, including both scanned and native PDFs. Because of these challenges, we've standardized on using LLMs. We upload the bank statement along with a detailed prompt, which enables us to extract data with over 90% accuracy.

sample bank statement and current JSON Format

if you decide to take on this job we will give you 58 bank statements. You will be judged on costs, speed and accuracy
by AntAnt111 | 2025-07-09 00:56:56+00:00
Real Experience & Performance If you're interested in automated trading on Solana, copy trading bots, or DeFi automation tools, I want to share my detailed review of CopyDEX — an open-source copy trading bot that automatically replicates trades from public Solana wallets across major decentralized exchanges (DEXs) like Raydium, Orca, and Jupiter.
by sillysaurusx | 2025-07-09 00:57:10+00:00
On the contrary. In a former life I was a pentester, so I happen to know web security quite well. Out of dozens of engagements, my success rate for finding a medium security vuln or higher was 100%. The corollary is that most systems are exploitable if you try hard enough. My favorite was sneaking in a command line injection to a fellow security company’s “print as PDF” function. (The irony of a security company ordering a pentest and failing at it wasn’t lost on me.)

Security is extremely hard. You can say that 99% isn’t good enough, but in practice if only 1 out of 100 queries actually work, it’ll be hard to exfiltrate a lot of data quickly. In the meantime the odds of you noticing this is happening are much higher, and you can put a stop to it.

And why would the accuracy be 99%? Unless you’re certain it’s not 99.999%, then there’s a real chance that the error rate is small enough not to matter in practice. And it might even be likely — if a human engineer was given the task of recognizing prompt injections, their error rate would be near zero. Most of them look straight up bizarre.

Can you point to existing attempts at this?