MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by shadowgovt | 2025-08-18 14:34:45+00:00
it feels like there's some lack of equivalence that makes this analogy invalid.

Unless junkies have started a new service to help me find the nearest hospital that I'm not familiar with. Otherwise, spontaneously blocking Google could cause material harm to people reliant upon it. You'd be surprised how many users are so net-ignorant that they wouldn't even know how to get to Bing if their default page stopped resolving.
by stego-tech | 2025-08-18 14:35:20+00:00
Yup, all in support of others’ models and the commoditization model of AI deployment. The benefit of this approach is that if AI is a bubble, they have a glut of hardware they can rent at discounts to other customers and startups who can reach for moonshots.

It’s a smart approach. Get the CAPEX done while there’s appetite and political will for it.
by gmays | 2025-08-18 14:35:33+00:00
OP here, good points.

Your comment on Intel is correct, but it's also true that TSMC could invest billions into advanced fabs because Apple gave them a huge guaranteed demand base. Intel didn’t have the same economic flywheel since PCs/servers were flat or declinig.

That's a good clarification on Amazon, running on commodity hardware with competitive pricing != competing on price alone. It would have been better to clarify this difference when pointing out that they're trying the same commodity approach in AI.
by DSingularity | 2025-08-18 14:35:40+00:00
It’s not AMD it’s their board. Unless the board approves billions of $ in stock rewards to motivate good engineers nobody is going to join.

It’s not rocket science. They can identify many key personel in Nvidia and make them offers which would be significantly better for them. Cycle 3 years and repeat. Two or three cycles and you will have replicated the most important parts.
by madmax96 | 2025-08-18 14:35:44+00:00
Came here to say pretty much this. Hardware seems more valuable than a model.

I think AI could be commoditized. Look at DeepSeek stealing OpenAI's model. Look at the competitive performance between Claude, ChatGPT, Grok, and Gemini. Look at open weight models, like Llama.

Commoditized AI need used via a device. The post argues that other devices, like watches or smart glasses, could be better posed to use AI. But...your point stands. Given Apple's success with hardware, I wouldn't bet against them making competitive wearables.

Hardware is hard. It's expensive to get wrong. It seems like a hardware company would be better positioned to build hardware than an AI company. Especially when you can steal the AI company's model.

Supply chains, battery optimization, etc. are all hard-won battles. But AI companies have had their models stolen in months.

If OpenAI really believed models would remain differentiated then why venture into hardware at all?
by rickdeckard | 2025-08-18 14:36:00+00:00
I don't see how Apple is that much at risk here.

They continue building a distributed data-acquisition and edge data-processing network with their iPhone sales, where the customer keeps paying for both hardware and traffic.

They constantly take measures to ensure that the data their customers generate is only available to Apple and is not siphoned away by the users themselves.

The moment they finish the orchestration of this distributed worldwide iOS AI-cluster, they will suddenly have both the data and the processing at comparatively low operational cost.

The biggest risk? A paradigm-shift where the Smartphone is no longer the main device (smart glasses being a major risk here), and some other player takes the lead here.
by jerf | 2025-08-18 14:36:09+00:00
That's a really powerful approach because LLMs are very very strong at what is basically "style transfer". Much better than they are at writing code from scratch. One of my most recent big AI wins was going the other way; I had to read some Mulesoft code in its native storage format, which is some fairly nasty XML encoding scheme, mixed with code, mixed with other weird things, but asking the AI to just "turn this into psuedocode" was quite successful. Also very good at language-to-language transfer. Not perfect but much better than doing it by hand. It's still important to validate the transfer, it does get a thing or two wrong per every few dozen lines, but it's still way faster than doing it from scratch and good enough to work with if you've got testing.
by ndriscoll | 2025-08-18 14:36:18+00:00
In the sense that someone sending you a surprise crypto miner with their webpage or bundling a botnet trojan into a program they give you is just them putting it on their own space, sure. If they send it to me though, my security software will promptly filter it out or otherwise not allow it to run. My firewall will block connections to their known-dodgey payload hosts from all computers on my network. My computer is not for running someone's miner, and that's not the intended purpose of allowing scripting. Likewise, my screen is not for displaying ads; it's an abuse of scriptable documents that gets filtered out. Opening a web page doesn't create some obligation to run malware.

fwiw making an offline analogy, I also live in a city where outdoor advertising signs are generally banned (with some exceptions like saying the land is for sale, or small ground-level signs with height/width restrictions at an entrance indicating which businesses are on a lot), so even on their own land/their own space, businesses putting up things like billboards would be spam and disallowed.
by glitchc | 2025-08-18 14:37:10+00:00
Everyone knows this. Every layperson I talk to is aware that these companies are siphoning their information. When free email was introduced over two decades ago, the behaviour was the same. Everyone knew Microsoft and Google could read your emails. Then, like now, people think it's worth it. It is too useful a tool to have and the price is palatable.

What people don't want to do is sign up for yet another subscription. There's immense subscription fatigue among the general population, especially in tough economic times such as now.
by gruez | 2025-08-18 14:37:13+00:00
>doesn't the legal responsibility here lie with whichever person added Otter AI to group-calls without informing the other members

IANAL but companies providing a product has certain responsibilities too, especially when they're intended to be used for a given purpose (ie. recording meetings with other people on it). Most call recording software I come across have a recording notice that can't be disabled, presumably to avoid lawsuits like this.

>EDIT: So the crux of the matter is whether-or-not having Otter AI automatically join meetings via their Slack/Zoom/etc integrations is by-itself legally wrong - or not:

Note the preceding paragraph also notes that even when the integrations aren't used, otter only obtains consent from the meeting host. In all-party consent states that's clearly not sufficient.

>because the fact it's "AI" isn't really relevant here

Again, IANAL, but "recording" laws might not apply if they're merely transcribing the audio? To take an extreme case, it's (probably) legal to hire a stenographer to sit next to you on meetings and transcribe everything on the call, even if you don't tell any other participants. Otter is a note-taking app, so they might have been in the clear if they weren't recording for AI training.
by npc_anon | 2025-08-18 14:37:59+00:00
You're just retrofitting reasons to justify the behavior I describe.

Forget about those reasons. They don't matter. They can have merit or not, it's irrelevant. Because the behavior takes place regardless. When people can legally avoid paying for something whilst still consuming it, they'll do that.

The idea that if only ads were more privacy-friendly people would not block them or start paying for content at any scale is laughable. They won't. When there's a free path, people take that path.
by andsoitis | 2025-08-18 14:38:18+00:00
> The engineers asked for $50B to train a model and Apple instead did stock buybacks.

It is probably cheaper to simply integrate with OpenAI or Anthropic or whoever might unseat them in the future, than spend $50B on training a model. Not only is it cheaper, but it also gives them the flexibility to ride the wave of popularity, without ceding hardware or software sales.
by shadowgovt | 2025-08-18 14:39:08+00:00
I doubt it, but it does highlight how weird the notion of "competition" is when juxtaposed with the notion of "a search engine controls its own results page."

(Personally, I resolve the paradox with "The goal is for neither Google nor app developers to 'win', the goal is to make it as easy to flip a coin as possible." Is my keyboard manufacturer competing with both if they put a button in the corner of the keyboard that either lights an LED or doesn't when pressed? Does the coin in my pocket compete with all three?)
by Forgeties79 | 2025-08-18 14:39:12+00:00
I recently set up LM Studio and have run open AI's 20b model locally using an AMD 9070 + 9800x3d. I honestly assumed it would be way more work than it was to set it up. It has limitations, but given it took me all of 5min and I can easily attach docs for it to reference as it all runs locally...it's fantastic. I've got a Claude model I've been messing with too.
by sam0x17 | 2025-08-18 14:39:30+00:00
Yeah I quite agree with this take. I don't understand why editors aren't utilizing language servers more for making changes. Crazy to see agents running grep and sed and awk and stuff, all of that should be provided through a very efficient cursor-based interface by the editor itself.

And for most languages, they shouldn't even be operating on strings, they should be operating on token streams and ASTs
by walterbell | 2025-08-18 14:39:35+00:00
> at the device level. Apple is ahead

Apple could turn everything around overnight by quietly re-enabling the jailbreak community for a few years, or restoring the 2022 Hypervisor API entitlement for arbitrary VMs. Hopefully this does not have to wait for leadership changes.

Either of those actions would take the shackles off Apple's underutilized hardware and frustrated developers. The resulting innovations could be sherlocked back into new OS APIs under Apple guardrails, whence they could generate revenue via App Store software. Then retire the jailbreaks and silently thank OutsideJobs for uncredited contributions to Apple upstream.

At present, the only industry participants maximizing usage of Apple hardware are zero-day hoarders. Meanwhile, every passing day allows Qualcomm, Nvidia and Arm-generic/Mediatek to improve their nascent PC hw+OS stacks, whittling away at Apple's shrinking hardware lead.
by DyslexicAtheist | 2025-08-18 14:39:51+00:00
I think it should be done by the maintainer of the software not by the distro. My concern is that these features are available since at least 5 years and it has not yet caught on (regardless of what this blog article recommends).

It would be great to see it implemented but for now at least on Debian/sid the situation is as follows:

UNIT EXPOSURE PREDICATE ModemManager.service 6.3 MEDIUM NetworkManager.service 7.8 EXPOSED alsa-state.service 9.6 UNSAFE anacron.service 9.6 UNSAFE atop.service 9.6 UNSAFE atopacct.service 9.6 UNSAFE avahi-daemon.service 9.6 UNSAFE blueman-mechanism.service 9.6 UNSAFE bluetooth.service 6.0 MEDIUM cron.service 9.6 UNSAFE dbus.service 9.3 UNSAFE dictd.service 9.6 UNSAFE dm-event.service 9.5 UNSAFE dnscrypt-proxy.service 8.1 EXPOSED emergency.service 9.5 UNSAFE exim4.service 6.9 MEDIUM getty@tty1.service 9.6 UNSAFE irqbalance.service 1.2 OK lvm2-lvmpolld.service 9.5 UNSAFE polkit.service 1.2 OK rc-local.service 9.6 UNSAFE rescue.service 9.5 UNSAFE rtkit-daemon.service 7.2 MEDIUM smartmontools.service 9.6 UNSAFE systemd-ask-password-console.service 9.4 UNSAFE systemd-ask-password-wall.service 9.4 UNSAFE systemd-bsod.service 9.5 UNSAFE systemd-hostnamed.service 1.7 OK systemd-journald.service 4.9 OK systemd-logind.service 2.8 OK systemd-networkd.service 2.9 OK systemd-timesyncd.service 2.1 OK systemd-udevd.service 7.1 MEDIUM tor@default.service 6.6 MEDIUM udisks2.service 9.6 UNSAFE upower.service 2.4 OK user@1000.service 9.4 UNSAFE wpa_supplicant.service 9.6 UNSAFE
by rco8786 | 2025-08-18 14:40:06+00:00
Because again, discoverability is baked into the protocol. OpenAI specs are great, but they are: optional, change over time, and have a very different target use case.

MCP discoverability is designed to be ingested by an LLM, rather than used to implement an API client like OAI specs. MCP tools describe themselves to the LLM in terms of what they can do, rather than what their API contract is.

It also removes the responsibility of having to inject the correct version of the spec into the prompt from the user, and moves it into the protocol.
by soupfordummies | 2025-08-18 14:40:08+00:00
I saw something weird on a red-eye recently that maybe someone can explain:

We were going over a pretty rural area. I saw what looked like the fan of headlights but in these large marbleized shapes like large lightning-crackles. They just sort of moved across the ground and then fizzled out. The movement patterns would be kind of like clouds dissipating but it definitely looked like lights? Very weird.
by jacquesm | 2025-08-18 14:40:24+00:00
I'm between +3 and +4 now depending on how tired I am. I used to be able to read the print on the smallest SMT packages :(

And it does affect my quality of life: forget glasses? Good there goes your day until you've found a replacement. The best improvement so far has not been the glasses but a simple string to make sure I don't put them down but they stay around my neck. That has made a massive difference and it also helps when looking down (so the glasses won't fall off) and it has cut the rate at which I was losing them to zero from about one pair per month (which really was not sustainable).
by corimaith | 2025-08-18 14:40:40+00:00
I'll leave it to readers to look up on the details of Bretton Woods or the Nixon Shock or any basic econ resource to understand why oil or military aid is not really the main factor behind the reasons of the US reserve currency.

The Nimitz cannot physically stop the Iranians from closing the Straits of Hormuz if they wanted BTW, it's rather that there isn't much point to Iran closing said straits and just angering pretty much everyone else in the world. You can look at Yemen to see how things really go when an actor dosen't care anyways.
by bluefirebrand | 2025-08-18 14:40:47+00:00
> will management accept losing that because of increased scrutiny

If they don't then they're stupid

This has been the core of my argument against LLM tools for coding all along. Yes they might get you to a working piece of software faster, but if you are doing actual due diligence reviewing the code they produce then you likely aren't saving time

The only way they save you time is if you are careless and not doing your due diligence to verify their outputs
by housecarpenter | 2025-08-18 14:42:21+00:00
Consider the identity function f, which just takes an argument and returns it unchanged, and has the polymorphic type a -> a, where a is a type variable. What's the type of f(f)?

Obviously, since f(f) = f it should be a -> a as well. But to infer it without actually evaluating it, using the standard Hindley-Milner algorithm, we reason as follows: the two f's can have different specific types, so we introduce a new type variable b. The type of the first f will be a substitution instance of a -> a, the type of the second f will be a substitution instance of b -> b. We introduce a new type variable c for the return type, and solve the equation (a -> a) = ((b -> b) -> c), using unification. This gives us the substitution {a = (b -> b), c = (b -> b)}, and so we see that the return type c is b -> b.

But if we use pattern matching rather than unification, the variables in one of the two sides of the equation (a -> a) = ((b -> b) -> c) are effectively treated as constants referring to atomic types, not variables. Now if we treat the variables on the left side as constants, i.e. we treat a as a constant, we have to match b -> b to the constant a, which is impossible; the type a is atomic, the type b -> b isn't. If we treat the variables on the right side as constants, i.e. we treat b and c as constants, then we have to match a to both b -> b and c, and this means our substitution will have to make b -> b and c equal, which is impossible given that c is an atomic type and b -> b isn't.
by mnhnthrow34 | 2025-08-18 14:42:38+00:00
Mavo seems pretty similar, saves to github, allows flipping the UI to admin/editor mode https://mavo.io/

I really liked this when it was launched and thought it had a great deal of potential when it launched. I think the main difference is that it's more focused on content-editing, not updating the code of the page itself.
by mchinen | 2025-08-18 14:42:55+00:00
I recorded myself trying it out to port some old apps of mine using Claude code as a first time user of it.

I'm not even a youtuber and make these to keep myself accountable, so it's not that fun to watch, but it might be in the direction of your query:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d9YCkWjD7WQ&list=PLEWSTtjNAw...
by baby_souffle | 2025-08-18 14:43:29+00:00
> the code review process is significantly harder now because bug/vulnerabilities are being hidden under plausible looking code.

Hasn’t this been the case for entire categories of bugs? Stop me if you’ve heard this one before but we have a new critical 10/10 cvs that was dormant for the last 6 years…it was introduced in this innocuous refactor of some utility function and nobody noticed the subtle logic flaw….
by unshavedyak | 2025-08-18 14:43:32+00:00
I do something similar, merely writing out the function signatures i want in code. The more concrete of the idea i have in my head the more i outline, outline tests, etc.

However this is far less vibe coding and more actual work with an LLM imo.

Overall i'm not finding much value in vibe coding. The LLM will "create value" that quickly starts to become an albatross of edge cases and unreviewed code. The bugs will work their way in and prevent the LLM from making progress, and then i have to dig in to find the sanity - which is especially difficult when the LLM dug that far.
by chuckadams | 2025-08-18 14:43:38+00:00
I dunno, I think artificiality is a pretty reasonable criterion to go by, but it doesn't seem at all related to originality, nor does originality really stack up when we too are also repeating and remixing what we were previously taught. Clearly we do a lot more than that as well, but when it comes to defining creativity, I don't think we're any closer to nailing that Jello to the tree.
by leopoldj | 2025-08-18 14:43:48+00:00
Thank you so much for posting. I finally understand Jacobian matrix. The key is to know this applies to a function that returns multiple values. The wikipedia article was difficult to understand, until now! Note: Technically, a function can map an input to a single output only. Here, when we say a function returns multiple values, we mean a single set of multiple values. For example, a function that outputs the heating and cooling cost of a building. Where as, a circle is not a function because it outputs two y values for a single x.
by Spooky23 | 2025-08-18 14:43:49+00:00
There’s a whole industry around critiquing Apple and their misadventures on iOS with respect to AI. We understand what is happening - there’s even podcasters castigating individual executives!

What is the story with Copilot as an on device feature of Windows? How dos that relate to an “AI PC”? In my business, what is Copilot (on the PC) do? How about Copilot Chat? How do they both relate to Copilot for Office 365?

Answer: I have no fucking idea. It’s a big soup of stuff with the same name that dumps everything in a bowl that the company makes. In a business, you’re going to make product decisions within your enterprise than fundamentally change the products based on your privacy and security needs and what countries you are operating in.

Apple has articulated a vision/framework for what they are delivering on device, with outside 1st party help and with 3rd parties. They’ve laid out how they are accessing your proprietary data. They have also failed to deliver.
by tomrod | 2025-08-18 14:44:47+00:00
It would operate a lot like image recognition tasks, probably in frequency 0 domain for a concrete space to operate in. SLID or other information theoretic approaches could isolate common signals, then translate that to captured environmental information (e.g prairie dogs identifying predators).

Animals don't use a known syntax per se, so it wouldn't be authentic translation, but a transliteration may be possible. Also, there is no guarantee that one animal doing something (like a dog's behavior for going to the bathroom) maps to many or all dogs.
by bloomingeek | 2025-08-18 14:45:31+00:00
This is a terrible idea. We live in the digital age, so almost everything depends on data. As in all mechanical devices, generators have a tendency to either break down(Let's not forget about associated switching gear.) or become subject to maintenance cut backs instituted my buffoons in management. We cannot depend on human errors, we can depend on the electric grid, if properly handled and maintained. Depending on generators just adds another link in the failure chain.

Texas is the perfect example of how not to run an electrical grid by not allowing other states to assist in an emergency.
by zorked | 2025-08-18 14:46:14+00:00
That's how I've been doing it as well. There's no guarantee that the LLM will follow your minute, detailed, description, and dumping it all at once at the start of a session has made it perform worse in my case.

And, you know, LLMs are mostly dumb typists, but sometimes they do dump something better than what I had in mind, and I feel that I lose that if I try to constrain them.
by pier25 | 2025-08-18 14:46:23+00:00
> What are you missing?

Everything else needed to make a backend app.

At the very least, Node should provide fundamental pieces like database drivers. Currently the best PG driver[1] depends on a single guy.

Bun already provides its own PG driver [2] and Jarred has written they will keep investing into more built-in APIs.

[1] https://github.com/porsager/postgres

[2] https://bun.com/docs/api/sql
by rickdeckard | 2025-08-18 14:46:29+00:00
Moreover, Apple owning the access to the device-hardware AND to the data those models would need to create value for an Apple-user makes the company even more robust.

They could manage years of AI-missteps while cultivating their AI "marketplace", which allows the user to select a RevShare'd third party AI if (and only if) Apple cannot serve the request.

It would keep them afloat in the AI-space no matter how far they are behind, as long as the iPhone remains the dominant consumer mobile device.

The only risks are a paradigm shift in mobile devices, and the EU which clearly noticed that they operate multiple uneven digital markets within their ecosystem...
by hirvi74 | 2025-08-18 14:46:33+00:00
> Without IQ research people would just argue all poor people are dumb

I do not believe that this was true without evidence.

> do you really think women would get into higher education that quickly?

Yes. I believe WWII played a much larger role in this, i.e., men being off to war and many women filling traditional men's roles sufficed as proof that women were capable of many of the same tasks men were.
by mschuster91 | 2025-08-18 14:46:37+00:00
> So what’s the point of binary compatibility (from the point of view of the people actually making Linux work: Open Source developers and repo maintainers)?

Want to see Linux on the desktop actually happen? Then allow a hassle free way for commercial software that is not "pray that WINE works good enough" aka use win32 as an ABI layer.

Of course we can stay on our high horses and demand that everything be open source and that life for closed source developers be made as difficult as possible (the Linux kernel is particularly and egregiously bad in that perspective), but then we don't get to whine about why Linux on the desktop hasn't fucking happened yet.