MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by blululu | 2025-08-29 18:34:02+00:00
This post really nails it. The fact that access to a user photo is an all or nothing game and the most basic operations require full access is a huge problem in Apple’s ecosystem. Web browsers are able to easily let a 3rd party upload a file without giving access to every single file on your computer. I’m sure there are some reasons why it is not so simple on iOS but it can be done and the current setup is really bad.
by dragonwriter | 2025-08-29 18:34:17+00:00
> The point, though awkwardly stated, is that there is no difference between 'hallucination' output and any other output from these compressed databases,

But there is, except when you redefine "hallucination" so there isn't. And, when you retain the definition where there is a difference, you find there are techniques by which you can reduce hallucinations, which is important and useful. Changing the definition to eliminate the distinction is actively harmful to understanding and productive use of LLMs, for the benefit of making what superficially seems like an insightful comment.
by BizarroLand | 2025-08-29 18:34:17+00:00
I agree with almost everything you said, except for the idea that ICE are a relic of the past.

I think they will be one soon, say, 25 years from now, but I don't think we're quite there yet, at least not in America where a family fun trip can be 5 days of driving thousands of miles for camping or tourism purposes.

Fast charging needs to be ubiquitous, and charging needs to be faster, batteries need to get better, ranges need to get longer, and EVs need to get cheaper, and you need to give the whole system time to transition once those do become available.

All of that has to happen in order to relicize the ice vehicle.
by gorset | 2025-08-29 18:34:41+00:00
Mechanisms for getting the linux kernel out of the way is pretty decent these days, and CPUs with a lot of cores are common. That means you can isolate a bunch of cores and pin threads the way you want, and then use some kernel-bypass to access hardware directly. Communicate between cores using ring buffers.

This gives you best of both worlds - carefully designed system for the hardware with near optimal performance, and still with the ability to take advantage of the full linux kernel for management, monitoring, debugging, etc.
by bee_rider | 2025-08-29 18:34:43+00:00
I’m not a gun guy. I can accept that sometimes a holstered gun ends up pointing at somebody occasionally. And I can accept that a gun might rarely discharge at random for a while, I mean that’s a design flaw but if it is rare enough I guess it will take a while to be recalled, right?

But does it seem a little weird that the two events coincided?
by eoskx | 2025-08-29 18:35:34+00:00
Some more history you might find interesting - Thomele & Mayerl designed the FCU and P250 that would ultimately be the foundation for the P320. Thomele then went onto some of the design work for the P365 from my understanding while the P320 was going through trials and having issues. He's been in numerous depositions along with some of the US engineers that report to Thomele now like Sean Toner.
by ACCount37 | 2025-08-29 18:36:01+00:00
When you reach into a "statistical model" and find that it has generalized abstracts like "deceptive behavior", or "code error"? Abstracts that you can intentionally activate or deactivate - making an AI act as if 3+5 would return a code error, or as if dividing by zero wouldn't? That's abstract thinking.

Those are real examples of the kind of thing that can be found in modern production grade AIs. Not "anthropomorphizing" means not understanding how modern AI operates at all.
by andrewla | 2025-08-29 18:36:28+00:00
> a quantity of stars

There is no fundamental unit of "star". Maybe we can talk about electrons or protons or something, but what is and is not a star is a model, not a reality.

Concretely, a bundle of pre-stellar gasses at some point transitions to being a star, but when in that time spectrum does it make that transition? When in the process of stellar exhaustion does it stop being a star?
by tibbar | 2025-08-29 18:36:30+00:00
I recently did a round of interviews at various AI companies, including model labs, coding assistants, and data vendors. My first takeaway is that, wow! the interviews are very hard, and the bar is high. Second, these companies are all selecting for the top 0.1% of some metric - but they use different metrics. For example, the coding assistant interview focused on writing (what I felt was) an insane volume of code in a short period of time. I did not do well. By contrast, another company asked me to spend a day working on a particular niche optimization problem; that was the entire interview loop. I happened to stumble on some neat idea, and therefore did well, but I don't think I could reliably repeat that performance.

To reiterate - wow! the interviews are hard, every company is selecting for the top of a different metric, and there's really no shame in not passing one of these loops. Also, none of these companies will actually give you your purpose in life, your dream job will not make you whole:-)
by bluedino | 2025-08-29 18:36:32+00:00
> A node of 8 H100s will run you $31.40/hr on AWS, so for all 96 you're looking at $376.80/hr

And what stinks is that you can't even build a Dell/HPE server like this online. You have to 'request a quote' for an 'AI Server'

Going through SuperMicro, you're looking at about $60k for the server, plus 8 GPU's at $25,000 each, so you're close to $300,000 for an 8 GPU node.

Now, that doesn't include networking, storage, racks, electricity, cooling, someone to set that all up for you, $1,000 DAC cables, NVIDIA middleware, downtime as the H100's are the flakiest pieces of junk ever and will need to be replaced every so often...

Setting up a 96 H100 cluster (12 of those puppies) in this case is probably going to cost you $4-5 million. But it should cost less than AWS after a year and a half.
by roadside_picnic | 2025-08-29 18:36:49+00:00
You don't need to restrict it to lossless compression, in fact nearly all machine learning can be understood as a type of compression (typically lossy). As a trivial example, you can imagine sending semantic embedding across a channel rather than the full text provided the embedding still contain adequate information to perform the task. Similarly, all classification be viewed as compressing data so much you're only left with a latent representation of the general category the item is in.

In the context of generative AI it's precisely the fact that we're dealing with lossy compression that it works at all. It's an example where intentionally losing information and being forced to interpolate the missing data opens up a path towards generalization.

Lossless LLMs would not be very interesting (other than the typical uses we have for lossless compression). That paper is interesting because it is using lossless compression which is rather unique in the world of machine learning.
by keybored | 2025-08-29 18:37:28+00:00
> But I would also say that communism doesn't even look good on paper. It looks terrifying! To naive and frankly clueless young minds with no appreciation of human nature, human society, and so on, a superficial acquaintance with the subject matter might seem nice, as it might play on tropes and juvenile grievances, envies, and sentiments. But an honest look at it by an intellectually properly formed and informed mind will inspire horror. It is a dehumanizing ideology.

Notice the abundance of adjectives and complete lack of argumentation.
by mystifyingpoi | 2025-08-29 18:37:41+00:00
I think both of you are correct.

Of course, a process running inside Kubernetes Pod, on a baremetal node will show up in `top` if I run it on the node directly. In such terms, it is running directly on hardware.

But when I deploy this Pod, I'm not interacting with the OS in any way. I'm interacting with Kubernetes apiserver, telling it what to run, not really caring about the operating system underneath. In such terms, the application is running "in k8s".
by tptacek | 2025-08-29 18:37:55+00:00
In my design I'm modeling the LLM with access to untrusted information (emails, support tickets) as an adversary. And I'm saying that the adversarial LLM communicates with the rest of the system through structured messages, not English text.

It turns out Simon Willison has been saying this for some time now; he calls it the "dual LLM" design, I think? (For me, both terms are a little broken; you can have way more than 2, and it's "contexts" you're multiplying, not LLMs.)
by lisper | 2025-08-29 18:38:03+00:00
> I can't turn my weird off

That might be your problem right there. Deciding you can't do something is always a self-fulfilling prophecy. How hard have you tried?

I learned to turn my weird off a long time ago. It wasn't easy. It took many years. It was painful at times. But I did it. If I can do it, you probably can too.

P.S. You might want to think about whether or not turning your weird off is something you actually want. Being normal comes with its own set of trade-offs. But if you are going to keep your weird you should do it because it's something you decide you want, not because it's something you decide you are powerless to change.
by underlipton | 2025-08-29 18:38:23+00:00
It does, but I also found forum posts discussing similar issues with LO back when I had the original issue. I won't risk it; I would rather use applications without a hint of these problems. I've also dropped Evernote after it ate a few of my notes. It's almost impossible to get that user trust back without excising every bit of the concern, and then some, and unfortunately, the LO development community (like many FOSS communities, as well as many proprietary developers) is too self-involved to do that sort of thing.
by CyberDildonics | 2025-08-29 18:38:29+00:00
It's easy to claim generalities and from there claim things that must be true, but when it comes down to it, C++ enables things that just can't be done without changing. Turning off a feature is trivial, adding destructors, move semantics and being able to wrap generic data structures up so they have value semantics is just not something you can do with C.

Saying "people generally mean this" is not only not true it isn't any sort of technical argument.
by shinycode | 2025-08-29 18:38:30+00:00
There is so much more than coding, it’s the business rules, the constraints held in other parts of the company, the undocumented code that holds a company with no written context … you start a project from scratch ? AI can help you but you better be highly specific because hallucinations and errors will be there along the way. Now for the hundreds or billion of loc of private source code softwares that holds thousands of companies with not tightly formatted context and most of it just in some people’s memory … how would AI replace that ? Try let an AI rewrite a full ERP responsible of business logic with costly consequences on business and money … It will be just a tool, where sometimes we loose time and most time save a bit of time if we use it well
by pessimizer | 2025-08-29 18:39:14+00:00
It's the new "ban cassette tapes to prevent people from listening to unauthorized music," but wrapped in an anti-corporate skin delivered by a massive, powerful corporation that could sell themselves to Microsoft tomorrow.

The AI crawlers are going to get smarter at crawling, and they'll have crawled and cached everything anyway; they'll just be reading your new stuff. They should literally just buy the Internet Archive jointly, and only read everything once a week or so. But people (to protect their precious ideas) will then just try to figure out how to block the IA.

One thing I wish people would stop doing is conflating their precious ideas and their bandwidth. The bandwidth is one very serious issue, because it's a denial of service attack. But it can be easily solved. Your precious ideas? Those have to be protected by a court. And I don't actually care iff the copyright violation can go both ways; wealthy people seem to be free to steal from the poor at will, even rewarded, "normal" (upper-middle class) people can't even afford to challenge obviously fraudulent copyright claims, and the penalties are comically absurd and the direct result of corruption.

Maybe having pay-to-play justice systems that punish the accused before conviction with no compensation was a bad idea? Even if it helped you to feel safe from black people? Maybe copyright is dumb now that there aren't any printers anymore, just rent-seekers hiding bitfields?
by underlipton | 2025-08-29 18:39:37+00:00
>Regulatory authorities and courts enforce against wage theft. Shoplifting enforcement is mostly up to businesses.

Wildly naive and incorrect. Wage theft enforcement is limited by access to government labor rights protection resources and legal counsel, and usually just the first. Even simply filing a claim against shoplifting losses, let alone pursuing criminal prosecution, requires getting law enforcement involved. In all cases, you're waiting on authorities to involve themselves and sign off on outcomes. Time and resources put towards one incident are being kept from being applied to another.

>but that doesn't necessarily track the actual data.

That's not the actual data.

https://popular.info/p/lies-damn-lies-and-shoplifting-statis...

The NRF are a notoriously poor and biased source to rely on for this subject.

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/12/07/us-retail-lobbyists-retract-...
by ljosifov | 2025-08-29 18:39:47+00:00
I see reading comprehension is not something you enjoy to indulge with.

These -

> utter fantasies like "'no one wants to share their data' is just assumed" or "the defaults are always 'deny everything'" true?

...far from being fantasies, are my personal experiences in the UK medical systems. This -

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45066321
by motorest | 2025-08-29 18:40:37+00:00
> I think it was a mistake to combine styling and layout (...)

Anyone who ever did any work on UI development knows very well that styling and layout are coupled and interdependent. I mean, think about it. Text string length, text size, text overflowing/breaking/clipping, margins, etc. You change border sizes/padding/spacing and the space left for child content changes as well. How exactly do you uncouple something that's fundamentally coupled?
by lucb1e | 2025-08-29 18:40:57+00:00
If science taught us anything it's that no data is ever reliable. We are pretty sure about so many things, and it's the best available info so we might as well use it, but in terms of "the internet can be wrong" -> any source can be wrong! And I'd not even be surprised if internet in aggregate (with the bot reading all of it) is right more often than individual authors of pretty much anything
by empath75 | 2025-08-29 18:41:06+00:00
> But the Cantor vision of the real numbers is just wrong and completely unphysical.

They're unphysical, and yet the very physical human mind can work with them just fine. They're a perfectly logical construction from perfectly reasonable axioms. There are lots of objects in math which aren't physically realizable. Plato would have said that those sorts of objects are more real than anything which actually exists in "reality".
by amlib | 2025-08-29 18:41:09+00:00
I think developers nowadays being coerced into being a jack of all trades, master of none contributes to CSS being the least studied and practiced by full stack devs. Such devs would also be much more inclined to put their time into, for example, learning and practicing databases rather than improving their skills regarding UIs, and for webdev that means skimping on CSS while just doing the bare minimum, mediocre thing to get it working.
by ralfd | 2025-08-29 18:41:12+00:00
> terminally tarnished for you by the ‘mechahitler’ incident

It is forgivable because there is no real understanding in an llm.

And other llm can also be prompted to say ridiculous things, so what? If a llm would accept a name of a Viking or Khan of the steppes it doesn’t mean it wants to rape and pillage.
by amarant | 2025-08-29 18:41:13+00:00
Nintendo is an interesting example though. According to Wikipedia they actually use a proprietary microkernel, which, if I'm reading this right, I think they developed themselves. Looks like the only open source components they have is some networking code which is published under the BSD license.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nintendo_Switch_system_softw...
by vkou | 2025-08-29 18:41:35+00:00
> What we need is stop fighting robots and start welcoming and helping them. I se zero reasons to oppose robots visiting any website I would build.

Well, I'm glad you speak for the entire Internet.

Pack it in folks, we've solved the problem. Tomorrow, I'll give us the solution to wealth inequality (just stop fighting efforts to redistribute wealth and political power away from billionaires hoarding it), and next week, we'll finally get to resolve the old question of software patents.
by bpavuk | 2025-08-29 18:41:43+00:00
everything a layman would call "AI" is in the "uncanny valley" at the moment!

- Boston Dynamics' Atlas does not move as gracefully as a human

- LLM writing and code is oh-so-easy to spot

- the output of diffusion models is indistinguishable from a photo... until you look at it for longer than 5 seconds and decide to zoom in because "something's wrong"

- motion in AI-generated videos is very uncanny
by gwbas1c | 2025-08-29 18:41:46+00:00
> there is no information in a rejection

Building on that: There's a few reasons why a company won't explain why they reject a candidate.

One of the reasons is that they don't want candidates to "game" the system, because it makes it hard to screen for the people they want to hire.

Another reason is that often rejections are highly subjective, and telling a candidate that "we didn't hire you because of X" could be highly insulting.

Finally, quite often candidates are rejected because the people hiring ultimately are looking for people they will get along with. It doesn't matter how smart someone is, if something about the working relationship causes friction, the team dynamic can quickly devolve. (And to be quite frank, in these situations the candidate will probably have a better job working elsewhere.) These kinds of rejections are highly subjective, so no one really wants to give a candidate feedback.
by gritzko | 2025-08-29 18:41:48+00:00
Thanks. I recently had to reinvent LISP to script my CRDT database. That was not much work, because I already had the notation (I use RDX, a JSON superset with CRDT types). Still, I stumbled at the idiosyncratic LISP bracketing. Luckily, RDX allows for different tuple notations. So, I styled it to look less alien to a curly-braced developer. Like this https://github.com/gritzko/go-rdx/blob/main/test/13-getput.j...

For example, print change-dir make-dir; is equivalent to (print (change-dir (make-dir) ) ) in the old money. I wonder if I am reinventing too much here.

Did LISPers try to get rid of the brackets in the past?
by Jcampuzano2 | 2025-08-29 18:41:52+00:00
There are many ways to skin a cat.

Often all it takes is to reset to a checkpoint or undo and adjust the prompt a bit with additional context and even dumber models can get things right.

I've used grok code fast plenty this week alongside gpt 5 when I need to pull out the big guns and it's refreshing using a fast model for smaller changes or for tasks that are tedious but repetitive during things like refactoring.
by griffzhowl | 2025-08-29 18:42:15+00:00
It seems wrong to me to base foundations of mathematics on speculative theories about the nature of physical space and time.

For one thing, they're speculative: the current theories that give the most precise and accurate predictions within their respective domains of applicability are general relativity and quantum field theory. These theories are based on continuous space and time, and no attempt to base them on discretized space and time has been successful (AFAIU both QFT and GR rely on Lorentz invariance, which means there's no absolute rest frame, hence no absolute unit of time and space, but a discretized spacetime would require absolute unit values for space and time, hence an absolute rest frame).

Should we conclude then that the reals are real, because they're components of our best current physical theories? Maybe, maybe not: these are features of our current best models, but we don't know, and possibly will never know, the ultimate nature of physical space and time.

For another thing, even if space and time are fundamentally discrete, there's still no doubt that the mathematical theories based on real numbers are effective in making predictions, and we would still like to use them. That's means they should have some logical foundation which can guarantee that reasoning using them is correct.
by yieldcrv | 2025-08-29 18:43:23+00:00
No, it is just a namespace, and you can predict addresses that you control but haven’t generated yet

Or send to one that nobody has the key for

Additionally, you can prove you have the key completely offline if you want, which can suffice for collateral or pose authorizations

Most of these features of Bitcoin have been abstracted away for user friendliness, but are still accessible

if you know you know, solved problems (ratified protocols and standards) since 2012 or so
by tracker1 | 2025-08-29 18:43:35+00:00
But what if the "enemy" has AI bullets with recognition and target tracking for the P320, so they can reliably target the gun with a smart bullet in order to have their gun go off and shoot themselves in the leg or something? /sarcasm

I'm with you... the idea that anything to do with a common side arm is worthy of "military secrets" protection is, as I said, absurd.
by Zanfa | 2025-08-29 18:43:39+00:00
> Instead of just presenting you with all of your photos so that you can upload one, you first have to click "Manage" -> "Select more photos" -> "Add the photo".

That's not a OS limitation, this is a UX dark pattern from WhatsApp that they've purposefully added to make the UX terrible to push people into granting "Full Access".

I just tested it with both "Add Photos Only" and "Limited Access" modes with Signal and iOS does exactly what you described as the perfect UX. It's literally the following:

1) Tap Add Photo in a chat

2) System photo picker appears

3) Select which photo you want in your entire gallery (not limited to photos previously granted to Signal)

4) Photo is sent to chat

Again, this is with both non-Full Access modes. I think your beef is with Meta, not Apple.
by jjtheblunt | 2025-08-29 18:43:52+00:00
> I don't understand why Mark Zuckerberg isn't in jail

that made me think, how is it there are groups of political extreme protestors both anti-Trumpers and MAGA-ers, but no group protesting Zuckerberg's shenanigans in such media-covered fashion?

How is money flowing to make this our reality? i don't pretend to know