MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by bapak | 2025-08-13 02:45:50+00:00
I think this happens every time something gets automated away, and in a way it's true. I'm sure a lot more accountants knew 123x27 by heart before than they do now. The problem is LLMs take out the whole process of thinking, and that is going to be a problem: you generally need to think even when you're not in front of a screen.
by SturgeonsLaw | 2025-08-13 02:47:30+00:00
Respecting regional settings is so inconsistent among Office applications. The desktop ones usually get it, but online is a crapshoot. Whenever there's a date like 3/4/25 I get the play the fun guessing game of whether that's March or April.

For Project Online, the most reliable way I found to fix it was to manually edit the URL to replace en-US with en-AU, then bookmark that.
by thomassmith65 | 2025-08-13 02:47:32+00:00
My dear Kepler, I wish that we might laugh at the remarkable stupidity of the common herd. What do you have to say about the principal philosophers of this academy who are filled with the stubbornness of an asp and do not want to look at either the planets, the moon or the telescope, even though I have freely and deliberately offered them the opportunity a thousand times? Truly, just as the asp stops its ears, so do these philosophers shut their eyes to the light of truth

via https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair
by sandspar | 2025-08-13 02:47:32+00:00
The actor Brad Pitt has openly talked about his prosopagnosia. I wonder if it helps him focus on facial expressions more easily? As in, most people might see "Margot Robbie is staring at me, holy shit" whereas Pitt sees "This woman is giving me FACS AU12 and AU6", which is easier to model and respond to.

Can anybody who has the condition chime in?
by iFire | 2025-08-13 02:47:50+00:00
I tried a demo, the Blender ipad interface expects a keyboard and mouse, pen and gesture are still being worked on. There was a bug with gestures, but another app had the same bug. The pen was being demoed.

The interface is flexible but probably want to have some interface presets out of the box.

Edited:

From the ui I couldn't tell it was a special build for ipad.

Content and extensions are currently hard coded.
by Mrsheun | 2025-08-13 02:48:30+00:00
Hi HN,

My co-founders and I are building NudgeNest AI, a platform that helps people effortlessly save for their rent and mortgage payments.

We started this because I've personally felt the financial stress of housing payments with an irregular income. We realized this isn't just a personal problem; it's a massive, multi-trillion dollar issue that also costs landlords and lenders billions in lost revenue from delinquencies.

Our solution is a dual-sided platform:

For consumers: Our app uses AI to analyze spending and sends smart nudges to micro-save small amounts (like $5 from a coffee purchase) into a dedicated "Housing Savings Pot."

For businesses: For landlords and lenders, our dashboard provides predictive analytics that can flag at-risk tenants or borrowers, enabling them to prevent a late payment before it happens.

We're launching our pilot in Texas soon and are looking for honest feedback on our approach. We believe our strength is in our B2B2C model, where consumer empowerment directly creates enterprise value.

You can check out our landing page here: https://www.nudgenest.ai/

What are your thoughts on this? We'd love to hear your feedback, especially on our business model and the AI's role.
by goku12 | 2025-08-13 02:49:02+00:00
GNU HURD is not like GNU/Linux. The latter stands for a combination of Linux kernel with GNU userland. They're distinct projects. GNU HURD on the other hand, is just a subproject of GNU. The entire OS is called just GNU, like how the BSDs are today. So if Torvalds meant the HURD, he would explicitly mentioned it.
by conductr | 2025-08-13 02:49:30+00:00
Didn't mean it that way, I knew you were not attacking me and I understood you were mediating perspectives and not really advocating for any. My response wasn't targeted at you just the generalities being discussed. But you're right that I just really do not like that the world in general has decided to grovel for the approval of the lowest common denominator. I shouldn't have to mince my words to that degree. I was just expressing how I feel like someone being affect in the way the GP was, amounts to a lack of reading comprehension if they read into my comment the way they did.
by ethbr1 | 2025-08-13 02:50:27+00:00
The other key takeaway, that people with trauma are more attracted to organizations that purport to be able to fix and are thus over-represented in them (vs in the general population), is also important.

Because if you're going to set up a hierarchical (explicitly or implicitly) isolated organization with a bunch of strangers, it's good to start by asking "How much do I trust these strangers?"
by trawy081225 | 2025-08-13 02:50:33+00:00
That relies on two assumptions that I don't think are true at all:

1. Most people who follow these beliefs will pay attention to/care about the man behind the curtain.

2. Most people who follow these beliefs will change their mind when shown that the man behind the curtain is a charlatan.

If anything, history shows us the opposite. Even in the modern world, it's easy for people to see that other people's thought leaders are charlatans, very difficult to see that our own are.
by NaOH | 2025-08-13 02:51:14+00:00
This edit was added after my initial reply:

>...but ultimately there is no universal way to come up with one definitive ranking, so we will debate it forever.

WAR is a universal way to come up with a definitive ranking. It's a framework for measuring player contributions that is applied equally to all players. That's not to say it is the universal way, but the beauty of WAR is that the framework can be re-created to value or devalue player contributions as one sees fit and then use those criteria to measure all player contributions.

That's why the authors of this paper cite the two most common WAR frameworks (bWAR and fWAR). And it's why they've created their own version which incorporates a measure of the available talent pool at the time of each player's career.
by Daub | 2025-08-13 02:51:20+00:00
generally, I agree with you on this matter. However, I can see a real user case for this when texturing an object. In fact I believe that the Blender Foundation would be better of dedicating the entire app to this purpose. Currently, texture painting in Blender is a royal PITA. A dedicated iPad texturing app that seamlessly integrates to Blender would be a very exciting prospect.
by coderenegade | 2025-08-13 02:53:11+00:00
I think the intuitive leap (or at least, what I believe) is that meaning is encoded in the media. A given context and input encodes a particular meaning that the model is able to map to an output, and because the output is also in the same medium (tokens, text), it also has meaning. Even reasoning can fit in with this, because the model generates additional meaningful context that allows it to better map to an output.

How you find the function that does the mapping probably doesn't matter. We use probability theory and information theory, because they're the best tools for the job, but there's nothing to say you couldn't handcraft it from scratch if you were some transcendent creature.
by jijijijij | 2025-08-13 02:53:48+00:00
The question is, did these LLMs figured it out by themselves or has someone programmed a specific coroutine to address this „issue“, to make it look smarter than it is?

On a trillion dollar budget, you could just crawl the web for AI tests people came up with and solve them manually. We know it‘s a massively curated game. With that kind of money you can do a lot of things. You could feed every human on earth countless blueberries for starters.

Calling an algorithm to count letters in a word isn’t exactly worth the hype tho is it?

The point is, we tend to find new ways these LLMs can’t figure out the most basic shit about the world. Horses can count. Counting is in everything. If you read every text ever written and still can’t grasp counting you simply are not that smart.
by tho2342o3j4234 | 2025-08-13 02:54:28+00:00
Interesting.

There are a few caveats: since modernity is a child of Protestantism, it reproduces all its dogma, and more importantly, all its pretentious self-flattering propaganda.

The church was actually quite open to helio-centric theories - their criticism was infact quite scientific viz. that Copernicus' theory had errors that exceeded prevalent geo-centric ones. The biggest theological attack came from the Protestants (Calvinists and others alike), which pushed the Church into taking a literalist/fundamentalist stance.

Rationalism, Modernism, Liberalism etc., which are children of Protestantism are so invested in their silly pedigree that they'll go to no extent erase their past.

Amusingly, Liberals were amongst the greatest defenders of slavery and colonialism. As were 'rationalists', the greatest defenders of eugenics (and colonialism).

Heidegger for instances saw through all these moronic pretenses, and despises all these idiotic PR attempts for what they really are. Pity, we don't see the deep malaise here since the only philosophy we are taught now is the silly stuff that came out of the Anglo-American world.
by WMZhengers | 2025-08-13 02:54:29+00:00
Founding Engineer – AI/Finance (Retail Trading Research & Strategy) - Remote or New York City

We are building an AI platform that empowers retail traders with institutional-grade research tools and real-time strategy guidance. As our first technical hire, you will own the full lifecycle from AI model research to production deployment. You will design and implement data pipelines for market, news, and sentiment feeds, fine-tune LLMs for financial reasoning, and ship features that help retail traders make smarter, faster decisions with hedge-fund-level tooling. You will collaborate directly with AI researchers, engineers, traders, and quants from top institutions to bring financial intelligence to the retail trading world.

Minimal Qualifications Proficiency in Python and modern ML/AI frameworks (e.g., PyTorch, JAX) Hands-on experience with LLMs, transformers, time-series modeling, or AI agents Strong understanding of cloud infrastructure (AWS/GCP), scalable API development, and data engineering pipelines Proven ability to take projects from initial concept to production deployment Master’s or PhD in Computer Science, Mathematics, or Physics (in progress acceptable), or a Bachelor’s degree with a proven track record of work supported by a GitHub

What We’re Looking For AI/ML Expertise – Proven experience with LLMs, transformers, or other foundation models Cloud & Infrastructure Skills – Proficiency in the Python ML stack, scalable API development, and cloud platforms such as AWS or GCP End-to-End Ownership – Ability to take projects from concept through production deployment Research Mindset – Experience implementing state-of-the-art AI methods and conducting research in ML/AI

Nice to Have Publications in ML/AI conferences (NeurIPS, ICML, ICLR, ACL, CVPR, etc.) Trade strategy generation and backtesting experience Interest in trading and understanding of retail workflows across stocks, crypto, and futures Familiarity with brokerage APIs (Interactive Brokers, Alpaca, etc.) Knowledge of options strategies, risk management, and portfolio optimization The drive, creativity, and technical depth to be that “cracked” engineer

Email Resumes/GitHub: alexyskoutnev@gmail.com
by simon_rider | 2025-08-13 02:54:34+00:00
feels like we just traded "not enough context" for "too much noise." The million-token window is cool for marketing, but until retrieval and summarization get way better, it’s like dumping the entire repo on a junior dev’s desk and saying "figure it out." They’ll spend half their time paging through irrelevant crap, and the other half hallucinating connections. Bigger context is only a net win if the model can filter, prioritize, and actually reason over it
by doubleunplussed | 2025-08-13 02:54:47+00:00
> The most powerful AI we have now is strictly hardware-dependent

Of course that's the case and it always will be - the cutting edge is the cutting edge.

But the best AI you can run on your own computer is way better than the state of the art just a few years ago - progress is being made at all levels of hardware requirements, and hardware is progressing as well. We now have dedicated hardware in some of our own devices for doing AI inference - the hardware-specificity of AI doesn't mean we won't continue to improve and commoditise said hardware.

> The part that seems indefensible is the unexamined assumptions about LLMs' ability (or AI's ability more broadly) to jump to optimal human ability [...]

I don't think this is at all unexamined. But I think it's risky to not consider the strong possibility when we have an existence proof in ourselves of that level of intelligence, and an algorithm to get there, and no particular reason to believe we're optimal since that algorithm - evolution - did not optimise us for intelligence alone.
by emmelaich | 2025-08-13 02:55:17+00:00
I was reminded of Hubbard too. In particular the "[belief that one] should always escalate when threatened" strongly echoes Hubbard's advice to always attack attack. Never defend.

The whole thing reminds me of EST and a thousand other cults / self-improvement / self-actualisation groups that seem endemic to California ever since the 60s or before.
by sandspar | 2025-08-13 02:55:33+00:00
I scored 40/40 on the celebrities test. It was very easy for me and I never had a doubt.

My wife scored much lower.

Also, I have met and noticed many celebrities (including Tony Hawk, who is famously hard to differentiate.) Whereas my wife has met very few. It's surely related - she may have walked past just as many famous people as I have, but she wasn't aware of it.
by ethbr1 | 2025-08-13 02:56:02+00:00
And always worth keeping an eye on the maximum possible divergence from reality you're currently at, based on how far you've reasoned from truth, and how less-than-sure each step was.

Maybe you're right. But there's a non-zero chance you're also max wrong. (Which itself can be bounded, if you don't wander too far)
by petesergeant | 2025-08-13 02:56:10+00:00
The big, big mistake here was routing, imo. I wanna choose my intelligence level for a question, not have the machine make that decision for me. Sam Altman over-hyping stuff is not new. I have had GPT-5 do some very impressive work for me, I've also had it fall on its ass many times.

Also, that gpt-5-nano can't handle the work that gpt-4o-mini could (and is somehow slower?) is also surprising and bad, but they'd really painted themselves into a corner with the version numbers.
by kcplate | 2025-08-13 02:57:02+00:00
I use it for real work, but it’s not the only device I use for work. However it fits a pretty specific work niche for me. With instant on and built in cellular with a Logitech folio case, it’s a hyper portable, yet comfortable to use fast and powerful device that allows me to do about 80% of work needs practically anywhere I can get a decent cellular signal. So for me if I need to be away from my desk for any reason, but stay connected its nearly like I am right in my office.
by indymike | 2025-08-13 02:57:05+00:00
OS 8 was designed to run on 68020 without the mmu so you could run on the Mac II and LC. Likewise, MS was trying to keep backwards compatibility with windows 3.11 era software which led to 98 being a compromise, where NT was a much better os. Incidentally, you could pop in an MMU and install A/UX for a os 8 style ui running Unix underneath on those older Macs.
by OneDeuxTriSeiGo | 2025-08-13 02:57:37+00:00
I mean that's just proof of work. PoUW is just an attempt at converting some of that work into something worthwhile and not pointless hash grinding.

There's a lot of re-inventing the wheel in the cryptocurrency space but on the formal academics side of the space people are very cognizant of what they are working on and their work is focusing on improving very specific properties of consensus algorithms.
by kmansm27 | 2025-08-13 02:58:03+00:00
Technically, all the messages are stored in our DB (anything that's visible in our dashboard is stored in our DB), so if we wanted to, we could see the messages flowing through Omnara. If you delete a chat instance, the messages are deleted immediately, no soft deleting.

But yes this is a good point, it's a big reason we open sourced our backend. We've thought about doing client side encryption before sending messages to our servers, but that probably won't be implemented in the near-term.
by throw4847285 | 2025-08-13 02:58:56+00:00
I was being snarky, but I think steelmanning does have one major flaw.

By restating the argument in terms that are most convincing to you, you may already be warping the conclusions of your interlocutor to fit what you want them to be saying. Charity is, "I will assume this person is intelligent and overlook any mistakes in order to try and understand what they are actually communicating." Steelmanning is "I can make their case for them, better than they could."

Of course this is downstream of the core issue, and the reason why steelmanning was invented in the first place. Namely, charity breaks down on the internet. Steelmanning is the more individualistic version of charity. It is the responsibility of people as individuals, not a norm that can be enforced by an institution or community.
by 827a | 2025-08-13 03:02:05+00:00
GPT-5 is a product that represents the needs of its users. They have 700M weekly active users, the vast majority of which just want a better google, therapist, life coach, or programming mate; not some superintelligent being that can solve the Riemann hypothesis.

The reason why true singularity-level ASI will never happen isn't because the technology cannot support it (though, to be clear: It can't). Its because no one actually wants it. The capital markets will take care of the rest.
by therein | 2025-08-13 03:02:05+00:00
Is it just me or is anyone else worried what will happen when the industry realizes LLMs are just not going to be the path to AGI? We are building nuclear power plants, massive datacenters that make our old datacenters look like toys.

We are investing literal hundreds of billions into something that is looking more and more likely to flop than succeed.

What scares me the most is we are being steered into a sunk cost fallacy. Industry will continue to claim it is just around the corner, more and more infrastructure will be built, even underground water is being rationed in certain places because AI datacenters apparently deserve priority.

Are we being forced into a situation where we are invested too much in this to come face to face with it doesn't work and it makes everything worse?

What is this capacity being built for? It no longer makes any sense.
by AnthonyMouse | 2025-08-13 03:02:52+00:00
> A domestic monopoly might not be the only way to prevent a foreign monopoly, but it is a guaranteed way so it makes sense to let it proliferate.

It isn't in any way guaranteed, and you just listed an example of it failing. Intel used to be the world leader in fabs and now it's TSMC, because that's what happens if you let the domestic market consolidate until the incumbents feel they can rest on their laurels and then a foreign competitor throws down the gauntlet.

> If you want any sort of control in the industry (and not be bullied for access like we do to China), you need to be the biggest buyer / operator of those chips.

Or you need an actual diverse competitive market so that that sort of bullying doesn't work for anyone.

Suppose the GPU market had a dozen or more companies with significant market share and four of them were in the US. Then it doesn't matter where the other ones are, nobody can deprive the US of GPUs because the US can always get them from the US vendors or have them increase production.

It would mean that the US can't do the bullying anymore because then others could buy from the non-US vendors, but what is the rest of the world doing not causing that to happen on purpose?
by mlyle | 2025-08-13 03:03:19+00:00
> The reason why true singularity-level ASI will never happen isn't because the technology cannot support it (though, to be clear: It can't). Its because no one actually wants it.

Plenty of people want something capable of doing tasks well beyond what GPT-5 can and that are equally capable to a proficient human.

If you can do that cheaper or faster or more available than said skilled human, there is definitely a market for it.
by doubleunplussed | 2025-08-13 03:03:32+00:00
Many specific studies on the matter don't replicate, I think the book preceded the replication crisis so this is to be expected, but I don't think that negates the core idea that our brain does some things on autopilot whereas other things take conscious thought which is slower. This is a useful framework to think about cognition, though any specific claims need evidence obviously.

TBH I've learned that even the best pop sci books making (IMHO) correct points tend to have poor citations - to studies that don't replicate or don't quite say what they're being cited to say - so when I see this, it's just not very much evidence one way or the other. The bar is super low.
by Nursie | 2025-08-13 03:03:46+00:00
And not just that, but the very fact that someone considers it valid to try to accumulate billions of dollars so they can have an outsized influence on the direction of society, seems somewhat questionable.

Even with 'good' intentions, there is the implied statement that your ideas are better than everyone else's and so should be pushed like that. The whole thing is a self-satisfied ego-trip.
by EcommerceFlow | 2025-08-13 03:04:01+00:00
1) Sam said only 7% of PLUS users were using thinking models. This auto-router is probably one of the biggest innovations for "normie use" ever.

2) Maybe I'm biased because I'm using GPT5-Pro for my coding, but so far it's been quite good. Normal thinking mode isn't substantially better than o3 IMO, but that's a limitation of data/search.
by techpineapple | 2025-08-13 03:04:45+00:00
> Are we being forced into a situation where we are invested too much in this to come face to face with it doesn't work and it makes everything worse?

Yes, but don't worry, they're getting close to the government so they'll get bailed out.

> What is this capacity being built for? It no longer makes any sense.

Give more power to Silicon Valley billionaires.
by toomuchtodo | 2025-08-13 03:04:54+00:00
This. Demographic trends means prime working age population is shrinking every year, while undocumented immigrants who filled these jobs are being deported or otherwise disincentivized from filling these jobs. Those seeking this labor are now exposed to the reality of the shrinking pool of workers in this part of the labor market.

I won’t work a shift, but I’ll help anyone who isn’t unionized yet unionize. Wages have been stagnant for decades, and the minimize wage isn’t a living wage. Therefore, this is a perfect time to push the wages and working condition quality up as demand for labor exceeds supply for the foreseeable future.

https://modernrestaurantmanagement.com/restaurant-industrys-... (“Beginning last year through 2027 4.1 million workers will retire annually, and there are not enough younger workers to replace them. If every unemployed worker found a job tomorrow, we would still be short by at least 1.2 million.”)

https://www.benefitnews.com/news/why-the-restaurant-industry...

https://hn.algolia.com/?dateRange=all&page=0&prefix=false&qu...

https://www.axios.com/results?q=Labor%20shortage&sort=1