MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by alluro2 | 2025-08-07 23:15:22+00:00
I'm in the same 150+ group. I really think it doesn't mean much on its own. While I am able to breeze through some things and find some connections sometimes that elude some of the other people, it's not that much different than all the other people doing the same at other occasions. I am still very much average in large majority of every-day activities, held back by childhood experiences, resulting coping mechanisms etc, like we all are.

Learning from experience (hopefully not always your own), working well with others, and being able to persevere when things are tough, demotivational or boring, trumps raw intelligence easily, IMO.
by rapind | 2025-08-07 23:15:38+00:00
I'm exclusively using sonnet via claude-code on their max plan (opting to specify sonnet so that opus isn't used). I just wasn't pleased with the opus output, but maybe I just need to use it differently. I haven't bothered with 4.1 yet. Another thing I noticed is opus would eat up my caps super quick, whereas using sonnet exclusively I never hit a cap.

I'd really just love incremental improvements over sonnet. Increasing the context window on sonnet would be a game changer for me. After auto-compact the quality may fall off a cliff and I need to spend some time bringing it back up to speed.

When I need a bit more punch for more reasoning / architecture type evaluations, I have it talk to gemini pro via zen mcp and OpenRouter. I've been considering setting up a subagent for architecture / system design decisions that would use the latest opus to see if it's better than gemini pro (so far I have no complaints though).
by jauntywundrkind | 2025-08-07 23:16:22+00:00
Hopefully never needed again, but to be safe after all this regex-powered take-down'ing and now rewriting, sort of feels like most government-funded authorship should be under care of National Archives, with a strong congressional mandate to make accessible all stores documents at their original version's state.

Yet another ghastly play from the worst creeps and losers!
by chmod775 | 2025-08-07 23:16:29+00:00
With at least a few people it's probably you who is much smarter than them. Do you ever find yourself playing dumb with them, for instance when they're chewing through some chain of thought you could complete for them in an instant? Do you ever not chime in on something inconsequential?

After all you just might seem like an insufferable smartass to someone you probably want to be liked by. Why hurt interpersonal relationships for little gain?

If your colleague is really that bright, I wouldn't be surprised if they're simply careful about how much and when they show it to us common folk.
by Quarrelsome | 2025-08-07 23:16:35+00:00
are you unaware of the meaning of quote marks? They are quoting labels that society will place on them, primarily as a consequence of puritanical thinking acting as a cover up for abuse. What's shameful is hiding the horrors of our reality. I thought their comment was particularly poignant and reflects the actual horrors of abuse when it is uncovered in retrospect, compared to how it was perceived at the time.

We see this countless times in our history, abusers lauded, praised, with status, titles, wealth and popular acclaim. Detractors are ignored, slandered and side-lined, and after the abusers die, it transpires all those hushed whispers were true and the detractors were right all along.
by chilmers | 2025-08-07 23:16:53+00:00
Eyeballing it, that bar looks to be around 15% in height. Typing "50" instead of "15" is a plausible typo. Albeit, one you might expect from a high-schooler giving a class presentation, not in a flagship launch by one of the most hyped startups in history.

Just remember, everyone involved with these presentations is getting a guaranteed $1.5 million bonus. Then cry a little.
by Hackbraten | 2025-08-07 23:16:55+00:00
Thanks for taking the time to follow up.

When I searched for `keepassxc`, my search engine ranked eugenesan/keepassxc [0] higher than keepassxreboot/keepassxc [1], so the former was the first that I’d visit. GitHub says that eugenesan/keepassxc is 2693 commits ahead of keepassx/keepassx:master, so I assumed that eugenesan/keepassxc was a legitimate and meaningful fork of keepassx/keepassx. Maybe I’m entirely mistaken, and I was just tricked by a blunder of my search engine and eugenesan/keepassxc is just a random person’s fork? (But then again, if it’s just a random fork, then why does it show up at the top, and why so many commits ahead of keepassx?)

To add even more to the confusion, not only is eugenesan/keepassxc unmaintained, it also points to www.keepassx.org (why?), which in turn says it’s unmaintained, too.

If I was just mistaken and eugenesan/keepassxc is really just a random fork, then my earlier allegations are all moot. Thank you for clearing this up, and also for clarifying that the other (legitimate?) KeePassXC was a preexisting fork (so it would have been difficult for them and possibly even more confusing to users if they had taken over the abandoned KeePassX project).

[0]: https://github.com/eugenesan/keepassxc

[1]: https://github.com/keepassxreboot/keepassxc
by kimixa | 2025-08-07 23:17:06+00:00
From my experience working on GPU drivers, the ISA is one of the least important parts of porting. 99% of the time, it's just changing a compiler flag. Thankfully, the era of "Ancient Quirky Proprietary Toolchain" is a thing of the past, even on small embedded platforms.

Sure, you might have have a little "optimised" ASM for some specific conversions, but that's always just performance, and a driver even touching bulk data on the CPU means you're already in the slow path.

Stuff like how the busses are enumerated, cache coherency specifics, and interoperability with other devices (some mobile SoCs can be a grab bag of different GPU/Display block/Video encoder/Image processing/whatever else) is waayyyyy more important from what I've seen/.

And while we all hate on stuff like PCI and ACPI, at least it's (kinda) standard and (somewhat) works.
by jasonfarnon | 2025-08-07 23:18:19+00:00
Well back then there was a huge difference in the Internet experience between people at universities and other places with T1s and other fast connections, and everyone else on dial-up. There was a lot of full-length video downloading at universities by 2000. But even on dial-up I seem to remember realplayer and other UDP dumps being pretty popular around this time.
by habinero | 2025-08-07 23:18:29+00:00
Anyone who believes this hasn't spent enough time around rich people. Rich people are almost always rich because they come from other rich people. They're exactly as smart as poor people, except the rich folk have a much, much cushier landing if they fail so they can take on more risk more often. It's much easier to succeed and look smart if you can just reload your save and try over and over.
by morleytj | 2025-08-07 23:18:47+00:00
The benchmarks certainly seem to be improving from the presentation. I don't think they started training this 4 months ago though.

There's gains, but the question is, how much investment for that gain? How sustainable is that investment to gain ratio? The things I'm curious about here are more about the amount of effort being put into this level of improvement, rather than the time.
by bookofjoe | 2025-08-07 23:19:02+00:00
1. I happened on HN accidentally in 2016 and enjoy posts both in areas completely foreign to me — like things computer-related — and others more familiar.

2. I never considered that because it's called "hacker news" it's intended only for hackers.

3. I have never written a line of code, much less programmed.

4. I have zero curiosity about JavaScript.

5. "Even more odd when I see that the majority of your comments are really just posting archive links to bypass a paywall." In fact, 99% of those archive links are to primary articles I post which in fact ARE paywalled. Since by being a paying subscriber to a number of publications I am able to provide "Gift Links" as well, as a courtesy to HN readers I go to the time and trouble of posting them as well as archive links.

There is some distaste on your part for this practice — "Not an issue with me per se" implies the opposite.

In your opinion "even more surprising to be ignorant of JS at that point" — I fail to see any connection between being ignorant of JS to posting archive links — I will going forward cease and desist from posting both "Gift Links" and archive links and instead let you do it, since you clearly have knowledge of JavaScript and believe it important for providing such links.
by atrettel | 2025-08-07 23:19:11+00:00
I agree that the ability to ask the right questions is a rare skill. I had a supervisor once with that ability. I tried to learn as much as I could about that from him.

That said, I think ultimately there are some questions that have no answers regardless of how we try to answer them. For chaotic systems, even small uncertainties in the inputs result in large differences in the outputs. In that sense, we can always ask questions, but our questions sometimes can never be precise enough to get meaningful answers. That statement is hard to wrap your head around without taking a course in chaos theory.
by protocolture | 2025-08-07 23:19:53+00:00
IIRC (Its a long document, and I only skimmed it) they assumed 20% efficiency on behalf of the reactors.

I think they just wanted a plausible future energy source that they didnt have to look at too closely.

My first issue with the design is that it looked like a decent percentage of the planet would have to be launched into space just to build the thing.

A lot of the space math looked alright, but theres several issues of practicality.

>Even if you solve the problem of container destruction

No idea if this is related, but everywhere they needed 1 reactor, they had 4. 2 in active/active failover, and 2 cold spares. It seemed relatively easy for them to perform maintenance on these. But its just heaps more launch mass, heaps more acceleration fuel, and a lot more deceleration fuel.
by int_19h | 2025-08-07 23:20:01+00:00
The robots are creating the wealth. Once you get to a certain points (where robots can repair and maintain other robots) you no longer have any need for money.

What happens to the economy depends on who controls the robots. In "techno-feudalism", that would be the select few who get to live the post-scarcity future. The rest of humanity becomes economically redundant and is basically left to starve.
by jayd16 | 2025-08-07 23:20:41+00:00
I'm not saying things couldn't change. I'm only looking at the landscape as it is now and imagining what would happen if the funding stops because of lack of consumer interest.

In general I do not agree that the economy is overleveraged on AI just like it is not overleveraged on cyrpto currency. If the money dries up, I don't expect economy wide layoffs.
by genocidicbunny | 2025-08-07 23:21:23+00:00
How long have you been on a GLP-1? It took me about a year to start to change my relationship to food. Initially, I had the same reaction -- I stopped enjoying food, which led to problems with caloric deficiency, and especially the lack of protein. But eventually my brain started to rewire itself from thinking food == good, to good food == good. If you've spent a significant part of your life treating food as an addiction, even if the physical urges go away, the mental side takes longer.

Funny enough though, is that it's caused me to spend way more time thinking about food because it's no longer a mindless activity. A bag of crisps can last me a month. The last pint of ice cream I bought got freezer burn because of how long it took me to finish it. If I'm cooking something, it's no longer going to be some recipe where you throw a bunch of stuff together and get a giant pot of food to stuff your face with, it's going to be something that takes effort and time and skill to prepare because it has to be _good_.
by sbinnee | 2025-08-07 23:21:34+00:00
When they were about to release gpt4 I remember the hype was so high there were a lot of AGI debates. But then was quickly out-shadowed by more advanced models.

People knew that gpt5 wouldn’t be an AGI or even close to that. It’s just an updated version. GptN would become more or leas like an annual release.
by thaumasiotes | 2025-08-07 23:22:06+00:00
It lasted for fourteen years, with a sharp drop in stability for the last three of those. No, that's not enough time to do cultural transformation.

The shared values, religion, language, and writing preexisted the Qin. So much was shared that the state of Qin considered it a problem - Qin propaganda (before the conquest) tended to emphasize how different they were from the other Chinese states.
by bo1024 | 2025-08-07 23:22:21+00:00
Your second paragraph doesn't match the dialogue around the topic that I've encountered.

I generally agree with your first paragraph. My summary of the critique on "safety vs ethics" is that the push to focus on "novel" types of harm has come with dismissing and glossing over of AI reproducing and amplifying existing harms. These are well documented in machine learning from the pre-LLM era (e.g. books like Weapons of Math Destruction).
by simonw | 2025-08-07 23:22:32+00:00
My personal definition of hallucination (which I thought was widespread) is when a model states a fact about the world that is entirely made up - "the James Webb telescope took the first photograph of an exoplanet" for example.

I just got pointed to this new paper: https://arxiv.org/abs/2508.01781 - "A comprehensive taxonomy of hallucinations in Large Language Models" - which has a definition in the introduction which matches my mental model:

"This phenomenon describes the generation of content that, while often plausible and coherent, is factually incorrect, inconsistent, or entirely fabricated."

The paper then follows up with a formal definition;

"inconsistency between a computable LLM, denoted as h, and a computable ground truth function, f"
by godelski | 2025-08-07 23:23:13+00:00
> using them for code

I don't think this means no hallucinations (in output). I think it'd be naive to assume that compiling and passing tests means hallucination free.

> For factual information

I've used both quite a bit too. While o3 tends to be better, I see hallucinations frequently with both.

> Most of my other use cases

I guess my question is how you validate the hallucination free claim.

Maybe I'm misinterpreting your claim? You said "I rarely see them" but I'm assuming you mean more, and I think it would be reasonable for anyone to interpret this as more. Are you just making the claim that you don't see them or making a claim that they are uncommon? The latter is what I interpreted.
by simonw | 2025-08-07 23:23:49+00:00
I mention one dumb error in my post itself - the table sorting mistake.

I haven't been keeping a formal count of them, but dumb errors from LLMs remain pretty common. I spot them and either correct them myself or nudge the LLM to do it, if that's feasible. I see that as a regular part of working with these systems.
by george87 | 2025-08-07 23:24:28+00:00
SEEKING WORK | Southern Europe | Remote

Hi, I’m George, a versatile software engineer with a master's degree in computer science and ~15 years of experience developing software solutions from design to deployment, including web and desktop apps, data pipelines, and data visualizations. I've written content for technical assessments, coding challenges, programming articles, and tutorials.

I've helped companies scale, launch products, improve efficiency, and boost revenues. I've worked with organizations such as MIT, Triplebyte, and Rollbar, and I've had some of my research published by IEEE, OEIS, and Springer.

Feel free to check out my LinkedIn at www.linkedin.com/in/georgetanev and reach out to me there or via email at geotanjazz@gmail.com.
by habinero | 2025-08-07 23:24:44+00:00
Yeah, that's not a good argument. That might be true for the very poor, sure, but not for the majority of the lower-to-middle of the middle class. There's fundamentally no difference between your average blue collar worker and a billionaire, except the billionaire almost certainly had rich parents and got lucky.

People really don't like the "they're not, they just got lucky" statement and will do a lot of things to rationalize it away lol.
by simonw | 2025-08-07 23:26:04+00:00
I don't understand why code passing tests wouldn't be protection against most forms of hallucinations. In code, a hallucination means an invented function or method that doesn't exist. A test that uses that function or method genuinely does prove that it exists.

It might be using it wrong but I'd qualify that as a bug or mistake, not a hallucination.

Is it likely we have different ideas of what "hallucination" means?
by twojacobtwo | 2025-08-07 23:26:18+00:00
If we get that far, I see it happening more like...

"Don't worry Majesty, all of our models show that the peasants will not resort to actual violence until we fully wind down the bread and circuses program some time next year. By then we'll have easily enough suicide drones ready. Even better, if we add a couple million more to our order, just to be safe, we'll get them for only $4.75 per unit, with free rush shipping in case of surprise violence!"
by Hackbraten | 2025-08-07 23:26:53+00:00
I can assure you that by now, my brain is conditioned to lock into the four-digit code as soon as it can, entirely ignoring everything around it, including the words to the left.

I’m an avid reader. But there are limits to what I can process, and our world has become so full of noise that it has become a coping strategy for brains to selectively ignore stuff if they feel it’s not important at the moment. That effect becomes even more pronounced as the brain deteriorates with age.
by unsupp0rted | 2025-08-07 23:27:10+00:00
All the current commercial operating systems today are basically interchangeable, not counting a handful of design decisions (e.g. Finder vs. Explorer) or hardware compatibility.

They're all basically the same thing.

Heck Android and iOS are basically the same thing.

Would a new commercially viable OS be able to offer anything that current ones don't? If not, it's not really commercially viable.
by runarberg | 2025-08-07 23:27:17+00:00
The future had us abandon traditional currency in favor of bitcoin, it had digital artists being able to sell NFTs for their work, it had supersonic jet travel, self driving or even flying cars. It had population centers on the moon, mines on asteroids, fusion power plants, etc.

I think large language models have the same future as supersonic jet travel. It’s usefulness will fail to realize, with traditional models being good enough but for a fraction of the price, while some startups keep trying to push this technology but meanwhile consumers keep rejecting it.
by stavros | 2025-08-07 23:27:32+00:00
I end up using the VCS tooling (lazygit for me), but coding agents really need to be integrated with this review environment. We need an extra step where the agent will group its changes into logical units (database models in one commit, types in another, business logic in another, tests in another), rather than having to review per-file.

Programming has changed from writing code to reviewing/QAing and reprompting, but the tooling hasn't yet caught up with that workflow. We need Gerrit for coding agents, basically.
by BryantD | 2025-08-07 23:28:22+00:00
Coming up on five months now! Thank you very much for your comment -- I've been hoping based on research and talking to people I know that you do rewire eventually, and you reinforced all of that. Appreciated.

And yeah, caloric intake is a concern. The diabetes means I'm also changing my diet a fair bit which doesn't help; I haven't had ice cream in months. I am pretty sure I'm overcompensating and have recently pushed myself into more experimentation with food; the availability of real time glucose sensors is huge even if I feel weird walking around with a Bluetooth device plugged into my arm.
by throw10920 | 2025-08-07 23:29:19+00:00
> The fact that you don't understand that humans absorb a lot of knowledge just by existing

That's clearly not what I said, or what you claimed. You claimed that looking at real things while living life is the same thing as viewing millions of artificial images made by humans:

>> Looking at real things while living life is categorically different from viewing millions of artworks made by other artists

> I don't see a difference.

You're now actively lying about your claims (and mine) and it's clear that you aren't interested in actually debating your point, just performative statements.

I'm not going to debate this further, just going to call out your lies and fallacies for the record.

It's pretty interesting that everyone I've talked to who wants to steal the work of tens/hundreds of thousands of artists to train ML on resorts to lying and clinically insane statements to try to justify their beliefs.
by ASalazarMX | 2025-08-07 23:29:43+00:00
They're not coding, they're not vibe coding, they're asking for the code to an LLM.

When people say "I did this" showing something they did with AI, the reality is "I asked an AI for this". Okay, not every time, but something on this scale would, they don't even know what those 10K lines of code do, they asked and received.
by fuzzfactor | 2025-08-07 23:29:51+00:00
As can be seen, if they can't manage something like this that applies equally to Windows 10, about all you can do is work around it or whine about it.

I've recently found information about Windows Vista that enabled more reliable printing in the very latest Windows 11 there is.

It always seems like such sad behavior when people make an effort to remove worthwhile material when there is so much useless waste that is not even addressed.
Ask HN: Recommendations for specification management software?
by gusmally | 2025-08-07 23:30:06+00:00
Does your team have a spec management system you enjoy using? I've used Jira way back in the day, but I'm wondering if there's anything people are buzzing about now.

Every time I create a Linear ticket, fix a bug while writing other code, or prompt cursor, I feel like I'm touching a spec. I want to give these specs a good home so that we can use them in QA testing.
by KiwiJohnno | 2025-08-07 23:31:16+00:00
I was thinking maybe this, but more likely X.AI would develop the models for Tesla, such as for FSD and Optimus.

Honestly, it might not be a bad move. X.AI has done some great stuff, Grok is rough around the edges but pretty much at the bleeding edge and it doesn't make a lot of sense for musk to be running two AI camps (Yes I know they are theoretically separate companies...(
by sobiolite | 2025-08-07 23:31:46+00:00
There are versions of both these charts with more plausible numbers and bar sizes in the "evaluation" section of the announcement post:

https://openai.com/index/introducing-gpt-5/

So, maybe this is just sloppiness and not intentionally misleading. But still, not a good look when the company burning through billions of dollars in cash and promising to revolutionize all human activity can't put together a decent powerpoint.
by JBiserkov | 2025-08-07 23:32:41+00:00
> 'deception' is an undesirable quality in an llm, so less of it is 'better/more' from their audiences perspective

So if that ^ is why 50.0 is lower than 47.4 ... but why is then 86.7 not lower than 9.0? Or 4.8 not lower than 2.1
by vineyardmike | 2025-08-07 23:32:56+00:00
I agree that cursor has to take an aggressive and differentiated approach to succeed, but they have the benefit of pushing each lab into a commodity.

I pay for Cursor and ChatGPT. I can imagine I’d pay for Gemini if I used an android. The chat bots (1) won’t keep the subscription competitive with APIs because the cost and usage models are different and (2) most chat bots today are more of a UX competition than model quality. And the only winners are ChatGPT and whatever integrated options the user has by default (Gemini, MSFT Copilot, etc).