MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by windsor | 2025-08-28 21:03:09+00:00
Thanks! Really glad you noticed this feature. Mixing client-side and server-side tool calls was something we spent a lot of time thinking through.

The current SOTA, e.g. OpenAI’s Responses API or Anthropic’s Computer Use API, basically mandates that server-side tool results return directly, while client-side tool results have to be manually parsed and executed by the user (for obvious security reasons). As a result, it was extremely unclear how a user would be able to chain together tool calls that mixed local and remote tools.

We wanted to close this DX gap, which surprisingly had no real incumbent solution. Users should be able to just define tools and get back clean responses. For power users, we still support manual JSON parsing for full low-level control, but our belief is simple: developers should spend their time building, not doing plumbing work like post-processing tool results.
by cogman10 | 2025-08-28 21:03:42+00:00
Certainly, and by that time Intel just sort of dropped all the balls. They were already struggling to do die shrinks and it seems like they simply lost all their ability to develop the architecture.

That had maybe happened years earlier. The thing about Conroe is, IIRC, its ancestry came from the P3 and Intel's mobile CPU designs. P4 was steady evolutions on the Netburst architecture. The years of improvements to conroe were mostly just incremental changes and porting over features from Netburst (such as hyperthreading). Once that all played out, intel really didn't have anywhere else to go or plans on how to evolve the architecture. They fell back on the same old "let's just add wider SIMD instructions (AVX)".

I also seem to recall that intel made fab bets that ultimately didn't pay off. Again, IIRC, I believe they were trying to use the same light lithography (230nm light?) rather than going into UV lithography. That caused them to dump a fair bit of money fabrication that never really paid off.
by charcircuit | 2025-08-28 21:04:13+00:00
>Nothing

This is far from the truth assuming by compromised you mean that the user has installed a malicous app. Android has proper sandboxing which means that other apps can't read the token owned by the bank app. This is part of the Android security model and attestation is evidence that the Android security model is being enforced. Phishing apps are different from an app that steals existing authentication tokens on the device.
by s1mplicissimus | 2025-08-28 21:04:50+00:00
You are mixing up what artists do and what is considered artful. Not everything artists do is artful, even by their own standard.

> It is not necessarily the case that "Using more resources to achieve subpar outcomes is not generally something considered artful. Doing a lot with little is." as not all artists will agree and even those that do might not follow it. For example, certain pigments in painting could be highly unethically sourced but people still used them and some still do, such as mummy brown, Indian yellow, or ivory black, all from living organisms.

I put forward the proposition "Using more resources to achieve subpar outcomes is not generally something considered artful. Doing a lot with little is." - yet you argue "but there are exceptions" - i know that, hence my usage of the term "generally". I'll be glad to learn how my proposition is wrong, but not inclined to defend your strawman
by mgh95 | 2025-08-28 21:05:18+00:00
> If the latter, assuming the cost of fine-tuning is a fraction of the cost of training from scratch, the low cost of inference does indeed make a bullish case for these companies.

On the other hand, this may also turn into cost effective methods such as model distillation and spot training of large companies (similarly to Deepseek). This would erode the comparative advantage of Anthropic and OpenAI, and result in a pure value-add play for integration with data sources and features such as SSO.

It isn't clear to me that a slowing of retraining will result in advantages to incumbents if model quality cannot be readily distinguished by end-users.
by daviding | 2025-08-28 21:05:24+00:00
Yep, it's great for generating tests and so much of that is boilerplate that it feels great value. As a super lazy developer it's great as the burden of all that mechanical 'stuff' being spat out is nice. Test code being like baggage feels lighter when it's just churned out as part of the process, as in no guilt just to delete it all when what you want to do changes. That in itself is nice. Plus of course MCP things (Playwright etc) for integration things is great.

But like you said, it was meant more TDD as 'test first' - so a sort of 'prompt-as-spec' that then produces the test/spec code first, and then go iterate on that. The code design itself is different as influenced by how it is prompted to be testable. So rather than go 'prompt -> code' it's more an in-between stage of prompting the test initially and then evolve, making sure the agent is part of the game of only writing testable code and automating the 'gate' of passes before expanding something. 'prompt -> spec -> code' repeat loop until shipped.
by DrewADesign | 2025-08-28 21:05:59+00:00
You don’t need to perfect AI to the point of becoming credentialed professionals to gut job markets— it’s not just developers, or creative markets. Nobody’s worried that the world won’t have, say, lawyers anymore — they’re worried that AI will let 20% of the legal workforce do 100% of the requisite work, making the skill essentially worthless for the next few decades because we’d have way too many lawyers. Since the work AI does is largely entry-level work, that means almost nobody will be able to get a foothold in the business. Wash, rinse, repeat to varying levels across many white collar professions and you’ve got some real bad times brewing for people trying to enter the white collar workforce from now on— all without there being a single AI lawyer in the world.
by anthem2025 | 2025-08-28 21:06:12+00:00
It’s also just resulting in atrocious customer experience.

I can go to Safeway or the smaller chain half a block away.

The Safeway went all in on self checkouts. The store is barely staffed, shelves are constantly empty, you have to have your receipt checked by security every time, they closed the second entrance permanently, and for some reason the place smells.

Other store has self checkouts but they also have loads of staff. I usually go through the normal checkout because it’s easier and since they have adequate staff and self checkout lines it tends to be about the same speed to.

End result is I don’t shop at Safeway if I can avoid it.
by Romario77 | 2025-08-28 21:06:26+00:00
I don't think it's the case if you take inflation into account.

You could see here: https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/16dr1kb/oc...

new ones are generally cheaper if adjusted for inflation. This is a sale price, but assuming that margins stay the same it should reflect the manufacturing price. And from what I remember about apple earnings their margins increased over time, so it means the new phones are even cheaper. Which kind of makes sense.
by bdcravens | 2025-08-28 21:06:34+00:00
During COVID, I took a major haircut in my day job, and ended up doing a lot of side work to stay solvent. All my banking was with Chase; I setup a new checking account for my side work. One day they just took about $900. No matter who I spoke to, they bounced me around and never gave me an answer why. I can only guess there was a fraud trigger or something, but to this day, I've never gotten the money back or even gotten an answer as to what happened. I'm fortunate enough in life that $900 isn't a big deal, but at the time, it was HUGE. As a result, I will never, never do business with Chase again (and it would be very convenient, given how many branches I have around me)
by SlowTao | 2025-08-28 21:07:03+00:00
In oz personally and yes, I warned folks of this a few years back, especially in the 12 months or so. Every time I was met with a fair bit of push back.

They would argue back on technical merits, I was talking political, a politics doesn't give a damn about the tech. We have slowly been going down this path for a while now.

“The laws of mathematics are very commendable, but the only law that applies in Australia is the law of Australia,” - PM Malcolm Turnbull in 2017.
by insane_dreamer | 2025-08-28 21:07:34+00:00
> I’ve often heard, with decent reason, an LLM compared to a junior colleague. But I find LLMs are quite happy to say “all tests green”, yet when I run them, there are failures. If that was a junior engineer’s behavior, how long would it be before H.R. was involved?

Reminds me of a recent experience when I asked CC to implement a feature. It wrote some code that struck me as potentially problematic. When I said, "why did you do X? couldn't that be problematic?" it responded with "correct; that approach is not recommended because of Y; I'll fix it". So then why did it do it in the first place? A human dev might have made the same mistake, but it wouldn't have made the mistake knowing that it was making a mistake.
by hereme888 | 2025-08-28 21:07:50+00:00
Looks nice, but I do have privacy concerns because of how analytics and encryption are used.

apps/desktop/src/helper/analytics.ts and apps/desktop/src/main.tsx are executed on application startup, meaning that data collection begins immediately without explicit user consent and may collect personally identifiable information.

Also, apps/server/db/migrations/ seems to store passwords directly and crypto.rs is not necessarily applied to all password storage.
by anskskbs | 2025-08-28 21:08:05+00:00
> It's an active engagement and best results are achieved when everything is planned and laid out in advance

The most efficient way to communicate these plans is in code. English is horrible in comparison.

When you’re using an agent and not reviewing every line of code, you’re offloading thinking to the AI. Which is fine in some scenarios, but often not what people would call high quality software.

Writing code was never the slow part for a competent dev. Agent swarming etc is mostly snake oil by those who profit off LLMs.
by ryao | 2025-08-28 21:08:06+00:00
There is always a subset of the population for which it is fashionable to try to make a new language to make things easier. It is inevitable that someone in a sufficiently large organization will try to make one, provided management supports it. Apple is a very wealthy company that is happy to sponsor R&D, had someone interested in this that they sponsored and the result was appealing enough that they decided to adopt it.

That is my understanding of how the process generally works and what I am willing to guess happened. Prior to this, they had been making incremental changes to Objective-C.

That said, from what I have seen of the syntax of both languages, swift’s syntax is nicer and that is not something that they would have been able to get from Objective-C. They already had tried syntax reform for Objective-C once in the past and abandoned it.
by siva7 | 2025-08-28 21:08:52+00:00
These abstractions are nice to not get locked in with one llm provider - but like with langchain - once you use some more niche feature the bugs do shine through. I tried it out with structured output for azure openai but had to give up since somewhere somewhat was broken and it's difficult to figure out if it's the abstraction or the library of the llm provider which the abstraction uses.

Nevertheless i would strongly recommend to not use directly the libraries of the ai providers as you get quickly locked in a extremely fast paced market where today's king can change weekly.
by meowface | 2025-08-28 21:09:15+00:00
Unfortunately when running "npx tweakcc" I'm getting:

SyntaxError: Unexpected token '?' at Loader.moduleStrategy (internal/modules/esm/translators.js:140:18) at async link (internal/modules/esm/module_job.js:42:21)

macOS. My npx version is 6.14.16 and my node version is v12.22.12
by reissbaker | 2025-08-28 21:09:31+00:00
Aw thanks! We don't currently, but from a cost perspective as a user it shouldn't matter much since it's all bundled into the same subscription (we rate-limit by requests, not by tokens — our request rate limits are set to "higher than the amount of messages per hour that Claude Code promises", haha). We might at some point just to save GPUs though!
by notatoad | 2025-08-28 21:10:01+00:00
if you already have an api that exposes all the information that your parter who is willing to pay for an API key wants, then sure, that's perfect. but what if you don't have an API, or your API doesn't expose the information that crawlers are looking for? they want to crawl your website, they're willing to pay for the ability to crawl your website, but you don't want to build an API...

i'm sure the next step here will be a cloudflare product that sits in front of your website and blocks all bot traffic except for the bots that are verified to have paid for access. (or maybe that already exists?)
by mtrovo | 2025-08-28 21:10:15+00:00
As much as I understand this is needed it rubs me the wrong way.

The standard looks fine as a distributed protocol until you have to register to pay a rent to Cloudflare, which they say will eventually trickle down into publishers pocket but you know what having a middleman this powerful means to the power dynamics of the market. Publishers have a really bad hand no matter what we do to save them, content as we know it will have to adapt.

Give it a couple more iterations and some MBA will come up with the brilliant idea of introducing an internet toll to humans and selling a content bundle with unlimited access to websites.
by rictic | 2025-08-28 21:10:28+00:00
A person might have mistyped a price, a barcode may have been misread, the unit prices might be correct but the quantity could be mistaken. Modeling uncertainty well isn't just about measurement error from sensors.

I wonder what it'd look like to propagate this kind of uncertainty around. You might want to check the user's input against a representative distribution to see if it's unusual and, depending on the cost of an error vs the friction of asking, double-check the input.
by rwhitman | 2025-08-28 21:10:44+00:00
If you want to go down a rabbit hole examining people in this disturbed place in realtime search reddit for the Cyclone Emoji (U+1F300) or the r/ArtificialSentience subreddit and see what gets recommended after that, especially a few months ago when GPT was going wild flattering users and affirming every idea (such as going off your meds).

I fully believe these are simply people who have used the same chat past the point where the LLM can retain context. It starts to hallucinate, and after a while, all the LLM can do is try and to continue telling the user what they want in a cyclical conversation - while trying to warn that it's stuck in a loop, hence using swirl emojis and babbling about recursion in weird spiritual terms. (Is it getting the LLM "high" in this case?).

If the human at the other end has mental health problems, it becomes a never-ending dive into psychosis and you can read their output in the bizarre GPT-worship subreddits.

Claude used to have safeguards against this by warning about using up the context window, but I feel like everyone is in an arms race now, and safeguards are gone - especially for GPT. It can't be great overall for OpenAI, training itself on 2-way hallucinations.
by cogman10 | 2025-08-28 21:11:07+00:00
Speaking of forgotten fruit.

The evolution of watermelon is fascinating. It happened in (relatively) recent human history and has really stark changes.

There are old paintings of watermelon from the 17th century and it looks nothing like modern watermelon. [1]

Another wild human guided evolution is the evolution of the chicken. [2] That one literally happened in the last 100 years. A modern chicken is 3x larger than a chicken from the 1950s.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watermelon#/media/File:Pastequ...

[2] https://www.zmescience.com/feature-post/how-chickens-tripled...
by SlowTao | 2025-08-28 21:11:13+00:00
It was David Graeber that said we should be wary of places like The Guardian. They are a wolf in sheeps clothing. Used a lot of the more liberal momentum of the early 2010s combined with promoting some of the more left leaning writters to gain a fair bit of clout. But underneath, they will conform to the power structures if it comes down to survival. Alas, they nay not be a Sealand edition although that would be neat.
by tokioyoyo | 2025-08-28 21:11:15+00:00
As I grew up, everyone said for decades that China is about to collapse. It hasn’t, and it distorts some perspectives as you see the urban and global progress as a result of Chinese nation-building.

The early 80s were similar, when Japanese economy was in every single headline and being compared to the USA’s. The difference is, this time China has already surpassed the states in most of meaningful statistics.
by gamerdonkey | 2025-08-28 21:11:32+00:00
I didn't see it explicitly stated, but I think it supports the "overworked" part of this statement:

> Open source, the thing that drives the world, the thing Harvard says has an economic value of 8.8 trillion dollars (also a big number). Most of it is one person. And I can promise you not one of those single person projects have the proper amount of resources they need. If you want to talk about possible risks to your supply chain, a single maintainer that’s grossly underpaid and overworked. That’s the risk. The country they are from is irrelevant.
by gnerd00 | 2025-08-28 21:11:46+00:00
yeah agree -- it seems like a mistake to use retail banking for real business amounts of money and transactions. I suspect that young adults focused on a fast-moving tech world really did not live the hard lessons of the past with business restrictions. On the one hand, it is a new world now (no one would have come up with the kind of money referenced here, with Mom and Pop business pace); on the other hand, maybe you really are trying to load a trucking worth of transactions onto the top of your used Honda Accord, so to speak.
by OtherShrezzing | 2025-08-28 21:12:59+00:00
AI training costs are increasing around 3x annually across each of the last 8 years to achieve its performance improvements. Last year, spending across all labs was $150bn. Keeping the 3x trend means that, to keep pace with current advances, costs should rise to $450bn in 2025, $900bn in 2026, $2.7tn in 2027, $8.1tn in 2028, $25tn in 2028, and $75tn in 2029 and $225tn in 2030. For reference, the GDP of the world is around $125tn.

I think the labs will be crushed by the exponent on their costs faster white-collar work will be crushed by the 5% improvement exponent.
by tobyjsullivan | 2025-08-28 21:13:44+00:00
I read it as assuming the deterministic checks and balances are already absent. We have the illusion of determinism but, in practice, audits (and justice) are mostly theatre as it is.

From that perspective, lowering the quality of something that is already non-rigourous might not have any perceivable effect. It’s only a problem if public perception lowers, but that’s a marketing issue that the big-4 already have a handle on.
by gspencley | 2025-08-28 21:13:58+00:00
I don't think he was trying to imply that he did anything wrong. He was admitting the ignorance regarding how banks and banking work... plus acknowledging that a lot of readers will have had experiences that would make them think "Oh you young fool."

In 2022 I lost my business banking and had to shut down a business that I owned for 20 years because it was related to the adult entertainment industry and, despite being completely legal and aboveboard, a single wire transfer that got a little bit of scrutiny resulted in them asking questions about what we did and, knowing that I was doing absolutely nothing wrong, I answered all of their questions truthfully and completely. A few months later I was told that we "fell outside of their risk appetite", our accounts were being closed... and for two months we searched for any bank or credit union in Canada but none would take us.

A lot of industry insiders had that exact reaction: "Are you stupid? Did you not know?! You NEVER admit that you're in this industry you moron!" etc. We even had a very sympathetic branch manager suggest that we re-incorporate, re-brand and hide what we do (a front, in other words). I couldn't do that. And I mean, we had no issues for 20 years. 10 of which were banking as a corporation (was personal accounts before that since we ran it as a proprietorship) and I thought that being in Canada we were pretty progressive. No one I told on a personal or professional level had ever cared. So why would the banks? We were lawful so why should they care?
by AlienRobot | 2025-08-28 21:14:17+00:00
I'll argue that the major problem with everything in software is that there is no place for random developers to discuss standards they might want to implement

For example, if drag and drop and copy and paste didn't exist, it probably wouldn't be created today because you need 2 programs to agree on accepting the format (you can't even drag and drop from most software except file managers...). And even conventions that ALREADY exist are being forgotten with every year.
by insane_dreamer | 2025-08-28 21:14:22+00:00
Besides electricity (answered above), there were bubbles related to steel production in its early days intertwined with the railroad bubble that drove huge investments in steel production for railroad development; when the railroad companies crashed it brought down steel as well; ultimately both survived in a more subdued form (as with the dot coms).

avation: likewise there was the "Lindberg Boom" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lindbergh_Boom which led to overspeculation and the crash of many early aviation companies
by fudged71 | 2025-08-28 21:14:37+00:00
I don't think it's hard to infer from the context and example.

An organic team is a group of individuals that forms spontaneously within an organization based on informal communication networks and interpersonal relationships rather than formal directives or predefined structures. Such teams typically emerge in response to a specific need or opportunity and are composed of members from various departments who collaborate based on shared goals and complementary skills. Unlike traditional teams, their existence is not documented in official organizational charts, and their composition can be fluid.
by observationist | 2025-08-28 21:14:37+00:00
Then put up a goddamn login wall.

The internet was designed to work the way it does for good reasons.

You not understanding those reasons is not an excuse for allowing a giant tech company to step in and be the gatekeeper for a huge portion of the internet. Nor to monetize, enshittify, balkanize, and fragment the web with no effective recourse or oversight.

Cloudflare shouldn't be allowed to operate, in my view.
by TheOtherHobbes | 2025-08-28 21:14:39+00:00
That's the point. In a situation like a pandemic the rational choice is to act collectively, even if that means some inconvenience for individuals.

Ideally it means a population which is educated, rational, and mature enough to rise to the challenge with minimal prompting and direction. But if that fails, stronger persuasion becomes necessary - which may mean sanctions and enforcement.

US (and UK) individualism struggles with this, which creates a weaker, less resilient, and more dangerous low-trust high-paranoia society for everyone.

The Chinese are more used to 吃苦, which is an alien concept in the US.

You can take that too far - and arguably China has - where there's a complete lack of concern for individuals.

The ideal is a balance, and I'm not sure either culture has it.
by anthem2025 | 2025-08-28 21:14:49+00:00
It’s also just natural cost cutting from businesses that were previously massively over hiring, and outside of AI don’t exactly have a ton of areas with huge growing investment.

Plus slashing jobs like this keeps the plebs in line. They don’t like software engineers having the money and job security to raise a stink over things. They want drones terrified of losing everything.