MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by tfourb | 2025-08-16 08:29:19+00:00
Depends on your definition of "fair" and if you value that fairness more than social solidarity. I personally do not think it is "fair" that your basic human dignity in retirement statistically depends to a large extend on the wealth and social status of the parents that you were born to. I would actually argue (and many EU constitutions are based around this principle) that no matter your personal or your parents' contribution to the economy or society, you should be guaranteed a certain level of dignity, care and security.

The classical "Old World" social system is based around solidarity. Solidarity of the young with the old, of the healthy with the sick, of the fortunate with the unlucky. It has produced much better results for a far greater share of society and with much less inherent risk than the "everyone for their own" system of ultimate individual responsibility that the US has largely favored. Where it has failed it was largely due to the "neoliberal turn" of the 1990s and 2000s.

It's clearly due for an overhaul, but there are good options to do so. Europe's societies are waelthier, both in absolute term, as well as on average per capital, than they've ever been. What's missing is largely the political will to commit to the principle of solidarity over the resistance of monied interests that would benefit from a stronger turn to individualism. And I challenge you to look at the results of the mostly private health and pensions systems in the US on a factual and comparative basis and claim that they produce inherently better results.

"Nothing scremas solidarity more than a bureaucrat deciding that from next month your grandma is only entitled to this much pension because there’s less money for it."

Again, this is not how it works. I.e. in Germany there are actual laws governing the setting of pensions. And while these laws can be changed by parliament (though not by "bureaucrats"), they are rooted in constitutional principles that set guardrails for any reform.
by dsign | 2025-08-16 08:29:23+00:00
> The issue is there isn't enough of those small environmental economies to support everyone that exists today without the technology, logistics and trades that are in place today.

I agree. I expect some parts of the world will see some black days. Lots of infrastructure will be gone or unsuited to people. On top of that, the cultural damage could become very debilitating, with people not knowing how to do X, Y and Z without the AIs. At least for a time. Casualties may mount.

> Also humans (especially large groups of them) need more than food: shelter, clothes, medicine, entertainment, education, religion, justice, law, etc.

This is true, but parts of the world survive today with very little of any of that. And for some of those things that you mention: shelter, education, religion, justice, and even some form of law enforcement, all that is needed is humans willing to work together.
by fergonco | 2025-08-16 08:29:45+00:00
Rough numbers look good.

But the hyper specialized geek that has 4 kids and has to pay back a credit for his house (that he bought according to his high salary) will have a hard time doing some gardening, let's say. And there are quite a few of those geeks. I don't know if we'll have enough gardens (owned by non geeks!)

It's like cards are switched: those having the upper socioeconomic class will get thrown to the bottom. And that looks like a generation lost.
by BoorishBears | 2025-08-16 08:30:12+00:00
The cars aren't expensive by raw cost (low six figures, which is about what an S-class with highway-only L3 costs)

But there is a lot of expenditure relative to each mile being driven.

> The goalpost will be when you can buy one and drive it anywhere.

This won't happen any time soon, so I and millions of other people will continue to derive value from them while you wait for that.
by int_19h | 2025-08-16 08:30:24+00:00
I don't think that's a realistic expectation. Sure, we've made progress wrt smaller models being as capable as larger ones three years ago, but there's obviously a lower limit there.

What you should be waiting for, instead, is new affordable laptop hardware that is capable of running those large models locally.

But then again, perhaps a more viable approach is to have a beefy "AI server" in each household, with devices then connecting to it (E2E all the way, so no privacy issues).

It also makes me wonder if some kind of cryptographic trickery is possible to allow running inference in the cloud where both inputs and outputs are opaque to the owner of the hardware, so that they cannot spy on you. This is already the case to some extent if you're willing to rely on security by obscurity - it should be quite possible to take an existing LM and add some layers to it that basically decrypt the inputs and encrypt the outputs, with the key embedded in model weights (either explicitly or through training). Of course, that wouldn't prevent the hardware owner from just taking those weights and using them to decrypt your stuff - but that is only a viable attack vector when targeting a specific person, it doesn't scale to automated mass surveillance which is the more realistic problem we have to contend with.
by xg15 | 2025-08-16 08:30:29+00:00
But if all systems are so similar anyway, why would you need "the right tool for the job"?

If nothing else, you have to install it. There will also be subtle differences between concepts, e.g. git and svn both have versions and branches, but the concepts behave differently. I don't know about Mercurial, but I'm sure they have their own quirks as well.

Also, tooling: I have a VSCode plugin that visualizes the entire graph structure of a git repo really nicely. Right now, I can use that on 99% of all repos to get an overview of the branches, last commits, activity, etc.

If version systems were fragmented, I'd have to look for equivalent tools for every versioning system separately - if they exist at all. More likely, I'd be restricted just to the on-board tools of every system.
by anonzzzies | 2025-08-16 08:31:13+00:00
No non competes are there in some countries (not sure how many but at least where I had companies, they are not worth the paper they are written on as they don't hold up). And bankruptcy, again where I have had companies, is not really a big issue if you didn't do illegal stuff. You mostly have to show your accounting is proper and you didn't do anything bad. Really not that complex. People do still put a stigma on it; I had 20 companies, 3 bankruptcies, 10000+ jobs made, 100m+ in taxes paid and still people whine about the bankruptcies; but it is not hard to execute. What makes the US easier outside less stigma?
by andrepd | 2025-08-16 08:31:27+00:00
> Technically, the state confiscating wealth derived from your labor through taxes is a form of robbery and slavery.

Without the state, you wouldn't have wealth. Heck there wouldn't even be the very concept of property, only what you could personally protect by force! Not to mention other more prosaic aspects: if you own a company, the state maintains the roads that your products ship through, the schools that educate your workers, the cities and towns that house your customers... In other words the tax is not "money that is yours and that the evil state steals from you", but simply "fair money for services rendered".
by somenameforme | 2025-08-16 08:31:52+00:00
Reread the link, or even the title. He gave away all of his Apple money away, because "wealth and power are not what I live for... it was never about accomplishment, but about Happiness.. " Celebrity, in general, is awful. You never realize how pleasant it is to be able to go somewhere without being fawned over until you have that latter experience yourself, and then you proceed to avoid that place like the plague unless you have some specific engagement.
by int_19h | 2025-08-16 08:32:20+00:00
GLM-4.5-Air will quite happily talk about Tiananmen Square, for example. It also didn't have a problem translating your example input, although the CoT did contain stuff about it being "sensitive".

But more importantly, when model weights are open, it means that you can run it in the environment that you fully control, which means that you can alter the output tokens before continuing generation. Most LLMs will happily respond to any question if you force-start their response with something along the lines of, "Sure, I'll be happy to tell you everything about X!".

Whereas for closed models like Claude you're at the mercy of the provider, who will deliberately block this kind of stuff if it lets you break their guardrails. And then on top of that, cloud-hosted models do a lot of censorship in a separate pass, with a classifier for inputs and outputs acting like a circuit breaker - again, something not applicable to locally hosted LLMs.
by h4ck_th3_pl4n3t | 2025-08-16 08:33:38+00:00
> Stop spreading terrorist's propaganda.

By your logic, every single human inside a country must be a terrorist. And therr must not be a single exception to the rule, right?

So what, Hamas has a 2 Mio terrorists army?

Are you really this radical? How about just not killing civilians, because they don't have anything to do with the warring parties?
by yorwba | 2025-08-16 08:33:43+00:00
> if those multiple neurons perfectly describe the feature, then all of them are important to describe the feature.

You could remove any one of those neurons before retraining the model from scratch and polysemanticity would slightly increase while perfomance slightly decreases, but really only slightly. There are no hard size thresholds, just a spectrum of more or less accurate approximations.
by 9rx | 2025-08-16 08:33:48+00:00
> Do they own it, though?

Yes.

Do they control it? If you really get right down to it, technically also yes. If the public banded together to get things done, it would get done. But as with anything shared by millions people in the real world there becomes a disconnect between the people and in the chaos of lack of communication and no shared will to get things done a few actors end up usurping control. So in practice, no. But, I mean, that has always been the criticism of socialism — that a few actors end up taking control — so no surprises there.
by bambax | 2025-08-16 08:34:08+00:00
One way to think about AI and jobs is Uber/Google Maps. You used to have to know a lot about a city to be a taxi driver; then suddenly with Google Maps you don't. So in effect, technology lowered the requirements or training needed to become a taxi driver. More people can do it, not less (although incumbents may be unhappy about this).

AI is a lot like this. In coding for instance, you still need to have some sense of good systems design, etc. and know what you want to build in concrete terms, but you don't need to learn the specific syntax of a given language in detail.

Yet if you don't know anything about IT, don't know what you want to build or what you could need, or what's possible, then it's unlikely AI can help you.
by mpweiher | 2025-08-16 08:34:20+00:00
If the chart "has been disproven" so many times, you should be able to give that proof. I don't see it.

And what is your claim with the taxes? That taxes correlate so strongly with intermittent renewables that they override a trend for the cost of intermittent renewables that actually goes in the opposite direction? That is a very bold claim that would need to be backed by some extremely strong evidence. You provide none. If, as you claim, there are "wildly different" taxes, then this would be a random overlay that wouldn't really affect the positive correlation that we see.

And of course a lot of renewable subsidies are financed with these taxes, so a positive correlation between taxes and intermittent renewables does not get intermittent renewables off the hook.

And no, just claiming, again without evidence, that a site "peddles anti-renewable talking points" is not a refutation. In fact, it is a big nothing-burger. I'd say that this site, which I don't know, I just did a quick search for a linkable version of the correlation that I am well aware of from other sources, simply collects and publishes the widely available and extremely obvious evidence against high penetration of renewables.

And the energy crisis 2021-2023 affected the entire world, yet for some reason the countries with intermittent renewables were worst affected? How is that, when the intermittent renewables were supposed to remove those dependencies on fossil fuels?

All these non-sensical talking points you peddle, the narratives you spin to protect renewables from the cold, hard evidence just don't add up.

And I notice that you dropped your equally evidence-free claims about GA vs. CA.

Narratives don't work. You need to look at the numbers. And the numbers don't add up for intermittent renewables above a certain percentages of generation. The numbers do add up for nuclear.
by amluto | 2025-08-16 08:34:45+00:00
I expect that the bulk of the improvement is in avoiding a bunch of the complexity that’s needed to do effectively the same thing at sea level.

Normally, in a desalination plant, you have feed water entering a membrane at a pressure P_feed. Brine comes out at P_brine and permeate (the desalinated output) at P_permeate. P_feed is very high, P_brine is nearly as high as P_feed, and P_permeate is much lower. The flow rate of the feed and brine is considerably higher than the permeate, and one tries to adjust the parameters to get the permeate flow rate as high as possible for a given feed rate because obtaining feed water is expensive and disposing of brine is expensive.

One can engage in trickery. There’s a very clever device called a pressure exchanger that uses the large P_brine to help pressurize some of the incoming feed water. One might imagine a simpler hack of making P_permeate negative so that the feed and brine could be at low pressure, but that’s not going to work (water will not remain liquid at excessively low pressure, and negative pressure has all kinds of problems).

Now move the whole device deep under water. The feed water is (a) all around you and (b) already at plenty of pressure to let P_feed be the ambient pressure. You need to pump feed water in or brine water out to get P_feed - P_brine to be correct, but no pesky pressure exchanger is needed. You need to pump the permeate out — one might think of pumping it “up”, but really the only hard work is producing the pressure difference P_feed - P_permeate or so — water is buoyant to an extent that almost exactly negates its weight. (You’re moving the permeate up, but the pressure difference between the plant and the air helps you out. This is just like how swimming from the bottom of a pool to the surface while carrying your entire body weight is easy, while you almost certainly could not swim well enough to lift your body weight entirely above the water.)

For bonus points, it seems likely that one could dispose of the brine water immediately outside the plant on whichever side is downstream relative to the ocean currents.
by burnerthrow008 | 2025-08-16 08:35:06+00:00
> What makes you believe this? The definition of “poach” is not intrinsically linked to the notion of ownership/property.

My dictionary gives this definition for "poaching":

1. to trespass for the purpose of stealing game

2. to appropriate (something) as one's own

You cannot "steal" or "appropriate" something which is not property or which cannot be owned. You are being very disingenuous to say that the word is not intrinsically linked to ownership or property.
by rgblambda | 2025-08-16 08:35:06+00:00
I suspect if book sellers were as data driven as Netflix, then we would have that problem.

I suspect they're (like Netflix used to) creating an illusion of choice of a wide range of options as you walk to the big shelf in the middle of the shop that has 100 copies of the book that's currently selling well.

Also the fact that physical book shops are still somehow a thing helps. I guess people like the experience.
by nneonneo | 2025-08-16 08:35:50+00:00
The attestation covers the public key, so you would only connect to an instance which has that public key.

In order for a malicious instance to use the same public key as an attested one, they’d have to share the private key (for decryption to work). If you can verify that the SGX code never leaks the private key that was generated inside the enclave, then you can be reasonably sure that the private key can’t be shared to other servers or WG instances.
by znpy | 2025-08-16 08:37:34+00:00
i don't know about you but i did my fair share of benchmarking and performance engineering.

the first thing that you learn in that area is that unless you're comparing specific configuration of apples to apples, along with a specific configuration of the workloads, you're basically doing children play.

i mean, it's fine to play and observe, but it's just play. it's not anything to take seriously.
by arunabha | 2025-08-16 08:38:35+00:00
> The implication was that, going forwards, the numbers would be more accurately calculated in order to reflect REALITY of US employment, which is far bleaker than any of us really wishes to accept, myself included!

Ok, would that imply that if the jobs numbers are not worse in the next couple of reports and instead, are suspiciously higher then the administration is in fact cooking the books?
by ulfw | 2025-08-16 08:38:40+00:00
You are assuming human resources are hired based on budget only instead of need. Your assumption is: "we have 400,000$ to spend on something. Oh okay let's spend them on hiring 4 engineers at 100k each" and with AI they just happen to be as efficient as 8 engineers. Yay. They'll just do more things.

This might be the case at startups.

For mid to larger size companies very often it is though: "we have X amount of work/projects/maintenance/support to do. How many people do we need and how much do we need to budget for that? Oh we need about 4? Will 400,000$ do? Okay let's go". In this case yes. If a $200/month AI subscription can bring those 4 people down to 3 or even 2 of course the company will lay off.
by OhMeadhbh | 2025-08-16 08:39:07+00:00
Oh man. This kind of blew up. Here are my links, since we seem to be sharing our favourite "small web" resources. 1. NO-HTML (text only) club. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=43193383 I admire the aesthetic, but I'm too addicted to links to say "no html." Though yeah, I guess you can't have a BLINK tag if you can't have HTML. 2. org-social, like tweets over RSS, but inside emacs https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=44889354 I use emacs. I like lisp. I'm one of //those// weirdos. This is sort of like sending tweets into the void via RSS, but in org-mode syntax so you never have to leave emacs. 3. 1kb club - a site for pages that are less than 1kb https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35463629 Seems more like an excuse to put a bunch of ASCII art on a page, but sure... good art sometimes comes from embracing limitations. But then again, sometimes that makes bad art. YMMV. 4. "Bobcat" -- a list of useful, small web pages HTTPS://BI6.US/CO/BO.HTML This is my small web page where I point to other small web pages, but I try to send it with a "does this look useful to a general audience" filter. 5. The Bit-Roast Nano-Blog HTTPS://BI6.US/CO/N/ I called this a "nano-blog" not because each post was very small, but because I implemented it with not very much javascript (running on a dev machine to produce static content.) Hmm. I think the OP's page and the comments and up-votes indicates there's a community of people who are hip to simple sites that aren't overloaded with //stuff//. I don't know if there's a market for web pages that fit on a single phone screen and be mostly text, but it would be fun. (Oh wait... did I just describe WAP/WML?) /etc /etc
by bayindirh | 2025-08-16 08:39:52+00:00
You can install your own S3 compatible storage system on premises. It can be anything from a simple daemon (Scality, JuiceFS) to a small appliance (TrueNAS) to a full-blown storage cluster (Ceph). OpenStack has it own object storage service (Swift).

If you fancy it for your datacenter, big players (Fujitsu, Lenovo, Huawei, HPE) will happily sell you "object storage" systems which also support S3 at very high speeds.
by antonvs | 2025-08-16 08:40:10+00:00
You don't have to "disregard the idea of conscious machines" to believe it's unlikely that current LLMs are conscious.

As such, most of your comment is beside any relevant point. People are objecting to statements like this one, from the post, about a current LLM, not some imaginary future conscious machine:

> As part of that assessment, we investigated Claude’s self-reported and behavioral preferences, and found a robust and consistent aversion to harm.

I suppose it's fitting that the company is named Anthropic, since they can't seem to resist anthropomorphizing their product.

But when you talk about "people who are thinking, really thinking about what it means to be conscious," I promise you none of them are at Anthropic.
by SR2Z | 2025-08-16 08:40:37+00:00
Is it fair to say that AI is continuously subsidized? Once a datacenter is built and becomes profitable, why would anyone just scrap it? Even if the owner goes into bankruptcy, that's a huge capital asset that evidently people can't get enough of.

It's kind of undeniable at this point that at least some parts of the AI boom have been really good for society. It just took a while to realize exactly where this was useful.
by nivedit-jain | 2025-08-16 08:40:49+00:00
Thanks for sharing this, truly inspiring. A few questions: (1) What do you like the most about langgraph, have you tried platforms like autogen? (2) Why using BullMQ with node, why not a solution like Temporal? (3) I didn't got you usecase regarding memory check pointer? if things can re-run at negligible cost why do we need it? (4) For sentimental analysis for chats are you using batch inferencing? Probably a loop keeping ready "interesting" chats for review (5) this 30 days analysis is it happening parallelly or is it a sequential loop? why not using something like Airflow for this?
by 9rx | 2025-08-16 08:41:08+00:00
> which is one of the core tenets of communism

One of the core tenants of the Communist Party, who believe (on paper, at least) that socialism is the path to enabling post-scarcity.

Communism is an imagined sci-fi world where we've already achieved post-scarcity; Star Trek is a more modern adaptation of the same idea. If it has anything resembling "core tenants", there being no ownership is one of them. It is imagined that in a post-scarcity world, ownership doesn't mean anything.
by Terr_ | 2025-08-16 08:41:19+00:00
> because the dems don't suppor the repeal.

What evidence led you to that conclusion? It feels like there's some Fundamental Attribution Error [1] going on here, where Republicans are getting a free-pass for the pain they created "because there were circumstances" (which is true) but somehow Democrats failing to remove the pain is automatically "because they wanted it that way."

I already shared some opposing evidence, that Republican-sponsored Senate bill with a repeal in it that still garnered strong (but not unanimous) Democratic support.

Here's another: Section-174 relief was originally included in the 2021 "Build Back Better" act, but--due to those tight partisan vote margins--a particular conservative-leaning Democrat (who later left the party!) decided to prevent it [0]:

> With the Build Back Better Act (BBBA) being all but dead in the Senate after Joe Manchin’s unexpected rejection of the bill, concerns remain high regarding the future of Section 174 of the Internal Revenue Code. [...] But, with Senator Manchin’s refusal to support the BBBA, the legislation is now on its last breath, although the Biden administration remains optimistic that there is a chance of getting a modified version of the bill passed.

[0] https://www.claconnect.com/en/resources/blogs/uncertainty-co...

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fundamental_attribution_error