MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by silisili | 2025-08-16 03:21:46+00:00
> Moreover, companies could be less willing to pay for services that their internal AIs can handle or build from scratch.

Companies have to be a bit more farsighted than this thinking. Assuming LLMs reach this peak...if say, MS says they can save money because they don't need XYZ anymore because AI can do it, XYZ can decide they don't need Office anymore because AI can do it.

There's absolutely no moat anymore. Human capital and the shear volume of code are the current moat. An all capable AI completely eliminates both.

It's a bit scary to say "what then?" How do you make money in a world where everyone can more or less do everything themselves? Perhaps like 15 Million Merits, we all just live in pods and pedal bikes all day to power the AI(s).
by dmayle | 2025-08-16 03:22:26+00:00
This is one of the hot button topics, but I was surprised to see the (false) reference to the FAA having race and gender quotas.

This was suggested to me six months ago by someone who was extreme right wing, (going as far as to say that the FAA only hired non-white employees) and I found the claims bizarre enough to research on my own. They claimed that this was a known fact, whether you read left or right news sources, but when I did my research (not on bias, but on actual hiring results), it said that historically, the FAA has been about 90% white, and currently is about 70% white (IIRC), which is a far cry from suggesting that the FAA has race and gender quotas.

Again, here, the article makes the same claim, but this time with a citation (!), so I wondered if there was some truth to it, that I missed, earlier, but again, the truth does not pan out. It seems that a few members of the NBCFAE (National Black Coalition of Federal Aviation Employees) stepped over the line in their attempts to to change hiring practices that were preventing black candidates from being considered (going from increasing the diversity of the candidate pool, which is laudable, to discriminating in order to change up the racial mix, which is illegal).

However, in all of this, it's not the FAA acting, just a few powerful individuals from the NBCFAE. That doesn't change the fact that something bad happened, just the characterization of it ends up being completely misleading.
by forgetfulness | 2025-08-16 03:22:33+00:00
Because otherwise you'd have to convince AI-owners and select professionals to let go of their wealth to give a comfortable and fulfilling life of leisure to the unemployed.

More likely it will look like the current welfare schemes of many countries, now add mass boredom leading to unrest.

Sam Altman has expressed a preference for paying people in vouchers for using his chatbots to kill time: https://basicincomecanada.org/openais-sam-altman-has-a-new-i...
by drooby | 2025-08-16 03:23:04+00:00
Carpenters, landscapers, roofers, plumbers, electricians, elderly care, nurses, cooks, servers, bakers, musicians, actors, artists...

Those jobs are probably still a couple decades plus off from displacement. some possibly never, And we will need them in higher numbers.. and perhaps it's ironic because these are some of the oldest professions.

Everything we do is in service of paying for our housing, transportation, eating food, healthcare and some fun money.

Most goes to housing, healthcare, and transportation.

Healthcare costs may come down some with advancements in AI. R&D will be cheaper. Knowledge will be cheaper and more accessible.

But what people care about, what people have always cared about, remains in professions that are as old as time and, I don't see them fully replaceable by AI just yet - enhanced, yes, but not replaced.

Imagine a world where high quality landscaping exists for the average person. And this is made possible because we'll live in a world where the equivalent of today's uber driver owns a team of gardening androids.

Or perhaps in the future everyone will work in finance. Everyone's a corporation.

Ramble ramble ramble
by andrewflnr | 2025-08-16 03:23:11+00:00
You know, I actually hadn't, but they were nothing I didn't expect. Of course they were lying. Lots of people without NPD lie. They were in a hole, and they thought digging was their best way out. Playing on fears of gun-grabbing is a plausible if clumsy angle to take. If their design had been less borked, they might even have gotten away with it. That's why lots of unethical but otherwise grounded PR types have historically okay'd this kind of thing.

You can debate whether they're still "in their right mind" by your preferred definition, but it's increasingly preposterous to say their behavior is evidence of an executive with NPD. This is just not that special, dude. People are just like this.
by aurareturn | 2025-08-16 03:23:12+00:00
The more software AI can write, the more of a commodity software will become, and the harder the value of software will tank. It's not magic.

Total size of the software industry will still increase.

Today, a car repairshop might have a need for a custom software that will make their operations 20% more efficient. But they don't have nearly enough money to hire a software engineer to build it for them. With AI, it might be worth it for an engineer to actually do it.

Plenty of little examples like that where people/businesses have custom needs for software but the value isn't high enough.
by tomhow | 2025-08-16 03:23:31+00:00
Please stop registering different accounts to submit and boost this product.

HN is not for promoting a product, it's for sharing interesting articles and projects. Occasionally the interesting thing you share may be your own project, which is explained in the Show HN info:

https://news.ycombinator.com/showhn.html

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=22336638

The kind of posting you're doing is considered by the community to be spam; it will only hurt your reputation further if you keep doing it, and automatic filters or manual bans on your accounts and site will start kicking in.
by archargelod | 2025-08-16 03:23:34+00:00
A very simple query "PATH programming language" with SearXNG returns [1]. I think it matches your description perfectly.

> 2003

> PATH is a programming language that is similar to Brainfuck. This intuitive language requires a simple grasp of two dimensional space, one requirement that almost no other programming languages have.

[1] https://sourceforge.net/projects/path/

[2] https://pathlang.sourceforge.net/
by 1659447091 | 2025-08-16 03:23:38+00:00
> 2. LLMs clearly cannot be "actually living" but I fail to see how that's related to intelligence per se.

Ive found 'Triarchic theory of intelligence' [0] to be helpful here. It's a much more rounded approach to human intelligence that, imo, is closer to what people are trying to get at during these types of 'AI vs human intelligence' discussions. The full encompassing of human Intelligence is not something that can simply be chalked up to some set of measurements -- nor is it about a soul or whatever. If you want to say LLMs are good at a particular sets of test measurements, then okay say that. But thats not equivalent to human intelligence, it only represents a tiny measurable subset that happens to be a part of the whole

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triarchic_theory_of_intelligen...
by root_axis | 2025-08-16 03:24:24+00:00
> Isn't consciousness an emergent property of brains

We don't know, but I don't think that matters. Language models are so fundamentally different from brains that it's not worth considering their similarities for the sake of a discussion about consciousness.

> how do we know that it doesn't serve a functional purpose

It probably does, otherwise we need an explanation for why something with no purpose evolved.

> necessary for an AI system to have consciousness

This logic doesn't follow. The fact that it is present in humans doesn't then imply it is present in LLMs. This type of reasoning is like saying that planes must have feathers because plane flight was modeled after bird flight.

> there's no reason to expect those aspects would emerge organically. But I don't think you can extend that to the entire concept of consciousness.

Why not? You haven't presented any distinction between "certain aspects" of consciousness that you state wouldn't emerge but are open to the emergence of some other unspecified qualities of consciousness? Why?
by AceJohnny2 | 2025-08-16 03:24:59+00:00
`git lfs migrate ` rewrites the commits to convert large files in the repo to/from LFS pointers, so yes it does change the hashes. That's a well-documented effect.

https://github.com/git-lfs/git-lfs/blob/main/docs/man/git-lf...

Now, granted, usually people run migrate to only convert new local commits, so by nature of the ref include/exclude system it will not touch older commits. But in my case I was converting an entire repo into one using LFS. I hoped it would preserve those commits in a base branch that didn't contain large files, but my disappointment was said .gitattributes pollution.
by chrisco255 | 2025-08-16 03:25:04+00:00
What? Robotics will have far more ambiguity and nuance to deal with than language models, and they'll have to analyze realtime audio and video to do so. Jobs are not so clearly defined as you imagine in the real world. For example, explain to me what a plumber does, precisely and how you would train a robot to do so? How do you train it to navigate ANY type of buildings internal plumbing structure and safely repair or install for?
by xelxebar | 2025-08-16 03:25:11+00:00
Also, "double" rotations, which have no analogue in 3D space. The extra degree of freedom in 4D lets you perform 2 orthogonal rotations. This means that you can rotate around in 4D space, leaving only the origin fixed. In 3D rotations always fix some axis.

Trying to think about this stuff can be mind-bending, since it's natural to try to visualize things. So to give a little intuition, consider the coordinates of a 4D vector (x,y,z,w) and notice that we can spin around in both the x-y and z-w planes at the same time without interfering with each other!
by Der_Einzige | 2025-08-16 03:25:34+00:00
With the way they pack people into airplanes like sardines, most of the reason for why "air travel sucks" today is that too many others are doing it!

It used to be FAR more common to get onto airplanes that were partially or even nearly totally empty. The extreme increase in efficiency/total flights combined with privatization means that every tom dick and harry is now flying/being a shitty tourist. I would nationalize all airline industries and I would have done it yesterday primarily because tom and dick should not be flying!

Americans have too much money. Too many low quality Americans (i.e the kind who cause negative stereotypes of Americans abroad) are now traveling who should have stayed home permanently.

Gate keeping is good and the "let people enjoy things" crowd is responsible for why a lot of stuff is now declining in this world.

Tourism is only fun when it's being done in small amounts. The locals of the "tourist dependent localities" certainly agree (and are often willing to take significant economic pain for the benefits of reducing the tourist load). Why not give them what they want for once???
by zdragnar | 2025-08-16 03:25:45+00:00
> Maybe it's just ableism or puritanical views against the idea of stimulants

It was very widely abused in my college days. There was also a (IMHO justified) concern over whether it was being over-prescribed as a way to deal with problematic behavior in children, rather than actually putting in the effort as a parent or medical professional to get to the root of the issue.

With that said, I do know people who genuinely have either ADD or ADHD, and who struggle to function without some form of pharmacological help in addition to therapy. Limiting their access to stop others from abusing it is unethical, whatever a cost/ benefit analysis might say.
by AdieuToLogic | 2025-08-16 03:26:19+00:00
>> Moreover, companies could be less willing to pay for services that their internal AIs can handle or build from scratch.

> Assuming LLMs reach this peak...

Generative AI != Artificial General Intelligence

> Human capital and the shear volume of code are the current moat. An all capable AI completely eliminates both.

I would posit that understanding is "the current moat."
by _jab | 2025-08-16 03:26:25+00:00
I'm skeptical of arguments like this. If we look at most impactful technologies since the year 2000, AI is not even in my top 3. Social networking, mobile computing, and cloud computing have all done more to alter society and daily life than has AI.

And yes, I recognize that AI has already created profound change, in that every software engineer now depends heavily on copilots, in that education faces a major integrity challenge, and in that search has been completely changed. I just don't think those changes are on the same level as the normalization of cutting-edge computers in everyone's pockets, as our personal relationships becoming increasingly online, nor as the enablement for startups to scale without having to maintain physical compute infrastructure.

To me, the treating of AI as "different" is still unsubstantiated. Could we get there? Absolutely. We just haven't yet. But some people start to talk about it almost in a way that's reminiscent of Pascal's Wager, as if the slight chance of a godly reward from producing AI means it is rational to devote our all to it. But I'm still holding my breath.
by derektank | 2025-08-16 03:27:35+00:00
There are alternatives and I was perhaps too quick to assume everyone agreed it's an emergent property. But the only real alternatives I've encountered are (a) panpsychism: which holds that all matter is actually conscious and that asking, "what is it like to be a rock?" in the vein of Nagel is a sensical question and (b) the transmission theory of consciousness: which holds that brains are merely receivers of consciousness which emanates from other source.

The latter is not particularly parsimonious and the former I think is in some ways compelling, but I didn't mention it because if it's true then the computers AI run on are already conscious and it's a moot point.
by beefnugs | 2025-08-16 03:29:00+00:00
Sorry but it is actually a completely wrong solution. This is not a "make it expensive for spammers" problem. They only need to download the source code once, with a background process that doesn't matter if it takes hours.

Besides the "got the source code for training data" , the other access scenario is just downloading to an end users "agent" Which again, the end user is running something in the background, doesn't care how long it takes, how much it costs, its not a volume or spam type problem
by godelski | 2025-08-16 03:29:15+00:00
Or how every month the brand changes or you get a slight variation or they give you half the pills but double the dosage, where all of these things requires a consultation with the pharmacist and it's always a 5 second conversation: "This again?" "yep. Any question?" "no" "Have a nice day"

For the last few years I think the actual medication I take changes every month. Is it just amphetamine? Just dextroamphetamine? Both (like Adderall)? These aren't the same and effectiveness is at different dosages. And then I got to figure out how to adjust to the specific version and batch as the manufacturing tolerance is within sensitivity range. Not to mention food interactions. And most of this is a solvable problem!
by ksec | 2025-08-16 03:29:20+00:00
At this point, IMG / PowerVR isn't even used by MediaTek. Which means GPU on Mobile is just Apple, Qualcomm Adreno, ARM Mali. Still wish ARM had rebranded their Mali range.

Samsung Exynos uses AMD RDNA but I am not even sure if they are being used at all. Nvidia seems to have no interest in the market.
by Eisenstein | 2025-08-16 03:31:30+00:00
Not necessarily. It isn't the amount of people that is causing your discomfort -- the airline is always going to optimize for a full plane (and environmentally, we should want them to). It is the fact that we have been taught to tolerate people when they are being obnoxious and discourteous. If the airlines just ejected people who were being an asshole and fellow travelers would call out and shame bad behavior, it might lead to a more pleasant experience.
by GauntletWizard | 2025-08-16 03:31:57+00:00
We can automate plenty in physiological needs, and in fact have already. There's plenty of food and housing for everyone to have them, but a bunch of people will immediately destroy them if provided with such. I don't think "Dispose of a full house every 3 months" will ever be practical, but we might be able to "solve" physiological needs.

Safety needs might be possible to solve. Totalitarian states with ubiquitous panopticons can leave you "safe" in a crime sense, and AI gaslighting and happy pills will make you "feel" safe.

Love and belonging we have "Plenty" of already - If you're looking for your people, you can find them. Plenty aren't willing to look.

But once you get up to Esteem, it all falls apart. Reputation and Respect are not scalable. There will always be a limited quantity of being "The Best" at anything, and many are not willing to be "The Best" within tight constraints; There's always competition. You can plausibly say that this category is inherently competitive. There's no respect without disrespect. There's no best if there's no second best, and second best is first loser. So long as humans interact with each other - So long as we're not each locked in our own private shards of reality - There will be competition, and there will be those that fall short.

Self Actualization is almost irrelevant at this point. It falls into exactly the same as the above. You can simulate a reality where someone is always the best at whatever they decide to so, but I think it will inherently feel hollow. Agent Smith said it best: https://youtu.be/9Qs3GlNZMhY?t=23
by 000ooo000 | 2025-08-16 03:32:13+00:00
What this delusion seems to turn a blind eye to is that a good chunk of the population is already in those roles; what happens when the supply of those roles far exceeds the demand, in a relatively short time? Carpenters suddenly abundant, carpenter wages drop, carpenters struggling to live, carpenters forced to tighten spending, carpenters decide children aren't affordable.. now extrapolate that across all of the impacted roles and industries. No doubt someone is already typing "carpenters can retrain too!" OK, so they're back to entry level wages (if anything) for 5+ years? Same story. And retrain to what?

At some point an equilibrium will be reached but there is no guarantee it will be a healthy situation or a smooth ride. This optimism about AI and the rosy world that is just around the corner is incredibly naive.
by simoncion | 2025-08-16 03:32:48+00:00
> Neither can many humans...

1) GPT-5 is advertised as "PhD-level intelligence". So, I take OpenAI (and anyone else who advertises their bots with language like this) at their word about the bot's capabilities and constrain the set of humans I use for comparison to those who also have PhD-level intelligence.

2) Any human who has been introduced to long addition will absolutely be able to compute the sum of two whole numbers of arbitrary length. You may have to provide them a sufficiently strong incentive to actually do it long-hand, but they absolutely are capable because the method is not difficult. I'm fairly certain that most adult humans [0] (regardless of whether or not they have PhD-level intelligence) find the method to be trivial, if tedious.

[0] And many human children!
by duskwuff | 2025-08-16 03:33:24+00:00
Even if the image generation isn't handled by GPT-5 itself, GPT-5 is still in the driver's seat. It's responsible for the choice to generate an image, and for writing the prompt which drives the image model.

As an aside, ChatGPT has always been "overconfident" in the capabilities of its associated image model. It'll frequently offer to generate images which exceed its ability to execute, or which would need to be based on information which it doesn't know. Perhaps OpenAI developers need to place more emphasis on knowing when to refuse unrealistic image generation requests?
by Der_Einzige | 2025-08-16 03:34:20+00:00
Wow another issue that comes down to "Airplanes are packed with too many people"

The FAA can force airlines to dedicate about 1.5X the amount of space per person that they do today, and all of these stupid problems disappear. Airlines could even get away with the skeleton crew of airline staff that they use today with the reduced amount of people who'd be paying more per seat.

But, because we have to let far too many people fly, and because the FAA doesn't stop private companies from violating human rights with their airplane seat designs, we have to deal with this lunancy where anyone 6 feet and above has to assume a struggle position for in some cases 20+ hours (i.e. flights to Singapore) in a fully packed metal coffin.
by seemaze | 2025-08-16 03:35:16+00:00
While I have the utmost respect and admiration for the fabricating skills and ingenuity employed, building every component “aside from the movement” is akin to building a car ‘aside from the engine and transmission’.

For a soup-to-nuts breakdown, seek out ‘Watchmaking’ by horological legend George Daniels

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Daniels_(watchmaker)
Anyone else experienced fraudulent billing practices on Alibaba Cloud's AI API?
by atss_agency | 2025-08-16 03:35:37+00:00
I want to share an alarming case I’ve been dealing with on Alibaba Cloud, and ask if others have faced similar issues.

I ran tests against their Qwen LLM API (code completion + chat) on a project that’s ~3,200 lines of code. Over a period of 2 hours, their system claimed I had consumed 10 million tokens.

To put this into perspective:

Even if the entire 3,200 lines were repeatedly sent as context (≈150k tokens max per call), it would take ~67 calls to reach 10M tokens.

My logs show nowhere near that volume of requests.

Yet their billing immediately deducted ~$4.19 and left me with a “pending” $7.18 outstanding charge.

When I raised this with support, their response was:

“This may be because of plugins like VSCode auto-completing with long contexts” or “Every call carries historical context, so tokens add up faster.”

That explanation doesn’t pass even basic sanity checks:

Carrying context doesn’t magically multiply usage by 100x.

No LLM API I’ve used (OpenAI, Anthropic, Mistral, Groq) has ever produced token consumption so detached from real usage.

Suggesting that VSCode plugins are responsible is a cop-out, not a root cause analysis.

Instead of accountability, they tried to silence me with $200 in coupons valid only for Alibaba Cloud. I refused. I’ve since demanded:

Refund of the $4.19 they already charged.

Clearing of the fraudulent $7.18 “outstanding” bill.

Deletion of my account and confirmation my code/logs are erased (privacy concerns).

They refuse to provide (2) and (3).

This raises two much bigger issues:

Trust: If their billing is this opaque, how can any developer safely use their API at scale?

Privacy: If they’re happy to gaslight customers on token usage, what are they doing with uploaded code and prompts behind the scenes?

I’ve started documenting and publishing evidence across platforms (Reddit, LinkedIn). Next step: reaching out to journalists.

Has anyone else faced similar billing or support failures with Alibaba Cloud? Would love to hear from engineers who’ve tested their API billing in detail.

—

Warning to devs: be extremely cautious using Alibaba Cloud for AI workloads. Opaque billing + impotent support = dangerous combination.
by throwanem | 2025-08-16 03:36:14+00:00
Not perceptibly. In any case nothing in European esotericism has value save as a desperately confounded depiction of the sociosexual politics of its moment, and/or if you want to fail at becoming Rasputin. The Egyptians had the right of this one, so simply and straightforwardly that it really does take a proto-CIA, Ollie North ass fuckup like John Dee to confuse it again. But those who can fall for that kind of charlatan deserve to.