MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by dent9 | 2025-08-07 19:40:01+00:00
AI auto complete in your IDE is one of the worst gimmicks in the past decade, but not as bad as letting the AI write the code for you.

I had to turn that crap off because how are you supposed to concentrate on your code when the VS Code is incessantly throwing snippets at you?

It looks cool when you watch other people with it enabled but actually programming that way is like getting slapped in the face between each key stroke.

After fifteen minutes you realize that you spent all your time reading the opaque auto complete suggestions trying to figure out what they're doing and how they work, instead of actually getting any code committed.

I will tell ChatGPT what my context and situation is and review it's suggestions and then select the parts I want to copy paste in by hand and manually test. That's been pretty effective and it's basically a more effective drop in replacement for searching Stack Overflow for each code snippet you need. But putting the AI inside your editor is the biggest over hyped time waster I ever seen
by klipt | 2025-08-07 19:40:13+00:00
> parents facing what I understand can be one of a lifetime's more difficult decisions.

Do you believe that parents who choose to terminate a downs fetus are evil/utilitarian?

Or are the doctors who perform the testing/abortion the evil/utilitarian ones?

Or the lawmakers who allow such testing/abortion to be legal?

Where exactly is the responsibility for being evil/utilitarian in your mind?
by nozzlegear | 2025-08-07 19:41:03+00:00
I don't know if it's because we live in Iowa† or what, but my wife and I receive anywhere between one to five of these political messages per day even now, nearly one year after the presidential election. I can ignore them, delete them, report them as junk, reply "stop", block each number, but nothing works. They'll just diligently continue sending from a brand new number each time. They're a scourge.

† Relevant because of its "first in the nation" status that was recently taken away. Pollsters and political candidates don't seem to have gotten the message.
by IceDane | 2025-08-07 19:41:25+00:00
The whole presentation was full of completely broken bar charts. Not even just the typical "let's show 10% of the y axis so that a 5% increase looks like 5x" but stuff like the deception eval showing gpt5 vs o3 as 50 vs 47, but the 47 is 3x as big, and then right next to it we have 9 vs 87, more reasonably sized.

It's like no one looked at the charts, ever, and they just came straight from.. gpt2? I don't think even gpt3 would have fucked that up.

I don't know any of those people, but everyone that has been with OAI for longer than 2 years 1.5m bonuses, and somehow they can't deliver a bar chart with sensible at axes?
by vlovich123 | 2025-08-07 19:41:30+00:00
You're somehow creating this weird dichotomy where if someone is struggling more then another person can't be experiencing difficulty either. It's possible for both problems to exist and you're playing some weird competition of "well if someone has it worse then your issue isn't as bad". No, both problems are bad and trying to stack rank between them is weird - is disenfranchising black people because of racism worse than disenfranchising the homeless? It's still disenfranchisement at the end of the day.

Pretending like voter ID laws are about the median voter is being willfully blind. If it was, they'd be pared with "free ID" legislation and making sure there's polling places commensurate with the size of population centers. But it's not - it's always purely about disenfranchising people. I'm all for voter ID laws if and only if they're pared with making voting easier. As standalone measures intended to harm specific groups I'm not in favor of them.
by robertlagrant | 2025-08-07 19:41:34+00:00
> And this number is just a floor: It reflects only the cases that resulted in pregnancy, that did not end in miscarriage or abortion, and that led to the birth of a child who grew into an adult who volunteered for a research study.

This might not be logical. If your DNA's in UK Biobank you might be more likely to have had a genetic disease stemming from incest.
by duxup | 2025-08-07 19:42:37+00:00
I've worked with a company that has AI plastered all over their site and emails. I get it, they feel the pressure to say they're in the game.

I'm pretty sure very little has changed. They just have a lot of really good data / databases, engineers, and software that uses that info far more efficiently than dumping AI into the mix ... but they say they do ...
by Difwif | 2025-08-07 19:42:49+00:00
My mental model is a bit different:

Context -> Attention Span

Model weights/Inference -> System 1 thinking (intuition)

Computer memory (files) -> Long term memory

Chain of thought/Reasoning -> System 2 thinking

Prompts/Tool Output -> Sensing

Tool Use -> Actuation

The system 2 thinking performance is heavily dependent on the system 1 having the right intuitive models for effective problem solving via tool use. Tools are also what load long term memories into attention.
by bdangubic | 2025-08-07 19:43:07+00:00
I just finished my workday, 8hrs with Claude Code. No single task took more than 20 minutes total. Cleared context after each task and asked it to summarize for itself the previous task before I cleared context. If I ran this as a continuous 8hr task it would have died after 35-ish minutes. Just know the limitations (like with any other tool) and you’ll be good :)
by red-iron-pine | 2025-08-07 19:43:12+00:00
at a distance close enough to hit the drone it's shrapnel and explosives could probably hit you. and you're sitting on a big tank of flammable material.

it's like the dudes that throw their rifle at the drone 6 feet away, hit it, cause it explode... but they still take shrapnel to the head and neck anyway because it's only 6 feet away.

plus what happens if you miss?

and the ammo is big, heavy, and requires special tanks. non-starter of an idea.
by ewoodrich | 2025-08-07 19:44:32+00:00
I keep all my Passkeys in Bitwarden, it works fine across different devices and I use all major platforms regularly (iOS, Android, Windows, MacOS, ChromeOS). As a backup I've also added some extra duplicate Passkeys in the Chrome and iCloud password manager for the most important accounts in case I lose access to Bitwarden somehow.
by _spduchamp | 2025-08-07 19:45:12+00:00
Got these done... https://www.instagram.com/_spduchamp/p/CVBM3yTLzVX/ at https://store.go4over4.com/ Very happy with them.

BTW, the link Squigly.link didn't work for this link. https://music.youtube.com/watch?v=6iLDln961-k (https://squigly.link/nf2tmE)
by pseudolus | 2025-08-07 19:45:14+00:00
It's amusing to read some of the early articles, such as one that appeared in the New York Times ("Pizza a pie Popular in Southern Italy, Is Offered Here for Home Consumption"), explaining to the mainstream what pizza is and heralding its availability as take-out in the US: https://x.com/mattyglesias/status/1781097393301119360?lang=e...
by twoWhlsGud | 2025-08-07 19:45:36+00:00
Budget car buyers aren't driving the market - especially not the market for new cars. In the US income inequality has gotten to the point where most new cars are bought by upper income customers. And they want fancy SUVs. Budget car buyers purchase their cars in the used market. For them it would in fact make sense to purchase less expensive more efficient vehicles. But they don't get a vote (in theory a lower depreciation for such vehicles should flow up, but I don't think that signal really gets anywhere now.)
by kjellsbells | 2025-08-07 19:46:18+00:00
I always felt there were dim/smart, benign/malicious axes in politics.

Nixon for example: malicious but very very smart (eg wrt China).

Reagan: not a razor, but fundamentally good-willed (see for example his interactions with Tip O'Neill from the other party)

Dim and malicious is of course the worst of all. Not least because such people will attract the smart and malicious like flies.
by bakuninsbart | 2025-08-07 19:46:38+00:00
I think one thing to look out for are "deliberately" slow models. We are currently using basically all models as if we needed them in an instant loop, but many of these applications do not have to run that fast.

To tell a made-up anecdote: A colleague told me how his professor friend was running statistical models over night because the code was extremely unoptimized and needed 6+ hours to compute. He helped streamline the code and took it down to 30 minutes, which meant the professor could run it before breakfast instead.

We are completely fine with giving a task to a Junior Dev for a couple of days and see what happens. Now we love the quick feedback of running Claude Max for a hundred bucks, but if we could run it for a buck over night? Would be quite fine for me as well.
by nine_k | 2025-08-07 19:46:46+00:00
This separation (always a spectrum, not a split) already exists for a long time. Bouts of systemic bullshit occur every now and then, known as "bubbles" (as in dotcom bubble, mortgage bubble, etc) or "crises" (such as "reproducibility crisis", etc). Smaller waves rise and fall all the time, in the form of various scams (from the ancient tulip mania to Ponzi to Madoff to ICOs, etc).

It seems like large amounts of people, including people at high-up positions, tend to believe bullshit, as long as it makes them feel comfortable. This leads to various irrational business fashions and technological fads, to say nothing of political movements.

So yes, another wave of fashion, another miracle that works "as everybody knows" would fit right in. It's sad because bubbles inevitably burst, and that may slow down or even destroy some of the good parts, the real advances that ML is bringing.
by LtWorf | 2025-08-07 19:46:48+00:00
I think the sourcehut guy is not the kind of person I would rely on. I followed his blog for a while and now I've stopped.

I moved my personal stuff to codeberg. There's also the advantage that fewer people have accounts so I get fewer pull requests that change thousands of lines and fail every single test.

Of course I could be wrong, predicting the future is difficult.
by nomel | 2025-08-07 19:47:51+00:00
I would strongly suggest re-reading this chain, and your replies, and trying to take what people are saying more charitably.

>> Also not sure where your quip about me not keeping track of usernames came from

You said "neither were you", but that was djtango's first reply to you:

> I wasn’t talking about non-pharmaceuticals, and neither were you

And the most recent example:

> I also never said we were “immune to unintended consequences”. How charitable was putting those words in my mouth?

I didn't do any of that. It's actually completely unrelated to my comment and how you're presenting yourself.
by jacquesm | 2025-08-07 19:48:13+00:00
That was something that was tied to a bunch of very specific physical objects. There is a fair chance that once you get to the point where this thing really comes into being especially if it takes longer than a couple of hours for it to be shut down or contained that the genie will never ever be put back into the bottle again.

Note that 'bits' are a lot easier to move from one place to another than hardware. If invented at 9 am it could be on the other side of the globe before you're back from your coffee break at 9:15. This is not at all like almost all other trade secrets and industrial gear, it's software. Leaks are pretty much inevitable and once it is shown that it can be done it will be done in other places as well.
by sharemywin | 2025-08-07 19:48:21+00:00
I talk all the time to the AI on my phone. I was using ChatGPT's voice interface then it failed probably because my phone is too old. Now I use Gemini. I don't usually do alot with it but when I go on walks I talk with it about different things I want to learn. to me it's a great way to learn about something at a high level. or talk through ideas.
by justusthane | 2025-08-07 19:48:49+00:00
> a real-time router that quickly decides which model to use based on conversation type, complexity, tool needs, and explicit intent

This is sort of interesting to me. It strikes me that so far we've had more or less direct access to the underlying model (apart from the system prompt and guardrails), but I wonder if going forward there's going to be more and more infrastructure between us and the model.
by LaghZen | 2025-08-07 19:49:10+00:00
Hi! Thanks for the question!

1. Algphys is shown to be equivalent to P, meaning any polynomial-time Turing algorithm can be modeled in Algphys. The paper constructs "frustrated" 3-SAT instances requiring exponential time in Algphys due to high combinatorial complexity and spectral properties (e.g., Hessian eigenvalues growing as ~ 2^n). Since Algphys = P, this implies no polynomial-time Turing algorithm can solve NP-complete problems.

2. The equivalence of Algphys and P means any polynomial-time algorithm, regardless of approach, can be modeled in Algphys. The exponential lower bound for these instances in Algphys applies to all polynomial-time Turing algorithms, suggesting these "hard" instances are inherently exponential, no matter the method.

3. The paper establishes P ~ Algphys by mapping Turing machine states to points on a symplectic manifold, with the cost function H encoding computation steps. The Hamiltonian dynamics (γ̇(t) = J∇H(γ(t))) simulate the algorithm’s execution path, ensuring every polynomial-time algorithm corresponds to a trajectory in Algphys.
by dudeinhawaii | 2025-08-07 19:49:20+00:00
My experience has been that Claude Code is exceptional at tool use (and thus working with agentic IDEs) but... not the smartest coder. It will happy re-invent the wheel, create silos, or generate terrible code that you'll only discover weeks or months later. I've had to rollback weeks of code to discover major edge regressions that Claude had introduced.

Now, someone will say 'add more tests'. Sure. But that's a bandaid.

I find that the 'smarter' models like Gemini and o3 output better quality code overall and if you can afford to send them the entire context in a non-agentic way .. then they'll generate something dramatically superior to the agentic code artifacts.

That said, sometimes you just want speed to proof a concept and Claude is exceptional there. Unfortunately, proof of concepts often... become productionized rather than developers taking a step back to "do it right".
by grogenaut | 2025-08-07 19:49:50+00:00
I get your point, it's sad. But your family memeber isn't hooking a docs MCP up to an AI and doing things. Docs also has history, I can just undo the dumb crap it would do.

In the meanwhile the rest of us are running around with a pole that has a chainsaw generator on it swinging it in every direction to solve problems. When I have these issues now I just have AI write tools to get around it. To search my email I just had ai crack my takeout files and look for the email. Was easier than figuring out the google product.
by fc417fc802 | 2025-08-07 19:50:16+00:00
Pedantry. (Well I suppose it's at least a valid point that without a solid surface there probably isn't anything for a human to want to bother visiting in the first place.)

This one presumably doesn't have a surface either, yet an earlier commenter spoke of surface gravity. Doesn't it surprise you in the slightest that two planets of the same size could have gravity that differs by such a wide margin?
by missedthecue | 2025-08-07 19:50:26+00:00
There are plenty of $10k houses in Japan and all of them are overpriced.

Declining birth rates result in a retreat to city centers as rural and eventually suburban areas become unsustainable. Life in Tokyo (and Madrid, and Rome, and London, and Seoul...) is currently more expensive than it's ever been, while the countrysides are full of very inexpensive housing that can barely be given away for free.
by mitkebes | 2025-08-07 19:50:27+00:00
O3 has had some major price cuts since Gemini 2.5 Pro came out. At the time, o3 cost $10/Mtok in and $40/Mtok out. The big deal with Gemini 2.5 Pro was it had comparable quality to o3 at a fraction of the cost.

I'm not sure when they slashed the o3 pricing, but the GPT-5 pricing looks like they set it to be identical to Gemini 2.5 Pro.

If you scroll down on this page you can see what different models cost when 2.5 Pro was released: https://deepmind.google/models/gemini/pro/
by BizarroLand | 2025-08-07 19:50:29+00:00
Insanely bad compared to what else in the animal kingdom? We are tool users. We use tools, like language, and writing, and technology like audio/video recording to farm out the difficulties we have with memory to things that can store memory and retrieve them.

Computers are just stored information that processes.

We are the miners and creators of that information. The fact that a computer can do some things better than we can is not a testament to how terrible we are but rather how great we are that we can invent things that are better than us at specific tasks.

We made the atlatl and threw spears across the plains. We made the bow and arrow and stabbed things very far away. We made the whip and broke the sound barrier.

Shitting on humans is an insult your your ancestors. Fuck you. Be proud. If we invent a new thing that can do what we do better it only exists because of us.
by abossy | 2025-08-07 19:50:55+00:00
At my company (Charlie Labs), we've had a tremendous amount of success with context awareness over long-running tasks with GPT-5 since getting access a few weeks ago. We ran an eval to solve 10 real Github issues so that we could measure this against Claude Code and the differences were surprisingly large. You can see our write-up here:

https://charlielabs.ai/research/gpt-5

Often, our tasks take 30-45 minutes and can handle massive context threads in Linear or Github without getting tripped up by things like changes in direction part of the way through the thread.

While 10 issues isn't crazy comprehensive, we found it to be directionally very impressive and we'll likely build upon it to better understand performance going forward.
by olieidel | 2025-08-07 19:50:57+00:00
Author here. Sure, here are the sources:

- First off, your assumption is wrong that only the increase in value gets taxed. No, the entire value of your holding gets taxed, see § 6 Abs. 1 Satz 1 Außensteuergesetz (AStG) [1].

- The factor 13.75 originates from the calculation method called "vereinfachtes Ertragswertverfahren" (~ simplified earnings-based method), which itself is defined in Bewertungsgesetz (BewG), § 11 Wertpapiere und Anteile [2]

- Factor 13.75 is defined in Bewertungsgesetz (BewG), § 203 Kapitalisierungsfaktor [3]

- The tax rate of 42% is the marginal tax rate in Germany (at least below €250k income, beyond that it's 45%) - so the assumption here is that, in the year in which you leave Germany, you've already had some salary income (say, €90k) which bumps you into the marginal tax rate for any additional income on top of that.

[1] https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/astg/__6.html

[2] https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bewg/__11.html

[3] https://www.gesetze-im-internet.de/bewg/__203.html
by jandrese | 2025-08-07 19:51:26+00:00
There are quite a number of authors, comedians, artists, and the like on Bluesky. A few examples:

Bill Corbett: https://bsky.app/profile/billcorbett.bsky.social

John Scalzi: https://bsky.app/profile/scalzi.com

Wil Wheaton: https://bsky.app/profile/did:plc:mwpiq2rr6joccohcz2urkwvn

NY Times Pitchbot: https://bsky.app/profile/nytpitchbot.bsky.social

Electrek: https://bsky.app/profile/electrek.co

Stephen King: https://bsky.app/profile/stephenking.bsky.social

Eric Idle: https://bsky.app/profile/ericidle.bsky.social
by nomel | 2025-08-07 19:51:29+00:00
> Plagiarism: the practice of taking someone else's work or ideas and passing them off as one's own.

"passing them off as one's own" is the key part. To prevent this, you make it very clear which parts are your own ideas and which parts are not. If you compare the source to this post, you'll see it's a mix, without delineation.
by 00N8 | 2025-08-07 19:51:36+00:00
I see two main types of 'AI safety': (a) Safety for the business providing the model. This includes a censorship layer, system promoting, & other means of preventing the AI from giving offensive/controversial/illegal output. A lot of effort goes into this & it's somewhat effective, although it's often useless or unhelpful to end users & doesn't address big-picture concerns. (b) The science fiction idea of a means to control a hypothetical AI with unbounded powers, to make sure it only uses those powers "for good". This type of safety is still speculative fiction & often assumes the AI will have agency & motivations, as well as abilities, that we see no evidence of at present. This would address big-picture concerns, but it's not a real thing, at least not yet.

It remains to be seen whether (b) will be needed, or for that matter, possible.

There are a lot of other ethical questions around AI too, although they mostly aren't unique to it. E.g. AI is increasingly relevant in ethical discussions around misinformation, outsourcing of work, social/cultural biases, human rights, privacy, legal responsibility, intellectual property, etc., but these topics predate LLMs by many years.
by psunavy03 | 2025-08-07 19:51:38+00:00
> This theory also does not explain how airplanes can fly upside-down (the longer path would then be on the bottom!) which happens often at air shows and in air-to-air combat.

While true, the person writing this article does not seem to understand the difference between flying inverted and flying with a negative angle of attack. These can happen at the same time, but not necessarily. If you're performing a loop or a barrel roll, you will be inverted, but the aircraft will be performing largely as it would be when you are straight and level, because you are still under positive g with a positive AOA on the aircraft. The lift vector will just be pointed someplace other than "up."
by geerlingguy | 2025-08-07 19:52:01+00:00
No, only a couple initial tests with Ollama used CPU. I ran most tests on Vulkan / iGPU, and some on ROCm (read further down the thread).

I found it difficult to install ROCm on Fedora 42 but after upgrading to Rawhide it was easy, so I re-tested everything with ROCm vs Vulkan.

Ollama, for some silly reason, doesn't support Vulkan even though I've used a fork many times to get full GPU acceleration with it on Pi, Ampere, and even this AMD system... (moral of the story just stick with llama.cpp).
by doormatt | 2025-08-07 19:52:07+00:00
Thanks for the reply! Just to clarify, your proof is relying on the assumption that if an algorithm can be modeled in Algphys, then its execution time in Algphys reflects its true time complexity, right? But can you point to where you prove that modeling a polynomial-time Turing machine in Algphys necessarily results in a polynomial-time trajectory in your framework, across all problem instances? Specifically, how do you rule out the possibility that the mapping itself introduces exponential distortion in some cases?
by simonw | 2025-08-07 19:52:16+00:00
I for one am pretty glad about this. I like LLMs that augment human abilities - tools that help people get more done and be more ambitious.

The common concept for AGI seems to be much more about human replacement - the ability to complete "economically valuable tasks" better than humans can. I still don't understand what our human lives or economies would look like there.

What I personally wanted from GPT-5 is exactly what I got: models that do the same stuff that existing models do, but more reliably and "better".