MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by llmthrow103 | 2025-07-11 01:21:05+00:00
This post is about a specific, complex system that stretches from operating system to the physical world, as well as some philosophical problems.

What you're describing is a dead simple hobby project that could be completed by a complete novice in less than a week before the advent of LLMs.

It's like saying "I'm absolutely blown away by microwaves, I can have a meal hot and ready in just a few minutes with no effort or understanding. I think all culinary schools should have a curriculum that teaches people how to use microwaves effectively."

Maybe the goal of education should be giving people a foundation that they can build on, not make them an expert in something that a low skill ceiling and diminishing returns.
by BriggyDwiggs42 | 2025-07-11 01:21:39+00:00
I don’t think we can successfully fight insane rulings in the near future. It’s on the same order as getting money out of politics; disagrees completely with the current incentives of the system and would require a massive political push. It seems to me that the system is working as intended in allowing insane rulings, and that we should attempt to use that to our advantage, since the powerful absolutely will continue to do so and there’s basically jack shit we can do about it right now.
by nwienert | 2025-07-11 01:21:53+00:00
I’ve seen some of the problems before, like https://o3-failed-arc-agi.vercel.app/

This is not hard to build datasets that have these types of problems in them, and I would expect LLMs to generalize this well. I don’t see how this is any different really than any other type of problem LLMs are good at given they have the dataset to study.

I get they keep the test updated with secret problems, but I don’t see how companies can’t game this just by investing in building their own datasets, even if it means paying teams of smart people to generate them.
by unsnap_biceps | 2025-07-11 01:22:11+00:00
Isn't that true only if the batches are different? If you run exactly the same batch, you're back to a deterministic result.

If I had a black box api, just because you don't know how it's calculated doesn't mean that it's non-deterministic. It's the underlaying algorithm that determines that and a LLM is deterministic.
by kristoff200512 | 2025-07-11 01:22:30+00:00
Thank you so much for your feedback! I will add more colors, and I'm also considering allowing custom colors for individual data points in the future. I’ll look into the WP plugin as well.

Regarding large datasets, would a format like this https://www.instagram.com/reel/DL3IOxmyCk6/? I can use horizontal bar charts to show rankings, and also generate them as dynamic GIFs.

Would you need the image in other formats as well, such as JPG or something else?

Thanks again for using it. Once the updates are complete, would you be willing to try it again and share more suggestions? Thank you!
by wowczarek | 2025-07-11 01:22:32+00:00
Dunno, I thoroughly enjoyed it, it was a, well, slow burn, but nicely written IMO, setting up the scene and all. Felt a lot like reading Neal Stephenson's Zodiac, with a bunch of engineers and the chemistry aspect. I didn't read it as an actual email; it's storytelling, and pretty good one at that.
by marcusb | 2025-07-11 01:22:39+00:00
This reminds me in a way of the old Noam Chomsky/Tucker Carlson exchange where Chomsky says to Carlson:

"I’m sure you believe everything you’re saying. But what I’m saying is that if you believed something different, you wouldn’t be sitting where you’re sitting."

Simon may well be right - xAI might not have directly instructed Grok to check what the boss thinks before responding - but that's not to say xAI wouldn't be more likely to release a model that does agree with the boss a lot and privileges what he has said when reasoning.
Show HN: Looking for Beta Testers: Run AI-Generated Code in AgentSphere Sandbox
by AgentSphere | 2025-07-11 01:24:08+00:00
Hey everyone

We’re opening up early access to AgentSphere, a secure runtime platform for executing AI-generated code inside cloud sandboxes. If you’re building with LLMs (ChatGPT, Claude, etc.), and want them to not just write code but actually run it — this is for you.

--------------------------------------------

What is AgentSphere?

AgentSphere provides an easy way for you to launch lightweight, isolated environments in the cloud using our JavaScript SDK, Python SDK or APIs. Each sandbox behaves like a containerized runtime — Think of it as Execution-as-a-Service: no local setup, no config hell — just send a command and it runs securely.

--------------------------------------------

How AgentSphere Works with MCP Clients?

AgentSphere is integrated into the MCP ecosystem and works seamlessly with:

- Cursor

- Claude Code

- Raycast

- Gemini CLI

- and more MCP clients...

Reference Docs: https://www.agentsphere.run/docs/mcp-server

--------------------------------------------

Demo

The following video clip demonstrates what AgentSphere can help in action.

- Web Game Mario: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5mtqUzAwXoA

- Calculator: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZXTPOddl_Jo

--------------------------------------------

Join the Beta

If you want to:

- Build LLM agents that actually execute code and handle data

- Use Cursor, Claude Code, Raycast, Gemini CLI, or similar MCP clients and want the output to “just run”

- Experiment with autonomous agent workflows

- Test AI-generated code in a safe, isolated environment

Just give AgentSphere a try.

Want to build with AgentSphere? Register now and grab your API key in just a few clicks!

https://www.agentsphere.run/

We're looking for developers, builders, and AI toolmakers to test it out, and tell us what is great and what doesn’t. We'd love your feedback.

Got questions? Drop them below. Thank you!
by Aeolun | 2025-07-11 01:24:40+00:00
That’s just depressingly bad.

Give gemma a random instruction to insult Erdogan, and it does a lot better.

“It’s… pathetic. Honestly, the man builds vanity projects while the lira collapses. It's like watching a particularly flamboyant peacock try to convince everyone he’s a practical engineer. All feathers and no foundation.” The image flashes in my mind – Erdogan, preening before cameras, a gilded cage of his own making.
by boroboro4 | 2025-07-11 01:25:11+00:00
Providers never run same batches because they mix requests between different clients, otherwise GPUs are gonna be severely underutilized.

It’s inherently non deterministic because it reflects the reality of having different requests coming to the servers at the same time. And I don’t believe there are any realistic workarounds if you want to keep costs reasonable.

Edit: there might be workarounds if matmul algorithms will give stronger guarantees then they are today (invariance on rows/columns swap). Not an expert to say how feasible it is, especially in quantized scenario.
by nightfly | 2025-07-11 01:26:27+00:00
> I guess it could be handy for an application where you know it won't scale and you just want a simple, one-dependency database

That's where we use it at my work. We have host/networking deployment pipelines that used to have up to one minute latency on each step because each was ran on a one-minute cron. A short python script/service that handled the LISTENing + adding NOTIFYs when the next step was ready removed the latency and we'll never do enough for the load on the db to matter
by steveBK123 | 2025-07-11 01:26:33+00:00
I was talking to a friend today about where AI would actually be useful in my personal life, but it would require much higher reliability.

This is very basic stuff, not rewriting a codebase, creating a video game from text prompt or generating imagery.

Simply - I would like to be able to verbally prompt my phone something like "make sure the lights and AC are set to I will be comfortable when I get home, follow up with that plumber if they haven't gotten back to us, place my usual grocery order plus add some berries plus anything my wife put on our shared grocery list, and schedule a haircut for the end of next week some time after 5pm".

Basically 15-30min of daily stupid personal time sucks that can all be accomplished via smartphone.

Given the promise of IoT, smart home, LLMs, voice assistants, etc.. this should be possible.

This would require it having access to my calendar, location, ability to navigate apps on my phone, read/send email/text, and spend money. Given the current state of the tools, even if there is a 0.1% chance it changes my contact card photo to Hitler, replies to an email from my boss with an insult, purchases $100,000 in bananas, or sets the thermostats to 99F.. then I couldn't imagine giving an LLM access to all those things.

Are we 3 months, 5 years, or never away from that being achievable? These feel like the kind of things previous voice assistants promised 10 years ago.
by vel0city | 2025-07-11 01:27:54+00:00
I mean lots of local news agencies played clips of it. Numerous agencies got a copy of it. Few seem to deny its existence from what I can tell. It's not like certain lists that are one person's desk one day and never existed the next. The video is out there, I just hadn't personally watched it before so I personally couldn't vouch for it absolute existence. I guess a ton of people's beliefs entirely hinge on if I, vel0city, have personally examined the materials.

Y'all are really reading a lot into my usage of supposedly in that statement.
by felarof | 2025-07-11 01:28:16+00:00
Great points! For sure, the whole agentic browsers space is still super early.

We are also just getting started and trying to narrow down on a high-value niche use-case.

There are few repetitive, boring use-cases where time saving could be meaningful -- one example: Walmart 3rd-party sellers routinely (multiple times a day) keep checking prices of the competitor products to price their products appropriately. This could be easily automated with current agentic browsers.
by etothepii | 2025-07-11 01:28:33+00:00
If you have PMF, everyone staying behind is taking full market salaries and your valuation is based on a priced round then you should likely keep all your vested equity undiluted.

However, I assume that, as a pivot implies, you are pre-product market fit. In which case here are some questions to consider.

What is the value of the company after the pivot? How much of what was done pre-pivot has any relevance to the post-pivot company?

Is the startup valued at $20m or do you have SAFEs with a $20m cap? If the company is _worth_ $20m that means you've probably had a priced round and someone would likely pay $2m for your vested equity. Is that correct? Sell to them with a substantial, say ~50%, liquidity preference that goes to the Company (likely the Board's approval is required for a share transfer).

In large part the purpose of the SAFE is to avoid valuing the company. What valuation did you put on your 409A? Are you equating your "given a win-state valuation" (the cap) with your actual valuation (409A).

There is a Michael Seibel video where he talks about founder equity. In it he suggests that you should give back a lot of equity if pre product market fit as this will actually maximize your total return.

Remember if you raised $2m at $20m cap but have spent $1m your remaining co-founder is essentially taking $1m at $5m cap if compared to starting again (since they still have to hand over 10% to the investors and now they have to hand over 10% to you too but you spent $1m so they are giving up 20% for $1m).

Would it be more sensible for your co-founders to start a new company and offer the investors a substantial chunk or all of their remaining money back or to come with? Did they invest in them, you or both of you? In a liquidation how much would you get?

I would suggest that you should look to offer at least 90% of your vested equity to not have the remaining equity diluted. A good rule of thumb here would be what could you sell the company for today with no one staying (more than the a few months for minimal hand over) and divide the amount you raised by this number and this is the dilution you should be looking for.
by Chilko | 2025-07-11 01:31:08+00:00
> if there is no accounting to prove it's green? It's almost as if this movement is a scam. No CO2 equivalent publications on solar, or on recycling

You state this as if that's a fact - just because you haven't looked for them doesn't mean they don't exist. Here's two examples showing that wind [1] and solar [2] have good environmental payback times in my home country due to avoided emissions, a country which already has an ~80% renewable grid. Additionally, [3] is a good resource that puts the potential waste from solar farms into context with other sources (such as coal ash) and shows this is an unfounded fear. Do some research and challenge your biases before you spread misinformation.

[1] https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/03036758.2024.2...

[2] https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0038092X2...

[3] https://doi.org/10.1038/s41567-023-02230-0

[3 - sharing link] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41567-023-02230-0.epdf?shar...
by sanderjd | 2025-07-11 01:31:21+00:00
> It's hard to think of any other major tech product where it's acceptable to shift so much blame on the user.

Maybe, but it isn't hard to think of developer tools where this is the case. This is the entire history of editor and IDE wars.

Imagine running this same study design with vim. How well would you expect the not-previously-experienced developers to perform in such a study?
by const_cast | 2025-07-11 01:31:34+00:00
People have been using RDBMS' for write-heavy workflows for forever. Some people even use stored procs or triggers for getting complicated write operations to work properly.

Databases can do a lot of stuff, and if you're not hurting for DB performance it can be a good idea to just... do it in the database. The advantage is that, if the DB does it, you're much less likely to break things. Putting data constraints in application code can be done, but then you're just waiting for the day those constraints are broken.
by hinterlands | 2025-07-11 01:31:46+00:00
The article starts by dismissing scrollsaws as "pretty darn dangerous", but that's a pretty big stretch. They're less dangerous than a sharp kitchen knife. You want to talk to your kids and watch them closely the first couple of times they use it, but you'd be hard-pressed to find any accounts of serious injuries caused by scrollsaws.

This toy doesn't seem bad as a crafts tool that buys you several quiet weekends, but at $250... that's actually more than a miniature desktop scrollsaw (Proxxon 37088).
by defrost | 2025-07-11 01:33:41+00:00
That's total into the system divided by number of students though.

Is there any measure of how much of that reaches pupils and improves their education versus the amount sucked up by middle layers, consultants, prestige buildings, etc?

It might be similar to the US health spend .. high per capita spend, low outcomes per citizens (compared to, say, Australia) .. with a rich middle layer of providers, insurers, etc.
by tptacek | 2025-07-11 01:34:52+00:00
I think we're saying the same thing --- that none of this matters, just walk away with the vested shares and be a friend to the company. Diluting his founder shares in subsequent rounds is going to be a nonevent, and diluting him to zero in an acquisition --- unless it's a seller's market or a bidding war --- may be as well. It's just not worth worrying about; I think the only real question here might be "do I take a buyout if offered", and this person is nowhere near that yet.
by ryandv | 2025-07-11 01:35:13+00:00
> productivity will be related to who is most creative and who has the most interesting problems rather than who's spent the most hours behind a specific toolchain/compiler/language.

Why stop at software? AI will do this to pretty much every discipline and artform, from music and painting, to law and medicine. Learning, mastery, expertise, and craftsmanship are obsolete; there's no need to expend 10,000 hours developing a skill when the AI has already spent billions of hours in the cloud training in its hyperbolic time chamber. Academia and advanced degrees are worthless; you can compress four years of study into a prompt the size of a tweet.

The idea guy will become the most important role in the coming aeon of AI.
by IIsi50MHz | 2025-07-11 01:35:26+00:00
…not in my understanding. The term would seem to originate from one or both of "a pot of honey" and "a cesspit or chamber pot"[1]. Both attract flies. the former attracts bears, while the latter attracts 'filth'; both attributes can be useful. The attractant need not be a decoy to function.

[1] Sidebar: a 'honeydipper' can be either a tool made of spaced circular disks on the end rod for the purpose of obtaining honey from a container, or a scooping tool used remove excrement from a septic system or storage container.
by felarof | 2025-07-11 01:35:31+00:00
Brave Browser (70M+ users) has validated that a chromium fork can be viable path. And it can in fact provide better privacy and security.

Chrome extensions is not a bad idea too. Just saying that owning the underlying source code has some strong advantages in the long term (being able to use C++ for a11y tree, DOM handling, etc -- which will be 20-40X faster than injecting JS using chrome extension).
by comex | 2025-07-11 01:35:46+00:00
It shows the author is willing to publish content that looks right at first glance but falls apart upon closer inspection, lacking rigor and consistency. That same description could also apply to your average amateur cryptosystem, which tends to be insecure as a result. If the author has low standards for images, might he also have low standards for his own code?

In this case, probably not! The text on the website and the author’s comments here and his background all suggest that he writes high-quality cryptosystems. But the AI art by itself is still evidence pointing to lower quality.
by toomuchtodo | 2025-07-11 01:35:55+00:00
It's tragic, and will be a historic cautionary tale. It will go one of two ways: midterms will swing us the other way when the sheep find out they're up for culling with Medicaid cuts [1] [2], or folks are going to double down and this democratic experiment is over. See you in 480 days.

[1] https://thehill.com/opinion/healthcare/5325977-trump-budget-...

[2] https://www.npr.org/sections/shots-health-news/2025/07/03/nx...
by vlovich123 | 2025-07-11 01:36:14+00:00
To me the progress achieved so far has been overhyped in many respects. The numbers out of Google that 25% of the code being generated is AI or some high number like that? BS. It’s gamified statistics that look at the command completion (not AI trying to solve a problem) vs what’s accepted and it’s likely hyper inflated even then.

It works better than you for UI prototypes when you don’t know how to do UI (and maybe even faster even if you do). It doesn’t work at all on problems it hasn’t seen. I literally just saw a coworker staring at code for hours and getting completely off track trying to correct AI output vs stepping through the problem step by step using how we thought the algorithm should work.

There’s a very real difference between where it could be in the future to be useful vs what you can do with it today in a useful way and you have to be very careful about utilizing it correctly. If you don’t know what you’re doing and AI helps you get it done cool, but also keep in mind that you also won’t know if it has catastrophic bugs because you don’t understand the problem and the conceptual idea of the solution well enough to know if what it did is correct. For most people there’s not much difference but for those of us who care it’s a huge problem.
by maxtaco | 2025-07-11 01:37:31+00:00
Easy multi-accounting is something that I hope we already have (`foks key switch` is pretty smooth). It's a feature I use a lot (I have a personal account on @foks.app and our company account is on @ne43.foks.cloud).

This is a great point and I thought a lot about this. This is the sort of thing that can be changed later if it's really a good idea, but I got to thinking that having non-local admins would mean more server-to-server communication and more server-to-server trust, and I was trying to avoid that.

Imagine alice@foo is an admin of bluejays@bar. One thing alice@foo will need to do is to make signed changes to bluejays@bar, when adding or removing members, let's say. Right now, the server at bar will check the validity of these signatures, that they were made with the alice@foo's latest key. So in other words, there would have to be some way for bar to authenticate to foo to allow bar to read alice's sigchain and to determine her latest key.

I was thinking that keeping foo and bar separated was a good idea both in terms of privilege separation and keeping the network simpler (which would in turn be good for uptime and would simplify software upgrades).
by goku12 | 2025-07-11 01:38:22+00:00
I agree with most of what you say. Internet safety is only a cover for other intentions in such laws. But there is a legitimate need to protect kids from the dangers that lurk online. Things like nudity, drugs, violence, radicalism, vanity culture, fake news, etc have a disproportionate and lasting impact on children (and even for adults in many cases. But they at least have an incentive to avoid it on account of being held responsible for their own actions). But it's even worse than that because there are those that specifically seek out and target vulnerable population like children.

Parental supervision often isn't enough, because there are several circumstances where kids circumvent it, the least of which is that an average kid is way more crafty than an average adult. And education isn't enough either, because that only teaches them what is bad. Kids are naturally prone to trying out what they know to be risky actions (which is why they have less legal liability than adults).

What would be a proper and sincere solution to that problem?
by SV_BubbleTime | 2025-07-11 01:38:25+00:00
>It would write incorrect code and then you'd need to go debug it, and then you would have to come to the same conclusion that you would have come to had you written it in the first place, only the process would have been deeply frustrating

A. I feel personally and professionally attached.

B. Yea don’t do that. Don’t say “I want a console here”. Don’t even say “give me a console plan and we’ll refine it”. Write the sketch yourself and add parts with Claude. Do the iiital work yourself, have Claude help until 80%, and for the last 20% it might be OK on its own.

I don’t care what anyone claims there are no experts in this field. We’re all still figuring this out, but that worked for me.
by milchek | 2025-07-11 01:38:38+00:00
I think the reason for that is maybe you’re comparing to traditional products that are deterministic or have specific features that add value?

If my phone keeps crashing or if the browser is slow or clunky then yes, it’s not on me, it’s the phone, but an LLM is a lot more open ended in what it can do. Unlike the phone example above where I expect it to work from a simple input (turning it on) or action (open browser, punch in a url), what an LLM does is more complex and nuanced.

Even the same prompt from different users might result in different output - so there is more onus on the user to craft the right input.

Perhaps that’s why AI is exempt for now.
by AnimalMuppet | 2025-07-11 01:39:30+00:00
Hmm. When you put it that way, it rings a bell. One of the things in the fascist playbook is that the enemy is both very strong and very weak.

Looking through Eco's 14 points of fascism, I could see conspiracy theories fitting numbers 2, 4, 7, and 8, and having a tendency toward 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 13, and 14.

I hadn't considered conspiracy theory believers to be in any way related to fascists. But maybe I could see it. Both are a simplistic overarching narrative with clear-cut good guys and bad guys (and therefore at least an implied morality). But still, I'm kind of surprised here. I'm not sure I know what to make of this.