MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by CoopaTroopa | 2025-08-07 13:46:24+00:00
"The parable of the earring was not about the dangers of using technology that wasn't Truly Part Of You, which would indeed have been the kind of dystopianism I dislike. It was about the dangers of becoming too powerful yourself."

https://web.archive.org/web/20121007235422/http://squid314.l...
by cmrdporcupine | 2025-08-07 13:46:32+00:00
Like you, I've played with it many times and am always intrigued by this idea of handling sparsity this way, but I just end up backing out these changes in the end because it never seems to pay off like my geeky fantasy plays it out.

The LeanStore and Umbra DB buffer pool management systems intrigued me. I even got paid to work on a system like this (buffer pool at an analytical database company). The KISS data structure (https://dl.acm.org/doi/10.1145/2236584.2236587) and the START adaptive radix tree (https://db.in.tum.de/~fent/papers/Self%20Tuning%20Art.pdf?la...) have also intrigued me. I've been very intrigued and almost always disappointed.

In practice performance gains have never really materialized for me ... I do think there are wins to be had here, but only for specialized cases.

And just watch how confused and annoyed your users are when they see an absolutely huge VSS. Sysadmins freaking out at your "insane memory usage" (which is really only on paper not in reality). And the difficulty of profiling or tracking what's going on easily.
by littlestymaar | 2025-08-07 13:47:18+00:00
You are mixing things up:

- libertarianism derives from a fringe branch of economics (the Austrian school) which is an heterodoxy.

- but mainstream economics, the classical branch then the neoclassical synthesis, is nonetheless heavily ideological (markets being seen as inherently good, even though they are often imperfect in the real world). And when you have a clique going as far as making their own apocryphal “Nobel prize” in order to promote their views and establish scientific credibility to political leaders, calling it “propaganda” is not entirely unwarranted.
by cjonas | 2025-08-07 13:47:21+00:00
My guess is leaked from a misconfigured force.com site often used as a support portal or kb. Up until recently they came misconfigured by default to allow public access to the basic info of accounts, contact, opportunity through list view endpoints.

Back in 2019 I had a client affected by this (luckily caught by a white hat). Curious, I searched *.site.force.com and found thousands of potentially impacted sites (vulnerability could be tested without exfil of any data). In recent years SF has had many security patches to try and close these holes, but my understanding is most required action by the admin to take effect.

I was always confused how SF managed to keep this out of the news.
by zoeysmithe | 2025-08-07 13:47:29+00:00
This is impossible to know. Not that long ago something like Linux would have sounded like a madman's dream to someone with your perspective. It turns out great innovations happen outside the capitalist for-profit context and denying that is very questionable. If anything, those kinds of setups often hinder innovation. How much better would linux be if it was mired in endless licensing agreements, per monthly rates, had a board full of fortune 500 types, and billed each user a patent fee? Or any form of profit incentive 'business logic'?

If that stuff worked better, linux would have failed entirely, instead near everyone interfaces with a linux machine probably hundreds if not thousands of times a day in some form. Maybe millions if we consider how complex just accessing internet services is and the many servers, routers, mirrors, proxies, etc one encounters in just a trivial app refresh. If not linux, then the open mach/bsd derivatives ios uses.

Then looking even previous to the ascent of linux, we had all manner of free/open stuff informally in the 70s and 80s. Shareware, open culture, etc that led to today where this entire medium only exists because of open standards and open source and volunteering.

Software patents are net loss for society. For profit systems are less efficient than open non-profit systems. No 'middle-man' system is better than a system that goes out of its way to eliminate the middle-man rent-seeker.
by phkahler | 2025-08-07 13:47:32+00:00
>> And yes, most of the small optimizations are patented, something that I’ve come to understand isn’t viewed very favorably by most.

Codecs are like infrastructure not products. From cameras to servers to iPhones, they all have to use the same codecs to interoperate. If someone comes along with a small optimization it's hard enough to deploy that across the industry. If it's patented you've got another obstacle: nobody wants to pay the incremental cost for a small improvement (it's not even incremental cost once you've got free codecs, it's a complete hassle).
by diggan | 2025-08-07 13:47:38+00:00
> Instead of us programming the AIs by feeding it lots of explicit hand-crafted rules/instructions, we're feeding the things with plain data instead, and the resulting behavior is much more black-box, less predictable and less controllable than anticipated.

I dunno, we do feed them lots of explicit hand-crafted rules/instructions, it's just that does don't go into the training process, but instead goes into the "system"/"developer" prompts, which is effectively the way you "program" the LLMs.

So you start out with nothing, adjust the weights based on the datasets until you reach something that allows you to "program" them via the system/developer prompts, which considering what's happening behind the scenes, is more controllable than expected.
by stasher-dev | 2025-08-07 13:47:46+00:00
So the ten minute thing is a trust issue?

Stasher enforces expiry in two layers:

Reactive expiry — When someone tries to retrieve a stash (destash), the Durable Object checks the creation timestamp before serving. If it's older than 10 minutes, it refuses the request.

Proactive cleanup — Every stash’s Durable Object sets a scheduled alarm to self-destruct after 10 minutes. This removes the coordinating DO and ensures the encrypted blob in KV expires (via TTL).

So even if someone tries to cheat the system, or access after the 10-minute window, they’ll get an error — the stash is gone.

This is part of what makes it “burn-after-read, or expire-after-time”. No guessing, no timers in memory or cron job workers.

How are salts handled?

Stasher uses AES-256-GCM, which does not require a traditional salt like in password hashing (e.g. PBKDF2, bcrypt). Instead, it uses an IV (initialization vector).

With a fresh 96-bit IV is generated for every encryption

AES-GCM uses that IV as part of the encryption process, ensuring non-deterministic ciphertext. The IV is not secret, and is uploaded alongside the ciphertext and GCM tag

On decryption, the IV is used to reconstruct the exact same cipher context

So in short: No static salts and no reused IVs

Everything you need to decrypt is bundled with the encrypted stash, except the key, which stays with the user (as part of the uuid:base64key token)
by SirMaster | 2025-08-07 13:47:46+00:00
You don't really need it to fit all in VRAM due to the efficient MoE architecture and with llama.cpp

The 120B is running at 20 tokens/sec on my 5060Ti 16GB with 64GB of system ram. Now personally I find 20 tokens/sec quite usable, but for some maybe it's not enough.
by jcranmer | 2025-08-07 13:47:53+00:00
One of the most amusing things to me is the amount of AI testimonials that basically go "once I help the AI over the things I know that it struggles with, when it gets to the things I don't know, wow, it's amazing at how much it knows and can do!" It's not so much Gell-Mann amnesia as it is Gell-Mann whiplash.
by sitkack | 2025-08-07 13:48:08+00:00
You continue to make the same unsubstantiated claims about codecs being hard and expensive. These same tropes were said about every other field, and even if true, we have tens of thousands of folks that would like to participate, but are locked out due to broken IP law.

The firewall of patents exist precisely because digital video is a way to shakedown the route media would have to travel to get to the end user.

Codecs are not, "harder than" compilers, yet the field of compilers was blown completely open by GCC. Capital didn't see the market opportunity because there wasn't the same possibility of being a gatekeeper for so much attention and money.

The patents aren't because it is difficult, the patents are there because they can extract money from the revenue streams.
by atombender | 2025-08-07 13:48:09+00:00
I've not listened to the podcast, but please note that processed/ultraprocessed have formal definitions that are followed by many studies.

These are the NOVA classifications, where processed and ultraprocessed are groups 3-4 respectively. These definitions have evolved over time [1], which means that it can be confusing to read different studies, when the formal definitions have changed after publication. So the best thing is to ignore the "ultraprocessed" category as a general term and instead read what the methodology was in any given study.

What researchers mostly don't do is lump all sorts of things into an undefined bucket of whatever processes and ingredients they think are unhealthy that day. This is what pop-sci media does, and may be what the podcast is railing does. But studies on ultraprocessed foods tend not to do this.

[1] https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC6389637/
by diggan | 2025-08-07 13:48:33+00:00
> I think it's fair to point out that they were never intended to be a good framework for aligning robots and humans. Even in his own stories they lead to problems. They were created precisely to make the point that encoding these things in rules is hard.

That seems like the biggest point missed here. They're intended to be able to lend themselves to "surprising" conclusions, which is exactly what we don't want, so it seems obvious to me that those laws aren't good enough? That's how I remember the stories at least.
by vorpalhex | 2025-08-07 13:48:57+00:00
Any system that can't tell the difference between a nutrigrain bar (which is a candy bar basically) and a turkey sandwich (which is fine) is gimped and useless and no longer has value.

Even your apple example is lacking! There's a difference between unsweetened apple sauce which is crushed and the most common applesauces which have juice and sugar added.
by somenameforme | 2025-08-07 13:49:49+00:00
You're misunderstanding the agreement. This is what the EU agreed to with Trump - it's not a legal text that you get to angle shoot out of. If Trump doesn't like the way the EU is enacting the terms, then they get to pay even higher tariffs, all at his discretion. My comments are not based solely on that source. For instance here [1] is another source mentioning that "Trump said the investment was at his discretion, with 90% of the profits going to the U.S." And that fat markup on LNG? Current spot price for wholesale LNG in the US is $3 vs $11 in Europe. The profit margins are juicy. [2][3]

By contrast you're throwing out numbers and claims without sources, which are wrong. For instance the entirety of all EU imports from the US are less than $30 billion per month [4], of which energy is but a fraction. Them meeting his demands there will be a dramatic increase in imports, to the point that it's not clear if this is even possible.

---------

[And this mess is part of the reason I don't cite everything. This is just ugly]

[1] - https://www.barrons.com/articles/trump-tariffs-trade-u-s-inv...

[2] - https://ycharts.com/indicators/henry_hub_natural_gas_spot_pr...

[3] - https://ycharts.com/indicators/europe_natural_gas_price

[4] - https://tradingeconomics.com/european-union/imports/united-s...
by SomeoneOnTheWeb | 2025-08-07 13:49:51+00:00
What the hell is that with OP being so rude?

And following FastMail's reply

> Hello Andrew! Can you please contact our support team so we can look into this for you? fastmail.com/support

They say:

> Don't have time. Consider my tweet the bug report.

Sorry but this asshole behavior. Bugs happen. No need to do public shaming and being rude to the company for that.
by ascagnel_ | 2025-08-07 13:50:44+00:00
Apple handles it cleanly in Safari (you get a list of the accounts you're registered with on macOS, and iOS gives you the two most-recently-used accounts for that website with a button to reveal more).

The implementation in Chromium browsers (I use Arc, so I can't speak to Chrome itself) is basically a chunkier-looking 1Password.
by Sharlin | 2025-08-07 13:51:20+00:00
Given the total vagueness of the three laws idea and how Asimov came up with the idea because he wanted something easily broken to be used as a plot device, the perfectly reasonable stance is to not take them seriously a priori. Anyone is totally within their rights to think about them more and present for discussion some more solid ethical framework based on them. But I'd rather AI ethicists focused on frameworks that had some finite probability of actually working.

Given that we've been thinking about ethics for thousands of years, and haven't really made much progress, I think it's pretty clear that anything that can be condensed into three sentences is not a workable model.
by diggan | 2025-08-07 13:51:25+00:00
> Can you elaborate on how the agents degrades from more tools?

The more context you have in the requests, the worse the performance, I think this is pretty widely established at this point. For best accuracy, you need to constantly prune the context, or just begin from the beginning.

So with that, each tool you make available to the LLM for tool calling, requires you to actually put the definition (arguments, what it's used for, the name and so on) into the context.

So if you have 3 tools available, which are all relevant to the current prompt, you'd get better responses, compared to if you had 100 tools available, where only 3 are relevant, and the rest of the definitions are just filling the context for little point.

TLDR: context grows with each tool definition, more context == worse inference, so less tool definitions == better responses.
by MarkusQ | 2025-08-07 13:51:27+00:00
From your source (page up a bit):

"Hungarian has seven pairs of corresponding short and long vowels. Their phonetic values do not exactly match up with each other, so ⟨e⟩ represents /ɛ/ and ⟨é⟩ represents /eː/; likewise, ⟨a⟩ represents /ɒ/ while ⟨á⟩ represents /aː/.[14] For the other pairs, the short vowels are slightly lower and more central, and the long vowels more peripheral."

So yes, they apparently are "short-long pairs".
by Jun8 | 2025-08-07 13:51:55+00:00
Compare/contrast the Whispering earring/LLM chat with The Room from Stalker, each one is terrifying in its aspect: One because it eventually coaxes you to become a shallow shell of yourself, the other by plucking an unexpected wish from the deepest part of your psyche. I wonder what the Earring would advise if one were to ask it if one should enter The Room.
by windward | 2025-08-07 13:52:05+00:00
>we'd have hit exhaustion just a bit before the big telecom boom that built out most of the internet infrastructure that holds back transition today

I think this does go both ways. It's hard to care about 3058, but it's nice that we started trying to solve y2k and 2038 while they were still merely painful. Wouldn't want a loop leading to a divide-by-zero in my warp drive.
by threetonesun | 2025-08-07 13:52:11+00:00
There's a few cases:

1. For coding, and the reason coders are so excited about GenAI is it can often be 90% right, but it's doing all of the writing and researching for me. If I can reduce how much I need to actually type/write to more reviewing/editing, that's a huge improvement day to day. And the other 10% can be covered by tests or adding human code to verify correctness.

2. There are cases where 90% right is better than the current state. Go look at Amazon product descriptions, especially things sold from Asia in the United States. They're probably closer to 50% or 70% right. An LLM being "less wrong" is actually an improvement, and while you might argue a product description should simply be correct, the market already disagrees with you.

3. For something like a medical question, the magic is really just taking plain language questions and giving concise results. As you said, you can find this in Google / other search engines, but they dropped the ball so badly on summaries and aggregating content in favor of serving ads that people immediately saw the value of AI chat interfaces. Should you trust what it tells you? Absolutely not! But in terms of "give me a concise answer to the question as I asked it" it is a step above traditional searches. Is the information wrong? Maybe! But I'd argue that if you wanted to ask your doctor about something that quick LLM response might be better than what you'd find on Internet forums.
by 542354234235 | 2025-08-07 13:52:26+00:00
I understand what you are saying and I agree. I think it is important to look at, and empathize with, the suffering on all sides of a conflict. Thank you for taking the time to elaborate.

>As you write yourself, "war is terrible". It really is. Call me naive, but I dream of a world where that sentence is not followed by a 'but', but by a period.

Unfortunately, I think this is naive. It is akin to saying "violence is terrible", but as long as someone could decide to do violence against me, whether to take things I have, because they don’t like me, or just because they enjoy it, violence will still be around and I (or someone else like police) will have to use violence in defense. How do you stop every human from doing violence? How do you stop every nation from doing violence?

America’s failures in Mogadishu influenced their decision not to intervene in the Rwandan genocide. The violence still happened because at the end of the day, we are just very sophisticated animals. I don’t see how war, violence, and conflict could be eliminated without eliminating humanity. Would we be human without our emotions, the good and terrible ones?
by breve | 2025-08-07 13:52:40+00:00
> Google funding free stuff is not a real social mechanism.

It's not a social mechanism. And it's not generosity.

Google pushes huge amounts of video and audio through YouTube. It's in Google's direct financial interest to have better video and audio codecs implemented and deployed in as many browsers and devices as possible. It reduces Google's costs.

Royalty-free video and audio codecs makes that implementation and deployment more likely in more places.

> Patent pools aren't perfect

They are a long way from perfect. Patent pools will contact you and say, "That's a nice codec you've got there. It'd be a shame if something happened to it."

Three different patent pools are trying to collect licencing fees for AV1:

https://www.sisvel.com/licensing-programmes/audio-and-video-...

https://accessadvance.com/licensing-programs/vdp-pool/

https://www.avanci.com/video/
by diggan | 2025-08-07 13:53:35+00:00
> The community needs to fight this framework off.

Why? The people who been around for a while, already avoid it because they've either tried it before, or poked around in the source and then we ran away quickly. If people start using stuff without even the slightest amount of thinking beforehand, then that's their prerogative, why would it be up to the community hive-mind to "chose" what tools others should use?
by nisten | 2025-08-07 13:54:25+00:00
The problem with AI ethics, safety and to a smaller extent, privacy groups is that the priority of the work/message is not placed on the practicality of solving the problem, or i.e. calculating improving affordability of food/housing, but is placed,as evident on this article too, on the lack of "governance structures".

In other words the priority of the work is to get these types of people into positions where they don't do any work.

At least with privacy groups you do get here and there some practical advice on using ublock origin or more rarely on how to install a blocklist from https://someonewhocares.org/hosts/, but with AI ethics & safety orgs... well lets put it this way.

I have yet to meet a single AI safety person that knows how to rename a file in linux.

God forbid we have a rogue AI-worm shutting down all servers & BGP routers while these types of people were in charge of safety, they'll be in the way of anyone even fixing it. They can't even get a simple safety benchmark working on lm_eval-harness. They're great at lecturing you why they shouldn't need that.

And this is the key issue with AI Ethics. It's the refusal to work at the problem constructively, and get the most skilled people possible to actually make the damn benchmarks to work, to rank models on the understanding of human rights, to list every current violation and abuse of humans in every single country without exception and to make practical plans on what to do when systems go rogue. Even if they're not technical they could be making the dataset in a csv in excel for that and making it public domain accessible.

Instead we get the most depressed, leechy-office-worker types complaining about how it's all over.

Now back to work, move it.
by bayindirh | 2025-08-07 13:54:42+00:00
> Those are not styles, they're characters for the most part. (Emphasis mine)

While I know that styles are not copyrightable for good-faith reasons, massive abuse of good-faith is a good siren for regulation in that area.

> You absolutely can draw heavy inspiration from existing properties, mostly so long you avoid touching the actual characters.

From what I understood, it's mostly allowed for homage and (un)intentional narrowing of creative landscape. Not for ripping people off.

> For style imitation, it's long been a thing to make more anime-ish animation in the west, and anime itself came from Disney.

But all are done in tradition of cross-pollination, there was no ill-intentions, until now.

After OpenAI ripped Studio Ghibli, and things got blurred. It's not my interpretation, either [0] [1].

Then there's Universal and Disney's lawsuits against Midjourney.While these are framed as character-copying, when you read between the lines, style appropriation is also something being strongly balked at [2].

So things are not as clear cut as before, because a company stepped on the toes of another one. Small fish might get some benefits as a side-effect.

Addenda: Even OpenAI power-walked away from mocking Studio Ghibli to "maybe we shouldn't do that" [3].

[0]: https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2025/05/opena...

[1]: https://futurism.com/lawyer-studio-ghibli-legal-action-opena...

[2]: https://variety.com/vip/how-the-midjourney-lawsuit-impacts-g...

[3]: https://www.eweek.com/news/openai-studio-ghibli-ai-art-copyr...
by roncesvalles | 2025-08-07 13:55:47+00:00
Other than NVIDIA, the profits of the S&P 10 haven't risen either. It's just that the market is pricing them very optimistically.

IMO this is an extremely scary situation in the stock market. The AI bubble burst is going to be more painful than the Dotcom bubble burst. Note that an "AI bubble burst" doesn't necessitate a belief that AI is "useless" -- the Internet wasn't useless and the Dotcom burst still happened. The market can crash when it froths up too early even though the optimistic hypotheses driving the froth actually do come true eventually.