MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by sillysaurusx | 2025-07-07 01:38:50+00:00
When I worked at Scotttrade in 2010, I vividly remember my coworker telling me that this is what they did with the money too. I remember being surprised to hear that it flowed out in the morning and flowed back in in the evening. I never understood why that would make sense till I read your comment here.

It’s all hearsay; I’m just reporting what I heard. I don’t know the implications of it, but maybe this isn’t exactly uncommon behavior, even if it’s market manipulation.

The coworker said that the money flowed overseas too, if that helps contextualize it. No SEC, no problem, right?

Looks like Jane Street is an American firm, so, this all lines up and corroborates what you’re saying. What we’re seeing is probably the first time a government other than the US has reacted to this behavior.
by mrandish | 2025-07-07 01:39:08+00:00
> Why are investors so stupid?

Some are but many aren't. The reason so many investors are pushing on AI (or other buzz-trend du jour) is that history shows 'disruptive new technologies' tend to correlate with some startups quickly growing and becoming 'unicorn' successful. The problem is that this historical correlation appears more obvious after the fact than when it's still emerging. And of course there are lots of caveats and other requirements which a given startup and implementation may or may not meet.

Since professional VCs tend to take a portfolio approach to investing their funds on behalf of their limited partner stakeholders, they generally divide their funds into several broad 'investment themes' based on what they perceive as potentially disruptive new technologies or markets. Like roughly 30% here and 20% there with 15 or 20% left for things which don't fit a theme. This approach is supposed to ensure they don't miss out on having a few bets in each big category. In 2005 social media platforms were an important theme. In 2015 it was SaaS.
by wenc | 2025-07-07 01:39:57+00:00
Most financial advisors tell you to keep a rainy day fund with a 3-6 month runway.

Given what's been happening in the tech industry and the economy at large, I now keep a 1-year emergency fund in a money-market fund at 4% (Fidelity SPAXX). I'm probably losing out on some growth (SP500 grew 11% over the past year, despite the massive drop in April 2025), but at least I have liquidity in case I get laid off.

That's the kind of game I feel I have to play these days.
by makeitdouble | 2025-07-07 01:39:59+00:00
It's a fine line, and I'm partial to put the notification and control center on the well thought out side.

While it's technically hidden, it can consistently be called within a single swipe, whatever app you're using, whatever the circumstances. The icon positions is also consistent, to the point muscle memory can be built.

It's to me more reliable than the home screen or any other mechanism on the phone (android's double click to open the camera would be on par), I wouldn't mind if more stuff acted that way.
by Teever | 2025-07-07 01:40:21+00:00
> In fact it’s not even AI in the more general sense, it’s almost entirely just LLMs that get discussed.

"AGI is right around the corner" "No it's not" "Yes it is, LLMs are the future." "We don't even know if AGI is possible." "LLMs are the future." "No they aren't." "AGI is right around the corner..."

or

"LLMs are really useful." "No they're not" "Yes they are." "No they aren't." with a little bit of "They sucked the last time I used them." "Did you use them recently?" "That's what someone said last time." "But LLMs are really useful" ...

over and over and over.

It isn't even that it's mostly just LLMs being discussed, it's how they're begin discussed, they're effectively just a proxy for optimists and pessimists to argue over which worldview is better.

If we were talking about AI in general and not LLMs, the same conversation structures would still pop up.
by Buttons840 | 2025-07-07 01:41:04+00:00
You're saying we need to write down all intellectual tasks? How would that help?

If an AI is better at some tasks (that happen to be written down), it doesn't mean it is better at all tasks.

Actually, I'd lower my threshold even further--I originally said 50%, then 20%, then 5%--but now I'll say if an AI is better than 0.1% of people at all intellectual tasks, then it is AGI, because it is "general" (being able to do all intellectual tasks), and it is "intelligent" (a label we ascribe to all humans).

But the AGI has to be better at all (not just some) intellectual tasks.
by motoxpro | 2025-07-07 01:43:04+00:00
What a trip. Play the car one and drive into a building. Its such cool experience having it go from wall to a completely different environment, just because it's fun and quirky.

If you look at it from the perspective of "this is supposed to work like a normal game and it doesn't" it's terrible, if you look at it from the perspective of "I have never seen a game do that and it would be insane/impossible for someone to build that experience normally" then it was a very cool 2 mins of my time.
by lesuorac | 2025-07-07 01:43:16+00:00
Heh, I remember an interview once and they wanted me to figure out if a word contained double letters (i.e. there's 2 L's in letters).

I was like well I'd probably just make a Set in Java and insert letters until it has a duplicate.

They didn't like that. So I was like well I guess I can make a double for-loop and check that way and they liked that ... It is weird how people like you to re-invent the wheel as opposed to just import one.
by orn688 | 2025-07-07 01:43:31+00:00
In my experience the truth is somewhere in the middle. It's helpful to neither completely ignore nor ruminate over one's traits, but just _be aware_ of them.

It's been very helpful for me to pay attention to and think about how my own personality compares to others'. For example, I tend to be a people-pleaser, but I used to think that everyone was just as people-pleasing as me, which only reinforced the people-pleasing because I didn't feel right putting my own needs first when everyone else was already sacrificing their own needs (or so I assumed).

At the same time, medicalizing these things paints them as "abnormal" disorders that need to be "cured", overlooking any of the positives these traits bring. When it comes to my people-pleasing, I like it about myself that I care about others. As long as I recognize that it sometimes comes at my own expense, I can begin to make more conscious decisions about when to allow the people-pleasing to flow versus when to try to subdue it.
by ayaros | 2025-07-07 01:44:14+00:00
The Lisa doesn't have an alt-tab function for Window management, so I haven't added one. Also, it would be difficult to use those keys in particular because it would conflict with your system's alt+tab keyboard shortcut.

When you select text in a textbox, the keyboard should input text. Also, individual menu items have their own keyboard shortcuts. If you're on a PC, it defaults to using the Control key as the "Apple" key. If your on a Mac, it defaults to using the Command key. This option can be changed in the preferences app in the "Set Conveniences" pane.
by syntaxing | 2025-07-07 01:44:19+00:00
Yeah, a BLE first mesh system honestly makes more sense in today's world since it's baked into every phone. In theory, a BLE to LoRA bridge should be doable with the existing meshtastic hardware like Nordic's nRF52840. The biggest caveat is going to be the data rate. Meshtastic is designed for around 200 bps (Long range mode) which vastly pales the ~2Mbps BLE expectation.
by OsrsNeedsf2P | 2025-07-07 01:44:23+00:00
I've never understood this argument. Apple spends billions of dollars vetting their store for high quality apps. You can't even verify the build you get off Github was compiled from the same posted source.

As much as people want to be "leet" and run 3rd party software, it's inherently insecure and that's why Apple shuts it down.
by gpm | 2025-07-07 01:44:29+00:00
The LLM does not "have" a plan.

Arguably there's reason to believe it comes up with a plan when it is computing token propabilities, but it does not store it between tokens. I.e. it doesn't possess or "have" it. It simply comes up with a plan, emits a token, and entirely throws all its intermediate thoughts (including any plan) to start again from scratch on the next token.
by saagarjha | 2025-07-07 01:44:35+00:00
> Normally, debuing the compiler is fairly straightforward: it is more or less a run of the mill executable.

> In the bootstrap process, the entire thing becomes way more complex. You see, rustc is not invoked directly. The bootstrap script calls a wrapper around the compiler.

> Running that wrapped rustc is not easy to run either: it requires a whole lot of complex, environment flags to be set.

> All that is to say: I don’t know how to debug the Rust compiler. I am 99.9 % sure there is an easy way to do this, documented somewhere I did not think to look. After I post this, somebody will tell me "oh, you just need to do X".

> Still, at the time of writing, I did not know how to do this.

> So, can we attach gdb to the running process? Nope, it crashes way to quickly for that.

It's kind of funny how often this problem crops up and the variety of tricks I have in my back to deal with it. Sometimes I patch the script to invoke gdb --args [the original command] instead, but this is only really worthwhile if it's a simple shell script and also I can track where stdin/stdout are going. Otherwise I might patch the code to sleep a bit before actually running anything to give me a chance to attach GDB. On some platforms you can get notified of process execs and sometimes even intercept that (e.g. as an EDR solution) and sometimes I will use that to suspend the process before it gets a chance to launch. But I kind of wish there was a better way to do this in general…LLDB has a "wait for launch" flag but it just spins in a loop waiting for new processes and it can't catch anything that dies too early.
by pgwhalen | 2025-07-07 01:44:46+00:00
> "market manipulation" in general is hard to define. The working definition in the US is something along the lines of "placing orders in the hopes that the price of the security will change in response to those orders existing, with no intention of actually executing the orders".

No, what you defined is "spoofing" - a much narrowed subcategory of market manipulation (which itself is gray, as you note). Market manipulation is broader and basically amounts to intentionally trying to affect the price of the security - even grayer.
by skeeter2020 | 2025-07-07 01:44:57+00:00
It's pretty funny to refer to your libraries for building a TUI as an "open-source stack". From the commonly accepted vision of a "stack" it's a pretty thin slice. It's like saying "my over-engineered component library is a stack because it involves 15 layers of abstraction!".

Neither of these companies are focused on LLMs or AI, they're both just using this as AI dust to sprinkle on top of their products.
by borski | 2025-07-07 01:45:04+00:00
> Knowing you have ADHD, childhood trauma, attachment issues, etc. is useless if that knowledge does not enable you to take action or if you don't intend to take action.

That’s not actually true, and misses the point.

Knowing you have ADHD, alone, helps you stop blaming yourself and hating yourself for those things that are caused by the ADHD. It doesn’t excuse it, but understanding that those things aren’t moral failures are a huge deal to those who actually struggle with ADHD.

Moreover, most people with actual undiagnosed ADHD have spent their entire lifetime building coping mechanisms to manage it. Recognizing those does help build others in the future, even if just knowing changes nothing right then.
by refurb | 2025-07-07 01:45:58+00:00
> It’s absolutely not a grey area, what source do you have that’s claiming this?

US legal code? You made the claim recruiting is illegal, find me the law that says so.

> That’s fine. That’s speech.

So you’d be fine with a neo-Nazi being admitted to the US? Or someone actively supporting ISIS in their speech?

And you never really responded to my point - the Constitution doesn’t require the US admit people actively working to destroy the US.
by jandrewrogers | 2025-07-07 01:46:18+00:00
FWIW, both “history” and “literature” have the number syllables you would expect in my dialect of English (Western American), at least among people I know. But I know exactly what you are talking about! Many regional dialects drop the “o” in history and the first “e” in literature.

On the other hand, we do violence to the pronunciation of “comfortable”. I’ve lived in so many parts of the English speaking world that I can partially code switch pronunciation for some dialects. Kind of weird but not that bad.
by Veedrac | 2025-07-07 01:46:33+00:00
> At some point I was even hearing the claim that digitization (e.g. GenAI) was finally divorcing the tight connection between economic growth and resource extraction

Kind of? Mostly it's a result of renewables. The US basically doesn't build new fossil fuel power any more. Not every country is on exactly the same point on the curve but they're all approximately following the same curve. Energy use has also decoupled which I think is what you're referring to, but I'm not sure the cause neatly decouples.
by PaulDavisThe1st | 2025-07-07 01:46:38+00:00
In what sense were "early forms of industrial capitalism" characterized by "elites producing for elites". Perhaps you mean "elites directed production towards the desires and needs of elites", but that's a very different claim than "elites producing for elites" ...

The entire point of capitalism (at least until the very recent past) was to harness the production capacity of labor to create profit. Since elites generally do not engage in labor, there is no sense in which capitalism has ever involved "elites producing for elites".

Of course, expanded automation may tweak this a bit, since elites may no longer rely on human labor to facilitate production. That would change things ... substantially, which was really the original point.

If we arrived at a scenario in which elites used highly automated production to simply produce for themselves, what does that economy look like compared to today? Is it wealthier or poorer overall? Is it self-sustaining?
by vlovich123 | 2025-07-07 01:47:45+00:00
When testing with a human: you catch it in QA runs late in the cycle that test case once it’s added to the test coverage as a known issue

When testing automated: you prevent the commit in main sequence nice the regression test is added to the test coverage.

This is the point - adding tests to your automation suite gets cheaper over time and guarantees higher quality than manual QA runs with not much more cost to the business. Not doing so is choosing to take on tech debt. But pretending like random text is something your QA will catch on their own is a pipe dream. You’re better off investing in property tests and fuzzing.
by imiric | 2025-07-07 01:49:10+00:00
> I don't expect AGI soon either, but I think it's important for us not to strawman the arguments here.

This is not a strawman. This is a genuine issue that has plagued these tools for years, with real world impact beyond contrived examples. Yet users are expected to ignore it because this is how they work? Nonsense. It's insulting that you would trivialize something like this.

> (a) the rate of improvement has been fast

I wouldn't describe it as "fast". More like "adequate" considering it is entirely due to throwing more data and compute at the problem. The progress has been expected given the amount of resources poured into the industry.

Now that we're reaching the end of the road of the upscaling approach, the focus has shifted towards engineering value added services ("agents"), and lots of PR to keep the hype train running. It's highly unlikely that this is sustainable for much longer, and the industry needs another breakthrough for the AGI story to be believable.

> (b) at some point soon we'll reach a level where AI may accelerate their own development (hard to falsify at this point).

Why isn't this happening today? Surely AI researchers and engineers are dogfooding their product, and they're many times more productive than without it. Why are then improvements still incremental? Why are we still talking about the same issues after all these years? Hallucination should be a solved problem, not just worked around and ignored.

> I think it's also important to realize that for AGI to arrive, only 1 model out of many attempts needs to qualify.

All models have the same issues. Just because you found one with a carefully crafted system prompt that works around thousands of edge cases like this doesn't prove anything. Or are you implying that o3 doesn't use BPE?

> So we'll need to move the goalposts a little further.

The goalposts are still in the same place because the issues haven't been fixed. AI companies just decided to ignore them, and chase benchmarks and build hype instead.
by ants_everywhere | 2025-07-07 01:49:35+00:00
> But ultimately LLMs also in a way are trained for survival, since an LLM that fails the tests might not get used in future iterations. So for LLMs it is also survival that is the primary driver, then there will be the subgoals.

I think this is sometimes semi-explicit too. For example, this 2017 OpenAI paper on Evolutionary Algorithms [0] was pretty influential, and I suspect (although I'm an outsider to this field so take it with a grain of salt) that some versions of reinforcement learning that scale for aligning LLMs borrow some performance tricks from OpenAIs genetic approach.

[0] https://openai.com/index/evolution-strategies/
by alganet | 2025-07-07 01:49:44+00:00
I stand by my claim.

I pretended to be less knowledgeable than I currently am about the egyptologists vs. ancient aliens public debate. Then I reported my results, together with the opinion of specialists from trusted sources (what actual egyptologists say).

There is _plenty_ of debate on the internet about this. It is a popular subject, approached by many average internet idiots in many ways. Anyone reading this right now can confirm this by performing a search.

You're trying to blur the lines between what an actual PhD is and what the perceived notion of what a PhD is. This is an error. My original comment regarding PhDs was placed in a marketing context. It is the same as the "9 in 10 specialists recomment Colgate" trick. In that analogy, you're trying to explain to me how dentists get their degree, instead of acknowledging that I was talking about the deceptive marketing campaign.

You also failed to generalize the example outside of the egyptology realm. I can come up with other examples in other areas I consider myself above-average-but-not-actual-researcher. Attempts to demoralize me in those subjects won't make the LLM better, this is not a classical idiot internet debate: you winning doesn't make me lose. On the contrary: your use of diversion and misdirection actually support my case. You need to rely on cheap rethoric tactics to succeed, I don't.

This video came out right after I posted my original challenge, and it explains some of the concepts I'm hopelessly trying to convey to you:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mco9zAamRk

It is a friendly cartoon-like simplification of how AIs are evaluated. It is actually friendly to AI enthusiasts, I recommend you to watch it and rethink the conversation from its perspective.
by hackthemack | 2025-07-07 01:50:41+00:00
I wish people were not so adverse to unions. The company will never be your friend. You will almost never have much leverage over what the company wants to do. The information you have will most likely be very asymmetrical to what the company has insight into, putting you at a disadvantage. Unions are imperfect. Unions will have its own inside politics. You will pay a union fee.

I think humans are fundamentally flawed in not being able to see alternate history. If they have to pay a union, they will not see all the benefits, and only focus on the 50 dollar union fee.
by Aurornis | 2025-07-07 01:52:49+00:00
> - if you give people the chance to place a label on themselves to give a name/form to a problem, they’ll take it.

This one is widespread among the young people I’ve worked with recently. It’s remarkable how I can identify the current TikTok self diagnosis trends without ever watching TikTok.

There’s a widespread belief that once you put a label on a problem, other people are not allowed to criticize you for it. Many young people lean into this and label everything as a defensive tactic.

A while ago, one of the trends was “time blindness”. People who were chronically late, missed meetings, or failed to manage their time would see TikToks about “time blindness” as if it was a medical condition, and self-diagnose as having that.

It was bizarre to suddenly have people missing scheduled events and then casually informing me that they had time blindness, as if that made it okay. Once they had a label for a condition, they felt like they had a license to escape accountability.

The most frustrating part was that the people who self-diagnosed as having “time blindness” universally got worse at being on time. Once they had transformed the personal problem into a labeled condition, they didn’t feel as obligated to do anything about it.
by alganet | 2025-07-07 01:53:34+00:00
Pop culture is a narrow subset of culture, not interchangeable with mythology.

Stargate is a work of fiction, while ancient aliens presents itself as truth (hiring pseudo-specialists, pretending to be a documentary, etc).

You need to seriously step up your game, stop trying to win arguments with cheap rethorical tricks, and actually pay attention and research things before posting.
by heavyset_go | 2025-07-07 01:54:47+00:00
Half of them will vote to starve themselves so they can watch the other half starve, too.

I genuinely wish what you speak of happens should reality play out that way, but I think a lot of people will die with shit eating grins on their faces, even after they run out of shit to eat, because it means someone with blue hair is starving, too.
by borski | 2025-07-07 01:55:10+00:00
Not all bad things are trauma. According to the APA: “Any disturbing experience that results in significant fear, helplessness, dissociation, confusion, or other disruptive feelings intense enough to have a long-lasting negative effect on a person’s attitudes, behavior, and other aspects of functioning. Traumatic events include those caused by human behavior (e.g., rape, war, industrial accidents) as well as by nature (e.g., earthquakes) and often challenge an individual’s view of the world as a just, safe, and predictable place. Any serious physical injury, such as a widespread burn or a blow to the head.”

It’s not useful to compare trauma, but not all negative things that happen are trauma.

And perhaps more importantly, not all trauma causes PTSD, which is a defined set of symptoms later in life.
by toomuchtodo | 2025-07-07 01:55:29+00:00
https://www.otpp.com/en-ca/investments/our-investments/teach...

The OTPP has a team for investing in late stage startups (Series B onward), “Teachers’ Venture Growth.” Seems rational if you believe you can gain asset class exposure at a lower cost than outsourcing it to the usual VCs ($10B invested).
by Aurornis | 2025-07-07 01:55:56+00:00
I don’t see these as opposing ends of a spectrum. I think they’re largely independent variables.

Anecdotally, the people I know who have become most immersed in therapy speak are also the most socially connected. The therapy speak and associated language have become tools for establishing themselves within their social support system, communicating cries for help, and even trying to use therapy terms to shield themselves from accountability for their actions by transforming it into a therapy session.