MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
Show HN: RooAGI's Roo-VectorDB: A New PostgreSQL Extension for Vector Search
by rooagi | 2025-07-15 15:37:00+00:00
RooAGI (https://rooagi.com) has released Roo-VectorDB, a PostgreSQL extension designed as a high-performance storage solution for high-dimensional vector data. Check it out on GitHub: https://github.com/RooAGI/Roo-VectorDB

We chose to build on PostgreSQL because of its readily available metadata search capabilities and proven scalability of relational databases. While PGVector has pioneered this approach, it’s often perceived as slower than native vector databases like Milvus. Roo-VectorDB builds on the PGVector framework, incorporating our own optimizations in search strategies, memory management, and support for higher-dimensional vectors.

In preliminary lab testing using ANN-Benchmark, Roo-VectorDB demonstrated performance that was comparable to, or significantly better than, Milvus in terms of QPS (queries per second).

RooAGI will continue to develop AI-focused products, with Roo-VectorDB as a core storage component in our stack. We invite developers around the world to try out the current release and share feedback.
by dragonwriter | 2025-07-15 15:37:29+00:00
> I think if we actually cared about making a better world, you'd take steps where each successive step is a positive one.

Yeah, but lots of people don't care about that, they care about acheiving their visions of power, and they need an excuse to justify other people suffering for them. They aren’t seeking long term improvements at the cost of short term suffering, they are using a mirage of utopia over the hill to sell people a deal which is only suffering, now and for however long they can be kept in line.
by kelseyfrog | 2025-07-15 15:37:44+00:00
Absolutely, free-tier AI won’t stay "free" forever. It’s only a matter of time before advertisers start paying to have their products woven into your AI conversations. It’ll creep in quietly—maybe a helpful brand suggestion, a recommended product "just for you," or a well-timed promo in a tangential conversation. Soon enough though, you’ll wonder if your LLM genuinely likes that brand of shoes, or if it's just doing its job.

But hey, why not get ahead of the curve? With BrightlyAI™, you get powerful conversational intelligence - always on, always free. Whether you're searching for new gear, planning your next trip, or just craving dinner ideas, BrightlyAI™ brings you personalized suggestions from our curated partners—so you save time, money, and effort.

Enjoy smarter conversations, seamless offers, and a world of possibilities—powered by BrightlyAI™: "Illuminate your day. Conversation, curated."
by naravara | 2025-07-15 15:38:02+00:00
If interactions with your AI start sounding like your conversation partner shilling hot cocoa powder at nobody in particular those conversations are going to stop being trusted real quick. (Pop culture reference: https://youtu.be/MzKSQrhX7BM?si=piAkfkwuorldn3sb)

Which may be for the best, because people shouldn’t be implicitly trusting the bullshit engine.
by immibis | 2025-07-15 15:38:27+00:00
> productively used

This chart is extremely damning: https://metr.org/blog/2025-07-10-early-2025-ai-experienced-o...

The industry consistently predicts people will do the task quicker with AI. The people who are doing the task predict they'll do it quicker if they can use AI. After doing the task with AI, they predict they did it quicker because they used AI. People who did it without AI predict they could have done it quicker with AI. But they actually measured how long it takes. It turns out, they do it slower if they use AI. This is damning.

It's a dopamine machine. It makes you feel good, but with no reality behind it and no work to achieve it. It's no different in this regard from (some) hard drugs. A rat with a lever wired to the pleasure center in its brain keeps pressing that lever until it dies of starvation.

(Yes, it's very surprising that you can create this effect without putting chemicals or electrodes in your brain. Social media achieved it first, though.)
by watwut | 2025-07-15 15:38:41+00:00
The majority of music communication is not in lyrics, but in sound and tone of voice. All good artists know that and intentionally manipulate that. This song makes you, unambiguously, feel good.

From lyrics alone, I would assume the protagonist is voluntarily part of abusive relationships. As in, they make choice to stay, despite knowing this is bad for them. I did not found sexual assault visuals, only abstract video with words and pink colors. The lyrics do not come across to me as "not putting on any kid gloves", they are gentle. They are about wanting this bad thing to happen, despite it being bad thing.

> You're supposed to feel weird about liking this song.

There are songs that make me feel weird about liking them, but not this one. This one was intentionally made to make me like it.

I do not mean it as kind of major criticism or the song ... but it is kids gloves song about abuse and feelings that make someone stay in such relationship.
by cootsnuck | 2025-07-15 15:38:46+00:00
> If there was a way to explain contracts in natural language, don’t you think lawyers would have figured it out by now?

Uh...I mean...you do know they charge by the hour, right?

Half joking, but seriously, the concept of "job security" still exists even for a $400 billion industry. Especially when that industry commands substantial power across essentially all consequential areas of society.

LLMs literally do explain contracts in natural language. They also allow you to create contracts with just natural language. (With all the same caveats as using LLMs for programming or anything else.)

I would say law is quietly one of the industries that LLMs have had a larger than expected impact on. Not in terms of job loss (but idk, would be curious to see any numbers on this). But more just like evident efficacy (similar to how programming became a clear viable use case for LLMs).

All of that being said, big law, the type of law that dominates the industry, does not continue to exist because of "contract disputes". It exists to create and reinforce legal machinations that advance the interests of their clients and entrench their power. And the practice of doing that is inherently deeply human. As in, the names of the firm and lawyers involved are part of the efficacy of the output. It's deeply relational in many ways.

(I'd bet anything though that smart lawyers up and down the industry are already figuring out ways to make use of LLMs to allow them to do more work.)
by Centigonal | 2025-07-15 15:38:54+00:00
This echoes a lot of the rhetoric around "but how will facebook/twitter/etc make money?" back in the mid 2000s. LLMs might shake out differently from the social web, but I don't think that speculating about the flexibility of demand curves is a particularly useful exercise in an industry where the marginal cost of inference capacity is measured in microcents per token. Plus, the question at hand is "will LLMs be relevant?" and not "will LLMs be massively profitable to model providers?"
by throwawaymaths | 2025-07-15 15:38:54+00:00
> We know for a fact (like actual empirical fact) that FDA prevents vast numbers of unsafe and ineffective drugs from reaching the market. This is absolutely indisputable.

we also know for a fact that the FDA lets unsafe and ineffective drugs into the market, especially from overseas, slapped with a label that its safe according to the FDA. if its a crapshoot, what's the point really?
by jchw | 2025-07-15 15:39:04+00:00
I don't actually use Reddit or Twitter, but I sometimes come across NSFW posts from links. I've found that old.reddit.com seems to allow you to bypass the filter(s) without needing an account. For Twitter, I tend to use the xcancel.com Nitter instance, though there are other Nitter instances that work fine.

Bonus for using Nitter here, you can also see the latest posts from an account instead of the most popular posts, and see replies/interactions to individual tweets. Oh, and it gives you plain HTML.

Reddit pisses me off so much that despite the fact that I don't even use Reddit, just so that my experience sucks less when I'm linked to Reddit or have another reason to lurk it,

- I use the "Old Reddit Redirect" extension to force the browser to go to old reddit

- I use the "Load Reddit Images Directly" extension to bypass Reddit's hideous image viewer that tries to load if your browser makes the mistake of having text/html in the "Accept" headers when opening an image in a new tab. (Dear Firefox/Chrome/etc: maybe stop doing that? If I open an image in a new tab, there is a zero percent chance I want HTML.)
by i_am_programmer | 2025-07-15 15:39:05+00:00
It feels surreal that every time a Django topic comes up on this site it's flooded with people praising it and proclaiming how much they love it.

I honestly found it to be the absolute worst Python framework I've ever worked with. I found it so hard to intuitively write code for it because it just does stuff for you in the background and you can't always see the execution order of code, especially when leveraging that default dashboard feature. I lasted 11 months in a role that used Django exclusively. I'm happy for people that built a career with it, but it just blows my mind people aren't more critical of it. Not that they necessarily need to be though.
by tokai | 2025-07-15 15:39:05+00:00
Not to be nag but the example translation at the bottom of the page is not correct. Shopping is a word used in danish.[0] The translation with the word handle does not correctly convey the suggestion of going out to multiple stores looking at clothes etc. to buy. It more comes across as wanting to go buy groceries, or doing some kind of general commerce.

A translation to standard spoken danish would be jeg vil gerne shoppe i morgen.

[0] https://ordnet.dk/ddo/ordbog?query=shoppe%20
by PyWoody | 2025-07-15 15:39:20+00:00
For other relatively recent movies I'd add:

> Evil Does Not Exist > Godland > The Beast > The Worst Person in the World > Misericordia > The Banshees of Inisherin > Amanda [0] > Afire [1]

[0] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt18469872/

[1] https://www.imdb.com/title/tt26440619/
by gawa | 2025-07-15 15:39:43+00:00
Because the strategy of changing brand after a scandal works so well, it's good to add some precision here, for those who may not know: Facebook changed its name to Meta after a huge public backlash, the Cambridge Analytica scandal [0]

What was once a scandal in 2018 became common place. In 2018, targeting citizens with tailored messages to influence them was considered wrong. We had a different conception of "How we should make up our minds to choose our leaders" (it's still the case in some parts of Western Europe, where there are more regulations regarding elections, such as a ceiling for how much candidates can spend in marketing campaigns). Nowadays, we have Elon Musk directly involved in politics, who incidentally happen to possess all the data he bought with Twitter, and now tons of sensitive data he rushed to harness from government agencies during his short time in DOGE. Since he didn't shy away from directly paying people to vote for his candidates, it's hard to believe he would have the ethical restraint to not use this data and his social network to organize extremely precise and effective targeted manipulation campaigns to further his personal agenda.

Unfortunately, the unchecked (unregulated) use of personal data for massive manipulation is considered "inevitable" (i has been for decades). So much that we now comment about the word "inevitability" itself, and whether LLMs are "inevitably good at coding", completely brushing aside the most important, the main social issues LLMs can cause, such as: their biases (reinforcing fake news, or stereotypes), who train the model, what ads they will show in the near future, how they will be used for influencing people, how they will be used in drones, which humans in the loop, what guardrails, for whose interest, how will it be used in troll farm, how is it compatible with democracy, how (or if) the economics gains of this technology will be redistributed, ...

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Facebook%E2%80%93Cambridge_Ana...
by whoisyc | 2025-07-15 15:40:15+00:00
> Songs are shorter (<3 minutes) and lyrics simpler as a result. People don’t want to think anymore.

Beatles songs are around 164 seconds long on average.

https://www.aaronkrerowicz.com/uploads/6/5/4/3/6543054/durat...

An 2005 compilation of Johnny Cash’s greatest songs averages just a little over three minutes per song.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Legend_of_Johnny_Cash

Gerry and The Pacemakers did not have long songs either.

https://www.discogs.com/master/369149-Gerry-And-The-Pacemake...

Neither did the Kingston Trio.

https://www.discogs.com/release/666498-Kingston-Trio-The-Kin...

Before recording, popular forms of folk music typically has just one fairly short melody. You can repeat it over and over with different lyrics but the “core” is simple and short . Sing “Oh Susana” or “Kalinka” or “Scarborough fair” to yourself and count the seconds before you the melody repeats.

Frankly, “popular songs being over three minutes long” is likely an anomaly in the history of humanity. What we are seeing with shorter songs is probably just a regression to the mean.
by lupusreal | 2025-07-15 15:40:45+00:00
Reading between the lines of the OP, the author seems to think that the future of LLMs will be determined by debate and that he can win that debate by choosing the framing of the debate.

The whole meat of his article is about this debate technique, ostensibly saying that's what the other guys are doing, but really he's only described what he himself is doing.
by richardwhiuk | 2025-07-15 15:42:01+00:00
Generally it's used for fixing corrupt deployments / debugging / deploying.

As far at I'm aware, there isn't a separate code base.

In general, you can't share scripts / executables via this mechanism - that's done via code review and deployment.

You could get an operator to run a script in a malicious way, but it'd need pre-written to include the malicious behaviour.
by giancarlostoro | 2025-07-15 15:42:50+00:00
> 2. Almost three years in, companies investing in LLMs have not yet discovered a business model that justifies the massive expenditure of training and hosting them, the majority of consumer usage is at the free tier, the industry is seeing the first signs of pulling back investments, and model capabilities are plateauing at a level where most people agree that the output is trite and unpleasant to consume.

You hit the nail on why I say to much hatred from "AI Bros" as I call them, when I say it will not take off truly until it runs on your phone effortlessly, because nobody wants to foot a trillion dollar cloud bill.

Give me a fully offline LLM that fits in 2GB of VRAM and lets refine that so it can plug into external APIs and see how much farther we can take things without resorting to burning billions of dollars' worth of GPU compute. I don't care that my answer arrives instantly, if I'm doing the research myself, I want to take my time to get the correct answer anyway.
by bcrl | 2025-07-15 15:42:58+00:00
I know that the GP wasn't asking about static IP addresses, however I was merely providing some statistics about what customer asks regarding IP addresses are actually seen on the provider side of things.

It's not widely used in my customer base as well as among a number of other small independent ISPs I know of. A significant number of the CPE we have deployed today do not support IPv6, therefore a significant number of our end users will not be using IPv6 resulting in only partial usage. That is what I am referring to: an incomplete deployment of IPv6 across a customer base without their knowledge of change and the end user's ability to identify issues will cause support issues which costs money and time.

Because of how IPv6 is provisioned, going from a no IPv6-deployed state to fully-deployed state will encounter transition issues. It's not provisioned the same way as IPv4, and that's the whole bloody problem!!! Sure, I can turn on handing out IPv6 addresses from our edge routers via PPPoE today, but it's not going to "Just Work" for all customers without CPE config changes (assuming the CPE even supports IPv6 in the first place for which a bunch of them do not!). It's a complete pain that has less than zero benefit for a small provider today since everything is available over IPv4 and nothing is IPv6 only. Heck, another ISP I know had a customer ask for IPv6 support, and then the customer didn't even bother to provision it on their own router!

Another example: take Ubiquiti's AirCube product line. It doesn't support IPv6. To deploy IPv6 it would be necessary to reconfigure things to make the ONU for the customer act as the router for the customer's home network and place the AirCube in bridged mode. That's assuming that the ONU even supports IPv6 yet as it did not when I looked into it on the order of 6 years ago. And yes, there are a few dozen customers on AirCubes that fall under this case. This means moving into a territory where multiple different CPE deployment configs are now required for less than zero benefit.

That there are gaps in IPv6 support has been a problem, is a problem, and will continue to be a problem. The industry isn't 100% IPv6, and I don't see how that is going to be the case in the next 5 years or even the next 10 years. Consumer gear isn't there yet. That was the problem 5 years ago, that was the problem 10 years ago, that was the problem 15 years, and that was the problem 20 years ago... What's different today that's any different than yesterday?

It's easy to deploy IPv6 in data centers where you control all the infrastructure on servers where operating system IPv6 support was mature decades ago. It's not so easy as a small ISP when dealing with pile of random consumer gear that an ISP's customers bring to the table where IPv6 support remains hit and miss.
by waffletower | 2025-07-15 15:43:08+00:00
I have a similar process, but usually scan down to 60 (as I did today). I found eight stories including this one and have tabbed them to read. I don't like rust-y koolaid myself, but would never complain that it is here, nor would I complain about seeing the word 'typescript' as it is really far from my interests. To my interest -- excellent AI related white papers, AI agent paradigms and code, model announcements etc. are regularly posted here. Of the eight I picked today, half are AI related. 4 out of 60 isn't bad if I was trying to be an artificial intelligence ostrich.
by arcfour | 2025-07-15 15:43:21+00:00
A tool was offered that can accomplish what you want, with a very small amount of added effort on your part.

No, you do not have to "stay up to date on AI stories"—if you see one, add the keyword to the list and move on. There are not as many buzzwords as you seem to be implying, anyways.

If you are dissatisfied, you are welcome to build your own intelligent version (but I am not sure this will be straightforward without the use of AI).
by kukkeliskuu | 2025-07-15 15:43:42+00:00
1. fly.io sells redis hosted by upstash. But you are correct in the sense that default fly.io PostgreSQL was unmanaged and probably subsidized, and recent PostgreSQL is probably more expensive. But while I think you cannot directly say that tenfold increase in price means tenfold increase in complexity, I am just saying that it is complex.

2. It is surprisingly common to see people preferring Lucene-based search engines over Postgres. I don't know about your alternatives and not saying anything about them.
by steveklabnik | 2025-07-15 15:43:49+00:00
Not your parent, and not anti-AI, but I’ve seen similar things to this thread in smaller spaces I’m in.

There are some people who are having genuine crises over this stuff, some of it existential, and some of it “wow I thought my friends had some basic agreements about the world that we actually don’t,” and seeing this stuff on the regular just fans these sorts of issues.

Also, in a simpler sense, there are a limited number of homepage spots, and if you don’t want to see a topic, it effectively shrinks your homepage. If HN only showed five stories to me it would be less useful than it is now.
by ameliaquining | 2025-07-15 15:44:35+00:00
The term "efficient markets" tends to confuse and mislead people. It refers to a particular narrow form of "efficiency", which is definitely not the same thing as "socially optimal". It's more like "inexploitability"; the idea is that in a big enough world, any limited opportunities to easily extract value will be taken (up to the opportunity cost of the labor of the people who can take them), so you shouldn't expect to find any unless you have an edge. The standard metaphor is, if I told you that there's a $20 bill on the sidewalk in Times Square and it's been there all week, you shouldn't believe me, because if it were there, someone would have picked it up.

(The terminology is especially unfortunate because people tend to view it as praise for free markets, and since that's an ideological claim people respond with opposing ideological claims, and now the conversation is about ideology instead of about understanding a specific phenomenon in economics.)

This is fully compatible with Apple's App Store revenue share existing and not creating value (i.e., being rent). What the efficient markets principle tells us is that, if it were possible for someone else to start their own app store with a smaller revenue share and steal Apple's customers that way, then their revenue share would already be much lower, to account for that. Since this isn't the case, we can conclude that there's some reason why starting your own competing app store wouldn't work. Of course, we already separately know what that reason is: an app store needs to be on people's existing devices to succeed, and your competing one wouldn't be.

Similarly, if it were possible to spend $10 million to create an API-compatible clone of CUDA, and then save more than $10 million by not having to pay huge margins to Nvidia, then someone would have already done it. So we can conclude that either it can't be done for $10 million, or it wouldn't create $10 million of value. In this case, the first seems more likely, and the comment above hypothesizes why: because an incomplete clone wouldn't produce $10 million of value, and a complete one would cost much more than $10 million. Alternatively, if Nvidia could enforce intellectual property rights against someone creating such a clone, that would also explain it.

(Technically it's possible that this could instead be explained by a free-rider problem; i.e., such a clone would create more value than it would cost, but no company wants to sponsor it because they're all waiting for some other company to do it and then save the $10 million it would cost to do it themselves. But this seems unlikely; big tech companies often spend more than $10 million on open source projects of strategic significance, which a CUDA clone would have.)