MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by adastra22 | 2025-07-07 17:24:51+00:00
They, and the other posters posting similar things, don't mean human-like intelligence, or even the rigorously defined solving of unconstrained problem spaces that originally defined Artificial General Intelligence (in contrast to "narrow" intelligence").

They mean an artificial god, and it has become a god of the gaps: we have made artificial general intelligence, and it is more human-like than god-like, and so to make a god we must have it do XYZ precisely because that is something which people can't do.
by jeffbee | 2025-07-07 17:25:15+00:00
They're referring to the ordinary DDR5-on-a-stick Ryzen implementation, not the LPDDR5X Ryzen AI implementation.

ETA: The only non-laptop results I have seen for the Ryzen AI place it worse than the 9950X, which has 2-channel plain old DDR5. The 4-channel LPDDR5X only wins when it can exploit the bandwidth and hide the latency, such as physics simulations. But for most applications the 9950X beats it. Hence my original point now well upthread: still waiting to see if the Strix Halo architecture is good for anything.
by ddingus | 2025-07-07 17:25:20+00:00
Yes, and the struggle with this back in the day was the *IAA and related organizations wanted to equate infringement with theft.

And to be clear, we javelin the word infringement precisely because it is not theft.

In addition to the deprived revenue, piracy also improves on the general relevance the author has or may have in the public sphere. Essentially, one of the side effects of piracy is basically advertising.

Doctorow was one of the early ones to bring this aspect of it up.
by JoeAltmaier | 2025-07-07 17:25:31+00:00
There are still questions: is an AI a 'user' in the copyright sense?

Or even, is an individual operating within the law as fair use, the same as a voracious all-consuming AI training bot consuming everything the same in spirit?

Consider a single person in a National Park, allowed to pick and eat berries, compared to bringing a combine harvester to take it all.
by kragen | 2025-07-07 17:25:36+00:00
On the contrary, I've found Simon's opinions informative and valuable for many years, since I first saw the lightning talk at PyCon about what became Django, which IIRC was significantly Simon's work. I see nothing in his recent writing to suggest that this has changed. Rather, I have found his writing to be the most reliable and high-information-density information about the rapid evolution of AI.

Language only works as a form of communication when knowledge of vocabulary, grammar, etc., is shared between interlocutors, even though indeed there is no objectively correct truth there, only social convention. Foreign language learners have to acquire that knowledge, which is difficult and slow. For every "turn of phrase" you "enjoy" there are a hundred frustrating failures to communicate, which can sometimes be serious; I can think of one occasion when I told someone I was delighted when she told me her boyfriend had dumped her, and another occasion when I thought someone was accusing me of lying, both because of my limited fluency in the languages we were using, French and Spanish respectively.
by theGeatZhopa | 2025-07-07 17:26:13+00:00
a bit unrealistic and unserious to ask such questions, as one never know how the customer will behave. Just imagine, that another one start the exact same thing, but do, for example, faster & better support - because it's not a one man show. And then? then you'll see better marketing, because there's a sales & marketing professional employed, you see better & faster feature development. Etc...

In my life, its not as long that I can fill each discussion, I've seen quite a few situations, where I said "thats it. Thats an perfect idea no one have had before" -> nope. Each one turned out to be not as good as I thought and, I wasn't the only one who came up with that... My experience tell me, you need a differentiator. You have to solve a pain, but the medicine must be better than of your competitors.

In your case, I would rather say "if the others, like you, are really solo-interpreneurs and do exactly the same thing as you do. Then it will be ok, as long none of the others start to invest heavily in marketing with a dedicated marketing department. That will be the differentiator that might break your neck."

Stop dreamin, reinvest the gains and employ some people to bring your business to a new level. Don't risk it without necessities. Dont slow down your pace with "principles". My opinion.

I may be wrong, but I'm a different risk profile. I like to have everything under control. What is your risk taking capabilities?

may be, this will be some kind of inspiration. That guy build and sold for 100mio as a solo:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AR2H7X1HBEM
by DrillShopper | 2025-07-07 17:26:27+00:00
> The whole point of copyright is to ensure you're paid for your work.

No. The point of copyright is that the author gets to decide under what terms their works are copied. That's the essence of copyright. In many cases, authors will happily sell you a copy of their work, but they're under no obligation to do so. They can claim a copyright and then never release their work to the general public. That's perfectly within their rights, and they can sue to stop anybody from distributing copies.
by zuppy | 2025-07-07 17:26:42+00:00
that is totally not my experience. you don't have to buy the latest and greatest, I've bought a V8 a few years ago. it does it's job perfectly fine like in the first day. it's the only vacuum (of the ones I've owned) that is capable of cleaning the cat hair from my sofa. maybe there are other products capable of that now, some years have passed, but the quality of dyson is pretty top notch.
by rglover | 2025-07-07 17:27:05+00:00
For me, the "dystopia" factor is that the structure of society is such where something that is arguably essential for the majority of people is ironically inaccessible without a cheap shortcut like an LLM.

IMO, it's less about an entitlement to and more about an accessibility of sort of problem. Funny enough, that infrastructure existing (in theory) was why mental hospitals started to close down in favor of "mental health clinics" back in the day [1].

[1] https://archive.ph/NJyr3 (New York Times—1984)
by BobaFloutist | 2025-07-07 17:27:16+00:00
1:1 therapy isn't the only way to treat depression, but it's still unmatched for personality disorders, and can be a huge force multiplier with medication for OCD, GAD, MDD, Schizophrenia, ADHD, and, yes, depression.

The problem is that because therapy is as much art as science, the subset of skilled, intelligent therapists is much smaller than the set of all therapists, and the subset of skilled, intelligent therapists with experience and knowledge of your particular disorder and a modality that's most effective for you is tiny, making it frustratingly hard to find a good match.
by The5thElephant | 2025-07-07 17:27:28+00:00
Exactly this. Thank you.

We need a Blender-like design tool specifically for product design. Using HTML/CSS for rendering so it covers most web needs and that usually more than encompasses native app-layout emulation. Open source, technical, and not expected to be picked up in a day or fully understood top-to-bottom by everyone.

The reason Figma is putting us into a design box is because it doesn't have all the CSS features that actually let you create incredible experiences.
by stared | 2025-07-07 17:27:52+00:00
When I think about it again, it is less about one's absolute knowledge of psychology, and more about (as you said) knowing one's own ignorance and having some mental model of an LLM.

One model I have found useful to communicate is that they meet in a bar one random person, who seems to know a lot, but otherwise you have no idea about them, and also - they have absolutely no context of you. In that case, is you treat (with a grain of salt) what they say, it is fine. They may say something inspiring, or insightful, or stupid, or random. If they say something potentially impactful, you would rather double check it with others (and no, not some other random person in bar).

I know both people for whom LLMs were helpful (one way or another). But again, treating it more like a conversation with a stranger.

Worse (not among my direct friends, but e.g. a parent of one) is when people treat it as something omniscient, who will give them direct answer. Fortunately, GPT 4 by them was rather defensive, and kept giving options (in a situation like "should I stay or break"), refusing to give an answer for them (they were annoyed; but better being annoyed than giving agency that way).

When it comes to anything related to diagnosis (fortunately, it has some safeguards), it might be dangerous. While I used that to try to see if it can diagnose something based on hints (and it was able to make really fine observation), it needs to base on really fine prompts, and not always works anyway. In other cases, its overly agreeable nature is likely to get you in the self-confirmation loop (you mention "anxiety" somewhere and it will push for Generalized Anexiety Disorder).

Again, if a person treats it as a random discussion - they will be fine. They met House MD who sees lupus everywhere. Worse, if they stop searching, or take is as gospel, or get triggered by at (likely wrong) diagnosis.
by luckylion | 2025-07-07 17:27:59+00:00
> A couple of days ago, someone (or some entity) tried to attack this website. They sent hundreds of thousands of requests, attempting to inject code into the site. [...] But then they changed strategy. They began downloading every single sound file, again and again.

The author definitely saw it as a targeted attack that, when it failed, caused the attacker to switch tactics to intentionally cause harm.

And it's not "this is common, suck it up", it's "this is common, it's not about you personally, nobody is out to get YOU". It's like when you first receive spam mails and didn't know what that was. It's easy to think it's just someone messing with you, trying to annoy you. But it's really not, it's lots of people sending out millions of messages, and some of those finding their way into your mailbox.

It helps classify what happens. It's a very different situation when your car has been keyed and you know that it happened to every car on your street (super likely to be random vandalism) vs that is happened to only your car (much more likely that somebody is out to get you). Your behavior changes in response to whether something is random vs intentional.

That's why it's important to help people understand when things aren't intentional (as in "they targeted _that_ website specifically" vs "they target all the sites, and today their scanner arrived at domains starting with myno"; of course they still intentionally ran that script).
by TeMPOraL | 2025-07-07 17:28:03+00:00
'ben_w addressed other points, but it would be amiss not to comment on this too:

> The marketing is telling everyone that they're amazing PhD level geniuses.

No it is not. LLM vendors are, and have always been, open about the limits of the models, and I'm yet to see a major provider claiming their models are geniuses, PhD-level or otherwise. Nothing of the sort is happening - on the contrary, the vendors are avoiding making such claims or positioning their offerings this way.

No, this perspective doesn't come from LLM marketing. It comes from people who ignore both the official information from the vendors and the experience of LLM users, who are oblivious to what's common knowledge and instead let their imagination run wild, perhaps fueled by bullshit they heard from other clueless people, or more likely, from third parties on the Internet that say all kinds of outlandish things to get more eyes looking at the ads they run.

> Companies and individuals are buying LLMs expecting them to be real developers, and real writers, and real risk analysts... but they'll get average dumb-as-they-come internet commenter.

Curiously, this is wrong in two opposite directions at once.

Yes, many companies and individuals have overinflated expectations, but that's frankly because they're idiots. There's no first-party fraud going on here; if you get fooled by hype from some random LinkedIn "thought leaders", that's on you; sue them for making a fool of you, and don't make yourself a bigger one by blaming LLM vendors for your own poor information diet. At the same time, LLMs actually are at the level of real developers, real writers and real risk analysts; downplaying capabilities of current LLMs doesn't make you less wrong than overestimating them.
by jpadkins | 2025-07-07 17:28:22+00:00
Pretty good example of how a super-intelligent AI can control human behavior, even if it doesn't "escape" its data center or controllers.

If the super-intelligent AI understands human incentives and is in control of a very popular service, it can subtly influence people to its agenda by using the power of mass usage. Like how a search engine can influence a population's view of an issue by changing the rankings of news sources that it prefers.
by asveikau | 2025-07-07 17:28:29+00:00
I think it's older than 2025 and definitely has a piece of it that is specific to Catholics. I tend to think of northeastern American Catholicism from the lens of immigration. The big waves of Italians, Irish, Eastern Europeans, etc. The immigrant identity often led to left leaning economics and the parts of Christianity which are about helping the poor get emphasized.
by krasin | 2025-07-07 17:28:36+00:00
Not only they do not release models/weights. They don't even tell the size of the models!

The linked whitepaper is pretty useless, and I am saying as a big fan of diffusion-transformers-for-not-just-images-or-videos approach.

Also, Gemini Diffusion ([1]) is way better at coding than Mercury offering.

1. https://deepmind.google/models/gemini-diffusion/
by nickpsecurity | 2025-07-07 17:28:59+00:00
That's true and was the distinction I was making. In my proposal, and maybe part of what Anthropic did, the digitized copies are used as training data for a new work, the model. That reduces the risk of legal rulings against using the copyrighted works.

From there, the cases would likely focus on whether that fits in established criteria for digitized copies, whether they're allowed in the training process itself, and the copyright status of the resulting model. Some countries allow all of that if you legally obtained the material in the first place. Also, they might factor whether it's for commercial use or not.
by ericmay | 2025-07-07 17:29:45+00:00
> they don't have any way to discipline elected officials who don't toe the line.

Sure they do - you can be removed from committees or projects, you can get primaried, you can lose funding from the RNC/DNC, etc.

We aren’t quite at the level of China disappearing folks or deciding to put them under house arrest but there are repercussions.
by jasonlotito | 2025-07-07 17:29:50+00:00
From my understanding:

> pirating the books for their digital library is not fair use.

"Pirating" is a fuzzy word and has no real meaning. Specifically, I think this is the cruz:

> without adding new copies, creating new works, or redistributing existing copies

Essentially: downloading is fine, sharing/uploading up is not. Which makes sense. The assertion here is that Anthropic (from this line) did not distribute the files they downloaded.
by WorldMaker | 2025-07-07 17:30:12+00:00
You picked a stack that is still very npm-centric, especially private npm packages. The sweet spot for doing things the Deno way still seems to be choosing stacks that themselves are very Deno and/or ESM-native. I've had some great experiences with Lume, for instance, and targeting things like Deno Deploy over Vercel. (JSR scores are very helpful at finding interesting libraries with great ESM support.) Obviously "start with a fresh stack" is a huge ask and not a great way to sell Deno, given how much time/effort investment exists in stacks like Next.js. But I think in terms of "What does Deno do best?" there's a sweet spot where you 0-60 everything in Deno-native/ESM-native tools.

Also, yeah, a lot of Deno's npm compatibility keeps getting better, as mentioned in these 2.4 release notes there are a few new improvements. As another comment in these threads points out, for a full stack like the one you were trying, using Deno package.json first can give a better compatibility feeling than deno.json first, even if the deno.json first approach is the nicer/cleaner one long term or when you can go 0-60 in Deno-native/ESM-native greenfields.
by hinterlands | 2025-07-07 17:30:35+00:00
Although someone will challenge me on that, I'm 100% sure that large chunks of the text are AI-generated. That said, the website itself has been around at least since 2017 (the text just wasn't as verbose - e.g., https://sarahrenaeclark.com/diy-gift-bag/).

So, I suspect it's legit. It's a case of an author leaning on a crutch for writing, but we're here to judge the results, not the phasing.
by fuzzfactor | 2025-07-07 17:30:35+00:00
You make some good points, this really is going to take some careful judgment and chances are it's too complex for an actual courtroom to yield an ideal outcome.

Now places like Flea markets have been known to have a counterfeit DVD or two.

And there is more than one way to compare to non-digital content.

Regular books and periodicals can be sold out and/or out-of-print, but digital versions do not have these same exact limitations.

A great deal of the time though, just the opposite occurs, and a surplus is printed that no one will ever read, and which will eventually be disposed of.

Newspapers are mainly in the extreme category where almost always a significant number of surplus copies are intentionally printed.

It's all part of the same publication, a huge portion of which no one has ever rightfully expected for every copy to earn anything at all, much less a return on every single copy making it back to the original creator.

Which is one reason why so much material is supported by ads. Even if you didn't pay a high enough price to cover the cost of printing, it was all paid for well before it got into your hands.

Digital copies which are going unread are something like that kind of surplus. If you save it from the bin you should be able to do whatever you want with it either way, scan it how you see fit.

You just can't say you wrote it. That's what copyright is supposed to be for.

Like at the flea market, when two different vendors are selling the same items but one has legitimately purchased them wholesale and the other vendor obtained theirs as the spoils of a stolen 18-wheeler.

How do you know which ones are the pirated items?

You can tell because the original owners of the pirated cargo suffered a definite loss, and have none of it remaining any more.

OTOH, with things like fake Nikes at the flea market, you can be confident they are counterfeit whether they were stolen from anybody in any way or not.
by bryanlarsen | 2025-07-07 17:30:57+00:00
Vision Zero is based on a simple principle: if cars are driving less than 20mph a pedestrian collision is highly unlikely to be fatal.

So they set a speed limit of 20mph on any mixed use street, and create separated pedestrian/cyclist infrastructure for any street with higher speed limits.

The latter is super expensive, but it's what you need if you want usually zero fatalities and to go faster than 20mph.

Actually zero all the time is impossible, of course. It's possible that a 5mph collision with a frail pedestrian will kill them. So Norway and Sweden sometimes have a fatality. But a goal of "zero pedestrian fatalities most years" is actually feasible for polities with fewer than 10 million citizens.
Ask HN: Are there other language/framework-specific LLMs?
by fryz | 2025-07-07 17:32:51+00:00
We've been using V0 (https://v0.dev/) for a while now, and relative to other LLMs it definitely seems to be a level up in terms of the quality and readability of the code.

I've watched a few talks by the Vercel engineers and they mention that they've done a lot of work specifically for this by leaning into a strategy of:

* Training the model for specific language + frameworks (typescript, nextjs, react and shadcdn)

* Collecting and using high-quality code samples for training

I'm wondering if anyone else knows of any other model providers that have similar offerings where they're building LLMs to be better within the context of a specific language and/or framework (eg: Python + FastAPI, etc.).
by platunit10 | 2025-07-07 17:33:16+00:00
Every time an article like this surfaces, it always seems like the majority of tech folks believe that training AI on copyrighted material is NOT fair use, but the legal industry disagrees.

Which of the following are true?

(a) the legal industry is susceptible to influence and corruption

(b) engineers don't understand how to legally interpret legal text

(c) AI tech is new, and judges aren't technically qualified to decide these scenarios

Most likely option is C, as we've seen this pattern many times before.
by echelon | 2025-07-07 17:33:20+00:00
My problem with AGI is the lack of a simple, concrete definition.

Can we formalize it as giving out a task expressible in, say, n^m bytes of information that encodes a task of n^(m+q) real algorithmic and verification complexity -- then solving that task within a certain time, compute, and attempt bounds?

Something that captures "the AI was able to unwind the underlying unspoken complexity of the novel problem".

I feel like one could map a variety of easy human "brain teaser" type tasks to heuristics that fit within some mathematical framework and then grow the formalism from there.
by Kim_Bruning | 2025-07-07 17:33:57+00:00
What someone at Anthropic did was download libgen once, then Anthropic figured "wait a minute, isn't that illegal?" , so instead they went and bought 7 million books for real and cut them up to scan them.

Turns out this doesn't quite mitigate downloading them first. (Though frankly, I'm very much against people having to buy 7 million books when someone has already scanned them)
by redcobra762 | 2025-07-07 17:34:07+00:00
Making a digital copy of a physical book is fair use under every legal structure I am aware of.

When you do it for a transformative purpose (turning it into an LLM model) it's certainly fair use.

But more importantly, it's ethical to do so, as the agreement you've made with the person you've purchased the book from included permission to do exactly that.
by michael1999 | 2025-07-07 17:34:11+00:00
Then cities should adopt the yield signs that say that. I agree our system could be much smarter. So may timer-driven systems would be better if the computer knew the presence and number of cars, pedestrians, bikes, etc.

I could support this if you combined it with criminal and civil liability when you guess wrong and run someone over while blowing your stop-sign. Right now, that's a $500 ticket at best, and it happens every day.

The whole problem is that people don't look for pedestrians -- they look for another car that might hit them. So they are looking the wrong way. And then they tell the cops some sob-story about how the dead pedestrian "came out of nowhere".
by stahn1995 | 2025-07-07 17:34:42+00:00
Looks good. It's like a swiss knife. I love it.

As FerkiHN says, a search function sounds really powerful. I find timezone converter is really helpful. I work with 5 different timezones, and ask "when is 9AM <some timezone> in my timezone?" a lot. That would be a good idea for your next time calc.

Please checkout my work as well! https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44492131
by abeppu | 2025-07-07 17:34:44+00:00
I think you're basically saying that ARC-AGI doesn't achieve a goal that _it didn't set_. The point of ARC-AGI is not to benchmark LLMs specifically. The point is to measure fluid intelligence in a way which supports comparisons between models and between models and humans. It's not the obligation of the test to be tailored to the form of model that's most popular now.