MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by deanCommie | 2025-07-07 01:06:22+00:00
except they weren't really "support systems"

i mean they were, if you got lucky.

If you were neurotypical; if you bought in to the local religious sect's particular flavour and embraced it wholeheartedly; if you followed the other local cults of sports fandoms; if you were lucky enough to either have family without their own trauma that didn't take it out on you OR decided to repress it in exactly the same way that they did and just simply passed it forward or didn't talk about it.

i don't know what the ratios are but a LOT of people fell through the cracks.

it's just that the birth rate was high enough to continue the population growth, and there were socially acceptable ways to ignore the inconvenient problems (see: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rosemary_Kennedy)

it's why there's now suddenly an influx of ADHD and Autism diagnosis - because in the past anyone outside of the norm who wasn't lucky to do one of the things above was simply ignored, beaten, or died.

now the stigma is gone and we're finding EXPLICIT paths to treatment, tolerance, and embracement of mental health, neuroatypical brains, spectrums, etc. Is there overpathologizing? Maybe? Hard to know! The stigmas still aren't gone. Go read the comments on any video providing tips on how to parent children on the spectrum and see neurotypicals freaking out about how soft the current generation is.

the western world seems to have peaked in tolerance in the 2010s, and is now backsliding into authoritarianism and fascism. that's trying to recreate a lot of those original support systems (by destroying the new ones). It's a bold plan, let's see how it happens.
by tom_m | 2025-07-07 01:06:47+00:00
They already made smart decisions. This money is for dumb decisions that may pay off big.

Imagine having so much money that you've already invested in stocks, bonds, real estate, you own everything, you got bored going to Vegas, and have nothing else to do with your money. So you start to toss some of it into a fund with others. Not a hedge fund mind you. You've done that already too. No, you stick it into a fund to be managed by lunatics. Because have enough money and you want to see a moon shot play out for fun.

That's the kinda stupid "F you" money we're talking about. It comes from people who don't care. They literally don't care. They just want to say they invested in XYZ, because no one cares about where their money came from or what their normal investments are.

This is the kinda very rich we're talking about and they aren't all there in the head sometimes.

I wish I had that much money lol.
by DHPersonal | 2025-07-07 01:07:13+00:00
Isn’t the point of labeling something as a “trauma” to be a signifier for the moment or behavior that affected you greatly and not something that meets an arbitrary level of awfulness, especially by way of comparison? Your father lost a brother, which is definitely certainly traumatic, but my grandfather lost a son. Does that equate to a greater trauma, therefore nullifying your father’s loss? I would say no! Comparing traumas means in my mind that nobody can ever heal because someone else will always have experienced something that was in some way worse.
by to11mtm | 2025-07-07 01:07:24+00:00
> Better for the environment, more comfortable, quieter, cheaper in the long run, ... what's not to like.

Pragmatically speaking, At least for the weight of a 'US Style Electric Tractor' my concern is that nobody in my state is following the Truck Speed limits as is. The added weight on top of the speeding means our roads turn to shit way way faster (I live near a major US/CA transit point for freight that also has sharp seasonal changes.)

Where this becomes a semi-concern for the practicality of such drivers (i.e. potential buyers,) the advertised range likely is based on certain assumptions, and going 70MPH+ likely results in a notable range reduction.

All of that said, I do really like that Frito Lay is using E-Transit vans for local distribution now; that 'last leg' is arguably at least as important as long haul, yet has the advantage of being way easier to solve from a logistics/planning standpoint. Amazon seems to have it figured out well with the rivian vans and they aren't changing strategy.
by janalsncm | 2025-07-07 01:07:44+00:00
I suspect the people who play games to understand the artistic point of view of the game maker are a minority. What is the artistic point of view of Mario Kart?

People play games because they’re fun. They’re challenging and entertaining and interesting. Highly subjective. Whether these neural-procedural games will be popular hinges more on whether they’re engaging or repetitive imo.
by SoftTalker | 2025-07-07 01:08:39+00:00
He created a company that tracks and profiles people, psychologically manipulates them, and sells ads. And has zero ethical qualms about the massive social harm they have left in their wake.

That doesn't tell me anything about his ability to build "augmented reality" or otherwise use artificial intelligence in any way that people will want to pay for. We'll see.

Ford and GM have a century of experience building cars but they can't seem to figure out EVs despite trying for nearly two decades now.

Tesla hit the ball out of the park with EVs but can't figure out self-driving.

Being good at one thing does not mean you will be good at everything you try.
by bakugo | 2025-07-07 01:08:48+00:00
Incremental progress towards what? This is literally going backwards. I can play GTA IV on my Playstation 3 right now. I could almost 2 decades ago.

But now I can instead play a version of GTA that resembles what dreaming about playing GTA would be like, in which I can press a button and, after 10 seconds of latency, watch my "character" awkwardly walk into a building as the world melts around him, all while consuming literally 100 times the computing resources that the original game required to run. And this is apparently revolutionary.

If this was created by someone I knew, I'd tell them to learn Unity or something and make an actual game.
by zug_zug | 2025-07-07 01:09:01+00:00
1. Weird title

2. Personally, I think the being more knowledgeable about (and conversant in) common psychological issues is great. Much better if we have a label for "depression" rather than just thinking "The world and everything is awful and I'm the only one who feels this way." Same for anxiety, attachment, all of that.

3. If young girls happen to co-opt it in a way you find self-absorbed, get over it, stop trying to police it and make a fake moral panic over it. It's no worse than astrology or whatever other loose avenue of self-exploration would be otherwise happening.

It to me sounds like the author fundamentally misunderstands the whole thing, this just is soaking in boomer energy. That is -- the premise that recognizing these trends is somehow shaming/bad and it's "better" if we all use loosely-defined unscientific terms like "nice-person" rather than looking at and challenging our overly intense and dysfunctional people-pleasing or whatever.

The way gen-z uses these terms, is that they aren't some hardcore disorder, but as a common parlance for real and addressable things to change about oneself (e.g. that talking on the phone can be uncomfortable, or making an appointment is stressful). Like gen-z may say "Oh I have insecure attachment" and they just mean "Sometimes I'm afraid to reach out for fear of rejection" and that's a healthy thing to talk about, even if the term they used is used a different way in the DSM.
by NoPicklez | 2025-07-07 01:09:09+00:00
This is a really good article.

There is a lot of this content out there about mental health and there is a lot of it that tries to explain everything people do. Much of the issue I see is that it is taken to extremes and is very much driven by algorithms pushing particular pieces of content. And if it is ambiguous enough it will reach a larger audience, a beneficial sign for the account posting it.

There's no room for nuance that perhaps the person who is generous both has qualities of a people pleaser but is a generous person because once upon a time they did a generous thing and it made their life happier. Where it becomes a mental health issue is when it starts to reduce the quality of your life and your relationships significantly.

The bigger issue is that each of these things seem to be labelled as problems and how they can be solved, not managed nor be normal human behaviors. At the extremes, yes perhaps they need to be managed to a higher degree, but everything else is still what makes up peoples lives.

I myself am swarmed with reels about anxious/avoidant attachment reels with any random man/women and their dog trying to talk ambiguously about human behaviors and providing an explanation for them.

For young people sitting on TikTok and Instagram late at night being bombarded with mental health related reels trying to explain your behavior and other peoples behavior you like or don't like. It's best to give that type of content a break.
by Izkata | 2025-07-07 01:10:00+00:00
> this same, old

I think the original claim got corrupted into what people argue about now: those lower fps were found to be roughly the border between perceiving something as smooth motion and jerky stop-motion (like claymation). Then someone misunderstood "smooth motion" to mean we can't perceive any better than that, and it started getting repeated incorrectly as the upper limit.
by djoldman | 2025-07-07 01:11:14+00:00
The part that seems to be lost in all this is that there's really no purpose to learning/exploring/explaining unless it points to action.

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.

Unless you just enjoy the learning for the learnings sake, seek to learn so as to plan and execute.
by Arrowmaster | 2025-07-07 01:12:10+00:00
The last bit of this comes off as a very snobbish attitude. There are many people that used to enjoy reading but have found it harder to do the sitting down and actually reading part. Audiobooks becoming wildly more accessible over the past few decades has allowed people to consume books in situations they normally would not. I got back into reading when I found myself at a job that I averaged more than 10 hours a week commuting too. I know other people that listen to audiobooks while doing their homework or mowing the lawn.

Listening to audiobooks is still 'reading'. It's very uncommon to get abridged auto books now, so every word is still being consumed. It's just a difference in which sense you are using to consume it.
by ai_assisted_dev | 2025-07-07 01:12:18+00:00
I find it absolutely awesome:

1. I love AI/ML hearing about stuff, and seeing it boom this much is great.

2. I really do enjoy working with LLMs and seeing what they can do.

3. It is quite amazing what non-technical people can now do with AI Assisted coding.

4. Working with LLMs within IDEs is getting quite good too.

I understand that there are still people who are not buying it, but quite honestly, its becoming harder to side with them. I have been in Software for 2 decades, and this "craze" has given me the most amount of enjoyment I have gotten since I figured out how to build a website sometime in my teens!
by marginalia_nu | 2025-07-07 01:12:38+00:00
Seems likely to be at least partially selection bias.

When large emphasis is on the technology (whether it's made with AI or written in Rust or whatever), it seems at least in some cases like there is less substance to the idea itself, as a good product is a good product regardless of how it's built.

A post like "Show HN: I'm using AI to sort a list of integers" is inherently boring since if you remove the AI part it's something we've been doing for half a century.

A post like "Show HN: I'm using AI to translate Linear A" is interesting and would be interesting even if AI wasn't involved.
by bob1029 | 2025-07-07 01:12:48+00:00
> SEBI said that the “intensity and sheer scale” of their intervention, and the rapid reversal of their trades “without any plausible economic rationale, other than the concurrent activity in and impact on their positions in the BANKNIFTY index options markets,” was manipulative.

> "without any plausible economic rationale..."

I had a bit of a laugh at this. I thought the rationale was to fuck the counterparties as hard as possible?

It would seem like Jane Street being allowed to operate in this market is like bringing an anti-material rifle to a pillow fight.
by mgraczyk | 2025-07-07 01:13:11+00:00
Important for HN users in particular to keep in mind: It is possible (and IMO likely) that the article is mostly true and ALSO that software engineering will be almost completed automated within the next few years.

Even the most pessimistic timelines have to account for 20-30x more compute, models trained on 10-100x more coding data, and tools very significantly more optimized for the task within 3 years
by satisfice | 2025-07-07 01:13:16+00:00
I am not the clothes I wear, but personality is not "clothes." If personality were clothing then removing it would be a simple and painless matter, after which you would be interacting with the world "without personality." This is absurd. You can't have no personality. All you can do is replace a personality with a different personality. Your personality is the totality of patterns by which you present yourself to the world.

This is not the same thing as what you show to the world. "What you show to the world" implies that personality is merely a veil that covers stuff. It's not a veil at all. It's an interface. The "real you" that acts through this interface is beyond words, personality is not "showing it" because it can't be shown, but rather mediating it via actions.
by neom | 2025-07-07 01:14:21+00:00
It goes in cycles. The late 90s into 2010s was getting everyone "online" 2010s to 2015s was "online stuff" and 2013 today has been moving all the software to the internet, people got rich in each wave of them. I wish I could find it but I once saw a super early day interview (not the Bambi Francisco one) of Zuck asking about turning down billions and he's just like "I have facebook..." - he could see what was in front of him. Personally I'd guess the next big wave of young rich folks will come out of hardware. On your comment about content creation/the creator economy... I hope for a resurgence of the value of individual art and creativity. The greatest joy I had working on building deviantart was technology disappearing into the background so creativity could shine. Now that we have a sort of interesting tech maslow in place, I hope many young folks are able to find ways to make comfortable livings doing cool things using tech over the next 10 years, and I hope we continue to de-emphsize the want to become a billionaire, the richest people I know are the least happy.
by GianFabien | 2025-07-07 01:15:05+00:00
On the internet the most marked issue is the difference between British English spellings (England, Canada, Australia, New Zealand) and the USA. It is frustrating that on most spell checked text boxes words like: harbour, labour, actualise, etc shown as misspelt.

I find it most irksome that the Australian Labor Party has chosen the USA spelling in spite of being part of the Commonwealth.
by Buttons840 | 2025-07-07 01:16:30+00:00
I'll offer a definition of AGI:

An AI (a computer program) that is better at [almost] any task than 5% of the human specialists in that field has achieved AGI.

Or, stated another way, if 5% of humans are incapable of performing any intellectual job better than an AI can, then that AI has achieved AGI.

Note, I am not saying that an AI that is better than humans at one particular thing has achieved AGI, because it is not "general". I'm saying that if a single AI is better at all intellectual tasks than some humans, the AI has achieved AGI.

The 5th percentile of humans deserves the label of "intelligent", even if they are not the most intelligent, (I'd say all humans deserve the label "intelligent") and if an AI is able to perform all intellectual tasks better than such a person, the AI has achieved AGI.
by handfuloflight | 2025-07-07 01:16:32+00:00
{⍵[⍋⍵]}⍨?10⍴100

...or generate 10 random numbers from 1 to 100 and sort them in ascending order.

I know which one of these is closer to, if not identical to the thoughts in my mind before any code is written.

I know which of one of these can be communicated to every single stakeholder in the organization.

I know which one of these the vast majority of readers will ask an AI to explain.
by lmm | 2025-07-07 01:16:59+00:00
> does anyone else get embarrassed of their career choice when you read things like this?

On the contrary, it makes me proud. In private equity, medicine, or law, if you have the right accent and went to a good school and have some good names on your resume, you can get a job even if you're thoroughly incompetent - and if you're a genius but don't have the right credentials you'll probably be overlooked. In programming it still mostly comes down to whether you can actually program. Long may it continue.
by elliotto | 2025-07-07 01:17:16+00:00
To claim that LLMs do not experience consciousness requires a model of how consciousness works. The author has not presented a model, and instead relied on emotive language leaning on the absurdity of the claim. I would say that any model one presents of consciousness often comes off as just as absurd as the claim that LLMs experience it. It's a great exercise to sit down and write out your own perspective on how consciousness works, to feel out where the holes are.

The author also claims that a function (R^n)^c -> (R^n)^c is dramatically different to the human experience of consciousness. Yet the author's text I am reading, and any information they can communicate to me, exists entirely in (R^n)^c.
by xivzgrev | 2025-07-07 01:17:40+00:00
As a manager I’m going thru performance management myself. It’s a hard experience.

What I learned is: you need to hold a high bar, because people can do anything to keep their job, and often not what you want them to do

What you want is someone who is open to feedback, understands it, and takes effective action.

Outside of that, there’s a whole gamut of people. Some get defensive. Some are politely open to feedback but don’t actually try to understand. Some understand but don’t care enough to follow thru. And some try hard but aren’t effective. All of that is bad for your team, and unlikely to change. Just need to cut your losses to open your seat for someone who can do it.

The current person i have is open to feedback, but doesn’t fully understand it and doesn’t care to. It’s like dragging a horse to water. After doing that for six months my manager pointed that out, it’s just not a good fit. I like to see the best in people, and even a little bit of improvement gives me hope. But it’s dragging down our team potential. It’s a hard truth.
by photochemsyn | 2025-07-07 01:17:56+00:00
This is an interesting question. The common theme between computers and people is that information has to be protected, and both computer systems and biological systems require additional information-protecting components - eq, error correcting codes for cosmic ray bitflip detection for the one, and DNA mismatch detection enzymes which excise and remove damaged bases for the other. In both cases a lot of energy is spent defending the critical information from the winds of entropy, and if too much damage occurs, the carefully constructed illusion of determinancy collapses, and the system falls apart.

However, this information protection similarity applies to single-celled microbes as much as it does to people, so the question also resolves to whether microbes are deterministic. Microbes both contain and exist in relatively dynamic environments so tiny differences in initial state may lead to different outcomes, but they're fairly deterministic, less so than (well-designed) computers.

With people, while the neural structures are programmed by the cellular DNA, once they are active and energized, the informational flow through the human brain isn't that deterministic, there are some dozen neurotransmitters modulating state as well as huge amounts of sensory data from different sources - thus prompting a human repeatedly isn't at all like prompting an LLM repeatedly. (The human will probably get irritated).
by grafmax | 2025-07-07 01:18:06+00:00
Rapidly increased energy use from fossil fuels (despite up to half coming from renewables), is simply not good enough. We are likely in the process of exceeding the 1.5 degree threshold targeted by the Paris Climate Accords. Making gestures toward renewable energy while drastically increasing fossil fuel usage is dangerously irresponsible.

As for degrowthers - that’s really not the reason nuclear plants have been shuttered, historically - rather it’s aging infrastructure as plants reached the end of their operational timelines, and economic competition (historically) from fossil fuels. “Degrowth”, on the other hand, is a recent ideology.

Nor is the expected energy use from shuttered nuclear expected to address the extreme energy usage from AI data centers. The IEA already forecasts with unshuttering in mind. Sadly your notion that unshuttering will be enough to make AI energy clean just isn’t true once we take sober stock of our current situation. And, as truly dire as our circumstances are, we are better off acknowledging them with an honest appraisal so we can make the optimal decisions around our predicament - rather than digging our hole even deeper in the comfort of our rose colored glasses and Pollyanna ideologies.