MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by steve_adams_86 | 2025-08-07 19:04:25+00:00
No, it's very specific to some watershed sensing data that comes from a bunch of devices strewn about the coast of British Columbia. I'd love to make it (and most of the work I do) OSS if only to share with other scientific groups doing similar work.

Your parser is almost certainly better and faster :) Mine is tailored to a certain schema with specific expectations about foreign keys (well, the concept and artificial enforcement of them) across the documents. This is actually why I've been thinking about using duckdb for this project; it'll allow me to pack the data into the db under multiple schemas with real keys and some primitive type-level constraints. Analysis after that would be sooo much cleaner and faster.

The parsing itself is done with the streams API and orchestrated by a state chart (XState), and while the memory management and concurrency of the whole system is really nice and I'm happy with it, I'm probably making tons of mistakes and trading program efficiency for developer comforts here and there.

The state chart essentially does some grouping operations to pull event data from multiple CSVs, then once it has those events, it stitches them together into smaller portions and ensures each table maps to each other one by the event's ID. It's nice because grouping occurs from one enormous file, and it carves out these groups for the state chart to then organize, validate, and store in parallel. You can configure how much it'll do in parallel, but only because we've got some funny practices here and it's a safety precaution to prevent tying up too many resources on a massive kitchen-sink server on AWS. Haha. So, lots of non-parsing-specific design considerations are baked in.

One day I'll shift this off the giga-server and let it run in isolation with whatever resources it needs, but for now it's baby steps and compromises.
by ogandreakiro | 2025-08-07 19:04:27+00:00
hey - thanks for trying out. not sure what you're trying to extract from hyatt.com but just naively tested the most basic agent (https://github.com/nottelabs/notte?tab=readme-ov-file#run-in...) with simple prompt task="scrape data from hyatt.com landing page" and it worked perfectly:

answer=Successfully navigated to hyatt.com and closed the cookie consent. The page content includes navigation links (Explore, Offers, Meetings & Events, Loyalty Program, Language, Sign In or Join), a search form with inputs for City/Address/Landmark/Airport/Hotel, Check-in and Check-out dates, and options for rooms/guests and special rates. Below the search form, there are sections for 'Earn bonus points at new hotels', 'Limited-Time Offer: Earn 2 Free Nights + 25,000 Bonus Points', 'More Places to Discover' with specific hotel examples (Park Hyatt Auckland, Hyatt Regency London - The Churchill, 7Pines Resort Ibiza, Hyatt Centric Murano Venice), 'Join World of Hyatt' with benefits, and various promotional sections like 'Incredible offers, incredible places', 'Plan a summer of more', 'Outdoor adventure awaits', and 'Wellbeing your way'. The page also lists different Hyatt brands categorized into Luxury, Lifestyle, Inclusive, Classics, and Essentials. At the bottom, there are links for Reservations, Customer Service, Corporate Sites, Explore More, and Connect with Hyatt (social media links), along with legal information (Privacy Policy, Terms & Conditions, Cookie Center, Security & Safety, Modern Slavery and Human Trafficking, Do Not Sell or Share My Personal Information)
by famouswaffles | 2025-08-07 19:04:35+00:00
Maybe you missed the part where I explicitly said that wasn't their definition ?

“A highly autonomous system that outperforms humans at most economically valuable work.” is what's in their charter.

$100B in profits is a separate agreement with Microsoft that makes no mention of autonomity.

>And if you use a hammer substantially in your work to generate $100B in value, a hammer is AGI according to you? You can hold that idea, but that's not what anyone else is talking about. The primary indicator of AGI, as you even said yourself, is autonomy.

The primary indicator of AGI is whatever you want it to be. The words themselves make no promises of autonomity, simply an intelligence general in nature. We are simply discussing Open AI's definitions.
by zahlman | 2025-08-07 19:04:47+00:00
I would wager (but for hopefully obvious reasons, I can't really provide evidence) that most people really don't want to receive these kinds of messages. Even those who are eager to share opinions with strangers might prefer to be in control of the exchange; even those who don't care about that would be right to suspect push polling a priori and it's not as if Apple should be expected to determine whose polls are legit. (Indeed, arguably that represents a far greater potential to interfere with freedom of expression.)
by uncircle | 2025-08-07 19:04:52+00:00
In the age of Docker & co., people really overestimate how much effort it is to self-host a service. Probably it’s the entire generation that never ventured outside using AWS managed services.

In practice, if you do not require 99.99% uptime SLAs, all you do is connect every 6 months to do a docker pull and update the image.
by grahamjperrin | 2025-08-07 19:04:54+00:00
Which version of FreeBSD, exactly?

freebsd-version -kru ; uname -aKU

pkg repos -el | sort -f

pkg repos -e | grep url

I'm not familiar with the meaning of T14, sorry.

Does the Wi-Fi hardware use iwlwifi(4)?

A kernel panic when waking from sleep might relate to the graphics driver.
by jeffbee | 2025-08-07 19:05:12+00:00
I had been hoping that these would be a bit faster than the 9950X because of the different memory architecture, but it appears that due to the lower power design point the AI Max+ 395 loses across the board, by large margins. So I guess these really are niche products for ML users only, and people with generic workloads that want more than the 9950X offers are shopping for a Threadripper.
by gnramires | 2025-08-07 19:05:29+00:00
Also, more to the point of your observation: we should be indeed very careful about any extreme and any maximization, because I presume when we maximize a lot we tend to bump into limitations of the metric or theories employed. So we should only maximize up to a region of fairly high philosophical confidence, and this is why we need progress in philosophy, psychology, philosophy of arts, philosophy of culture, neurophilosophy, etc.. in lockstep with technological progress -- because technology tends to allow very easy maximization of simplified models of meaning, which may rapidly break down.

I think one example might be that in medieval times maximizing joy and comfort could be a pretty good heuristic in a harsh life of labor. Those days we actually perhaps have to seek out some discomfort now and then, otherwise we'd be locked in our homes or bed ridden with all affordances some of us have; we have to force ourselves to exercise and not eat comfort food all the time; etc.. I think some hard drugs are a good example as well, a kind of technology that allows maximizing desire/pleasure in a way that is clearly void and does not seem associated with overall good experiences long term. An important fact is that our desires do not necessarily follow what is good; our desires are no omniscient/omnibelevolent oracles (they're simply a limited part of our minds).

We need to put thought/effort into discovering and then enacting what is good in robust, wise, careful (but not too careful), etc. ways. Let's build an awesome society and awesome life for all beings :)
by FollowingTheDao | 2025-08-07 19:06:04+00:00
The bottleneck is nothing to do with money, it’s the fact that they’re using the empty neuron theory to try to mimic human consciousness and that’s not how it works. Just look up Microtubules and consciousness, and you’ll get a better idea for what I’m talking about.

These AI computers aren’t thinking, they are just repeating.
by const_cast | 2025-08-07 19:06:13+00:00
> Training LLMs is closer, conceptually, to raising children than to implementing regexp parsers

Well then that's terrifying - the problem with children is that you can raise them perfectly and they still end up psychos. That's mostly limited by the fact that we can't raise many children and humans are pretty limited in the damage they can do.

But AI scales infinitely, and if we give it access to too much stuff then the damage it could do could be human race ending.
by Refreeze5224 | 2025-08-07 19:06:15+00:00
> thinking only about profit/economic motives and impacts.

> teaching enough people that economics aren't the only metric for running a society, community, and life.

I agree that this is the major problem with society today, but I don't see a solution when this is exactly the desired state of affairs by anyone with any amount of money.

It's funny how only in economics is a secondary effect (efficiency/production/profit) optimized for, and we just hope or assume that it will result in wide-scale health/happiness/wellbeing. In any other situation, we would just design the system around the desired outcome.
by iLemming | 2025-08-07 19:06:46+00:00
> You're right, vim bindings are very qwerty focused.

I can't share my personal experience, because I never tried switching either to Dvorak or Colemak - I never conceived my typing speed to be a bottleneck - I type faster than I can think of words (but that might be because I'm not a native English speaker), but I've been a vim user for a very long time, and thus I've talked to many vimmers. I have heard several stories that switching to another layout wasn't incredibly difficult, but I suppose the experience would be very personal.

> Macros are great in vim, I think just as powerful as emacs.

Not quite. In Emacs, you can not only record and replay macros, they are fully editable entities.

Vim macros mostly are limited to sequential keystrokes, there's no vars, no if/then logic, no loops, there's no prompting for input, no data manipulation. From practical point these don't really matter, but what sets Emacs apart that you can record a keyboard macro and then fully edit the corresponding elisp code it translates to. Which also allows you to embed logic in a macro - you can inject Elisp evaluation directly during macro recording, which in practice allows you to do things like: "Loop through lines until you find a blank one" inside a macro.

> Maybe this is because more content creators are vim/nvim-forward, than emacs?

That might be true, most Emacs users don't even bother sharing their "secret" knowledge. Some interesting bits quietly sit, marinating in private repos for years, sometimes decades without ever making into a package.

One thing you might be missing here - there is a ton of Emacs Lisp out there. GitHub alone contains some enormous amount of Elisp. It's pretty mind blowing - I suspect there's more Elisp in the wild than Common Lisp and Clojure combined. And of course, I don't need to remind you that Elisp is not a general-purpose language. It's made for one and one objective only - to serve as a configuration language for Emacs, it doesn't get used in anything else.

Even with all the current and increasing popularity of Neovim, it will probably take a while to catch up with Emacs in terms of written code and solutions for it. Case in point - Org-mode. It's been around for a long time; it is an incredibly ingenious system. Alas, so many attempts to clone it to work in something else still haven't gotten too far.
by drdaeman | 2025-08-07 19:07:04+00:00
I've tried to explain it in my comment above.

Yes, the rate of account compromises is a metric we can define. But attestation doesn't directly or invariably improve this metric. It may do so in some specific scenarios, but it's not universally true (unless proven otherwise, which I highly doubt). In other words, it's not an immediate consequence.

It could help to try to imagine a scenario where limited choice can actually degrade this metric. For example, bugs happen - remember that Infineon vulnerability affecting Yubikeys, or Debian predictable RNG issue, or many more implementation flaws, or various master key leaks. The less diverse the landscape is, the worse the ripples are. And that's just what I can think of right away. (Once again, attestation does not guarantee that implementation is secure, only that it was signed by keys that are supposed to be only in possession of a specific vendor.)

Also, this is not the only metric that may possibly matter. If we think of it, we probably don't want to tunnel vision ourselves into oversimplifying the system, heading into the infamous "lies, damned lies, and statistics" territory. It is dangerous to do so when the true scope is huge - and we're talking about Internet-wide standard so it's mindbogglingly so. All the side effects cannot be neglected, not even in a name of some arbitrarily-selected "greater good".

All this said, please be aware that I'm not saying that lack of attestation is not without possible negative effects. Not at all, I can imagine things working either way in different scenarios. All I'm saying that it's not simple or straightforward, and that careful consideration must be taken. As with everything in our lives, I guess.
by A_D_E_P_T | 2025-08-07 19:07:09+00:00
GPT-4.5 was good, and I really liked it, but it's not as capable as o3/o3-Pro, and it was actually a worse writer -- i.e., a worse prose stylist -- than the Chinese models Deepseek R1 and Kimi! (Deepseek, for whatever reason, has always been incredibly good at writing in English, and has an impressively neutral voice.)

So for the prompt: "Write a poem to explain Newton's laws of physics"

GPT 4.5:

When thinking how the world does spin, / Newton’s laws tell us how things begin. / Three simple rules describe it all, / From mighty planets to a bouncing ball.

First Law, simple and quite clear: / An object moves or stays right here. / Until a push, a pull, a shove, / It stays at rest, or stays in move.

Second Law, connects three parts: / Mass and force, where motion starts. / The greater force upon the mass, / The quicker speed will come to pass.

Third Law is action, reaction: / Equal force, opposing traction. / Push a wall, it pushes back, / Force meets force, on equal track.

So these three laws, by Newton taught, / Explain the moves that nature’s wrought. / From smallest grain to starry skies, / His laws make clear how motion flies.

This is okay but very flat and pedestrian.

Kimi does a lot better, is a lot more imaginative, but gets meter a bit wrong:

> https://www.kimi.com/share/d2afi1ds8fb5aditaubg
by incomingpain | 2025-08-07 19:08:01+00:00
I have gedit open with multiple tabs where i type up my next prompts to paste.

Surf HN mainly /asknew

Surf mainly r/LocalLLaMA/

check slack

be a user of the thing im coding on, try to find things that broke. try to break it. try to find tweaks that are needed. check docker logs.

researching my next big expansion; but need to architect the idea first. Oh hey MaxMind's GeoLite2 Country, City, and ASN databases or oh hey bluecat rest api python library.

I havent really been into video games lately, but in the past dungeon crawl stone soup or lichess.
by addaon | 2025-08-07 19:08:09+00:00
> Depends on what you're doing.

Trying to get an accurate answer (best correlated with objective truth) on a topic I don't already know the answer to (or why would I ask?). This is, to me, the challenge with the "it depends, tune it" answers that always come up in how to use these tools -- it requires the tools to not be useful for you (because there's already a solution) to be able to do the tuning.
by ToValueFunfetti | 2025-08-07 19:08:10+00:00
>SamA has been promising AGI next year for three years like Musk has been promising FSD next year for the last ten years.

Has he said anything about it since last September:

>It is possible that we will have superintelligence in a few thousand days (!); it may take longer, but I’m confident we’ll get there.

This is, at an absolute minimum, 2000 days = 5 years. And he says it may take longer.

Did he even say AGI next year any time before this? It looks like his predictions were all pointing at the late 2020s, and now he's thinking early 2030s. Which you could still make fun of, but it just doesn't match up with your characterization at all.
by nonhaver | 2025-08-07 19:08:13+00:00
this is a very odd perspective. as someone who uses LLMs for coding/PRs - every time a new model released my personal experience was that it was a very solid improvement on the previous generation and not just meant to "confuse". the jump from raw GPT-4 2 years ago to o3 full is so unbelievable if you traveled back in time and showed me i wouldn't have thought such technology would exist for 5+ years.

to the point on hallucination - that's just the nature of LLMs (and humans to some extent). without new architectures or fact checking world models in place i don't think that problem will be solved anytime soon. but it seems gpt-5 main selling point is they somehow reduced the hallucination rate by a lot + search helps with grounding.
by 9rx | 2025-08-07 19:08:34+00:00
> $100B in profits is a separate agreement with Microsoft that makes no mention of autonomity.

Again, autonomy is implied when talking about AGI. OpenAI selling tools like GPT or dishwashers, even if they were to provide the $100B in economic impact, would not satisfy the agreement. It is specifically about AGI, and there should be no confusion about what AGI is here as you helpfully defined it for us.
by pseudosavant | 2025-08-07 19:09:05+00:00
This is what their blog post says: `GPT-5 will be rolling out to all paid Copilot plans, starting today. You will be able to access the model in GitHub Copilot Chat on github.com, Visual Studio Code (Agent, Ask, and Edit modes), and GitHub Mobile through the chat model picker. Continue to check back if you’ve not gotten access.`

I think "starting today" might be doing some heavy lifting in that sentence.

https://github.blog/changelog/2025-08-07-openai-gpt-5-is-now...
by troyvit | 2025-08-07 19:09:07+00:00
That's ... not what original content makers who aren't named Tammy are saying, including CNN and The Verge [1], the Daily Mail [2], and several lawsuits [3] [4]. In fact, the only people who seem to believe that AI search isn't negatively affecting content makers long-term is google and you, and google (for now) has a vested interest in believing that.

Discovery isn't search, but search can be a form of discovery, despite your experiences. They don't match mine.

[1] https://www.npr.org/2025/07/31/nx-s1-5484118/google-ai-overv...

[2] https://digiday.com/media/the-winners-and-losers-of-googles-...

[3] https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/googles-ai-overview...

[4] https://www.reuters.com/legal/googles-ai-previews-erode-inte...
by Jtsummers | 2025-08-07 19:09:28+00:00
> The fact that he couldn't get higher score means something is wrong with these tests.

Does it? As others pointed out, those aren't bad scores. Not the highest scores, but not embarrassing for a better student.

It could be that his claimed reading time is just that, a claim, and not true. Or the material he was reading wasn't challenging in a way that would help with test prep to get him a higher score.
by gowld | 2025-08-07 19:09:46+00:00
For those who want to read about the "Baroni" effect in the book: https://bookreadfree.com/361033/8879470

It goes on:

> At this point, the prosecutor asked for further elucidation, which Pierce gave in garbled form. The summary of this portion of the trial, as reported in the Times, was garbled still further. The general idea was that Pierce--- by now almost revered in the press as a master criminal--- possessed some knowledge of a scientific principle that had aided him.

How apropos to modern science reporting and LLMs.
by netcan | 2025-08-07 19:09:49+00:00
Its certainly an interesting race to watch.

Part of the fun is that predictions get tested on short enough timescales to "experience" in a satisfying way.

Idk where that puts me, in my guess at "hard takeoff." I was reserved/skeptical about hard takeoff all along.

Even if LLMs had improved at a faster rate... I still think bottlenecks are inevitable.

That said... I do expect progress to happen in spurts anyway. It makes sense that companies of similar competence and resources get to a similar place.

The winner take all thing is a little forced. "Race to singularity" is the fun, rhetorical version of the investment case. The implied boring case is facebook, adwords, aws, apple, msft... IE the modern tech sector tends to create singular big winners... and therefore our pre-revenue market cap should be $1trn.
by neuronexmachina | 2025-08-07 19:09:56+00:00
> That said the reality is in my experience the only models that actually work in any sort of reliable way are claude models.

Anecdotally, the tool updates in the latest Cursor (1.4) seem to have made tool usage in models like Gemini much more reliable. Previously it would struggle to make simple file edits, but now the edits work pretty much every time.
by OneDeuxTriSeiGo | 2025-08-07 19:10:37+00:00
Ehhh the metric for active users is a bit weird. The metric is "daily active likers" but I know a lot of people lurk and don't like posts often. I personally rarely like posts unless I think to go out of my way to do so but I browse the site daily.

And even then while "daily active likers" is down half from 6 months ago, it's still up substantially from even just a month or two prior to that. Bluesky exploded in size at the start of the year and it seems to be finally settling into a steady state with gradual growth (vs the prior explosive growth + falloff).

"Daily records" (at the bottom of the page) is a bit better metric of overall network activity and even though it has also fallen since peak it shows there's still an order of magnitude more activity on network than prior to blowing up.
by A_D_E_P_T | 2025-08-07 19:10:59+00:00
Sure it makes mistakes. So do doctors. How do the two compare in mistake or error rate? I recall hearing that medical AIs make fewer mistakes on average than doctors and are now significantly better at diagnosis.

e.g., from last year: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/11/17/health/chatgpt-ai-doctors...
by ratelimitsteve | 2025-08-07 19:11:05+00:00
>High living costs, stagnant wages and a rigid work culture deter many young people from starting families. Women, in particular, face entrenched gender roles that often leave them with limited support as primary caregivers.

Hear me out: it takes a lot of pressure for a long time for people to choose annihilation and now the same government that these people believe (rightly or wrongly) has driven them to the point of choosing annihilation is asking them to instead believe that it's there to help them and make their lives better. It's going to take at least a generation to gain that trust back.
by gaptoothclan | 2025-08-07 19:11:52+00:00
I remember reading that llm’s have consumed the internet text data, I seem to remember there is an open data set for that too. Potential other sources of data would be images (probably already consumed) videos, YouTube must have such a large set of data to consume, perhaps Facebook or Instagram private content

But even with these it does not feel like AGI, that seems like the fusion reactor 20 years away argument, but instead this is coming in 2 years, but they have not even got the core technology of how to build AGI
by klik99 | 2025-08-07 19:12:06+00:00
I’ve been saying for a while if AGI is possible it’s going to take another innovation and the transformer / LLM paradigm will plateau, and innovations are hard to time. I used to get downvoted for saying that years ago and now more people are realizing it. LLMs are awesome but there is a limit, most of the interesting things in the next years will be bolting more functionality and agent stuff, introspection like Anthropic is working on and smaller, less compute hungry specialized models. There’s still a lot to explore in this paradigm, but we’re getting diminishing returns on newer models, especially when you factor in cost