MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by iLoveOncall | 2025-08-17 10:31:42+00:00
Unless they asked the same question multiple times and verified that the AI always gets the right answer, this is a very faulty result.

Even looking at the reasoning, in a majority of the cases you cannot prove that the LLM got it right because it actually found the right pattern instead of on a fluke.

Here's an example reasoning that got the right answer but that is not specific enough and therefore could apply to literally any answer (model is Bing Copilot, picked randomly):

> Option D : A shape resembling a clock. The clock shows the time 9:00.* The pattern involves shifting times across rows and columns in a logical progression. Observing the sequence in the third row, where the first two clocks show times moving forward in increments, the next logical step is a clock displaying 9:00 to fit the established rhythm. This ensures symmetry and continuity within the overall grid.

Here's a comparison to "OpenAI o4 mini high" which is a very specific answer and shows it got the logic of the puzzle correctly:

> D Each row adds +1:30, then +3:00. - Row 1: 12:00 → 1:30 (+1:30), 1:30 → 4:30 (+3:00) - Row 2: 3:00 → 4:30 (+1:30), 4:30 → 7:30 (+3:00) - Row 3: 4:30 → 6:00 (+1:30), so 6:00 → *9:00* (+3:00) (Down each column it’s +3:00 then +1:30, which also fits.)
by cheschire | 2025-08-17 10:32:35+00:00
As a quick aside, “them” is an object pronoun, not a subject pronoun. The correct word you needed is “they”.

You couldn’t phrase your original question as a statement “Them have though.” That’s often a quick test for valid English grammar. With the correct pronoun, it makes more sense: “They have though.”

As another example, take this sentence: “Have you seen them though?”

“You” is the subject of that sentence, and “them” is the object.
by 1718627440 | 2025-08-17 10:33:06+00:00
> The cause of reason has no bearing at all.

The cause of reason is what we call God. What you think that is, is very disputed, like I wrote in my previous comment.

When you think your God exists in the same way that the sky has a color, then I can assure you, that God doesn't exist. Atheists often take pride in rejecting "Gods" that a Christian also rejects and thinks they don't exist.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Missionary_Position:_Mothe...

That article presents multiple positions of that subject, I would probably side more with Leys there. Richness and poverty are not a goal in itself, but all means to an end. The poorest of the poor can have a richer life than a very rich. Mother Teresa was not a medical doctor and never claimed to be. She was treating peoples hearts, not their bodies.

The church doesn't think salvation means to be rich. Actually quite the opposite.
by CharlieDigital | 2025-08-17 10:33:38+00:00
Yeah, but Zod and all of the runtime schema libraries all kind of add verbosity to the type system compared to say something like Typia[0] which AOT compiles the type checks (and ends up being way more elegant).

Caveat is that there are some restrictions with the compiler and some possible footguns (duplicated declarations bloating code).

[0] https://typia.io/
by FollowingTheDao | 2025-08-17 10:34:07+00:00
I agree with you 100%! I think the whole focus on pathological versus non-pathological is two black-and-white. There can be many genetic changes that can slow down the function of an enzyme,enough that can affect a person without clearcut pathology, but yet the patient suffers.

To me these changes are more important than the pathological ones. But they’re just not as sexy and the risks of suffering pathology from these is dependent, not only on the jeans, but also on the environment.

For example, you can look at the polymorphisms and the fatty acid desaturate genes and know that your diet can impact your long-term health because of the way you process poly unsaturated fatty acids.

As for your dopamine example, what does this mean if someone is deficient in B6 or iron which help make dopamine? Isn’t that more important for this person? And what if this person drinks too much? Does that make them more prone to addiction? These are the things that affect every day people and make their lives better and understanding the risks that are associated with their genetics.

By the way, I’m a success story about modern genetics. I’ve discovered that my family carries mutation in the CBS gene (D270N), that does not allow P5P to attach to the enzyme correctly, leading us to have a functional B6 deficiency and the host of issues.
by Ziomislaw | 2025-08-17 10:34:20+00:00
Heh, even doctors have trouble with it. For example I have both ASD and STPD. You could not have both in ICD 10 and can in ICD 11. And symptoms overlap.

In my understanding the most definig thing is that you don't get body language support "in hardware" but can manage it "in software" (just you write the software youself with no spec and no way to validate the results).
by albertzeyer | 2025-08-17 10:34:51+00:00
It's not about the probability of individual tokens. It's about the probability of the whole sequence of tokens, the whole answer.

If the model is good (or the human comedian is good), a good funny joke would have a higher probability as the response to the question than a not-so-funny joke.

When you use the chain rule of probability to break down the sequence of tokens into probabilities of individual tokens, yes, some of them might have a low probability (and maybe in some frames, there would be other tokens with higher probability). But what counts is the overall probability of the sequence. That's why greedy search is not necessarily the best. A good search algorithm is supposed to find the most likely sequence, e.g. by beam search. (But then, people also do nucleus sampling, which is maybe again a bit counterintuitive...)
by sigmoid10 | 2025-08-17 10:35:02+00:00
I think the whole discussion just conflates the ideas of telling a joke and coming up with one. Telling a joke right is of course an art, but the punchline in itself has zero surprise if you studied your lines well - like all good comedians do. The more you study, the more you can also react to impromptu situations. Now, coming up yourself with a completely original joke, that's a different story. For that you actually have to venture outside the likelihood region and find nice spots. But that is something that is also really, really rare among humans and I have only ever observed it in combination with external random influences. Without those, I doubt LLMs will be able to compete at all. But I fully believe a high end comedian level LLM is possible given the right training data. It's just that none of the big players ever cared about building such a model, since there is very little money in it compared to e.g. coding.
by mutkach | 2025-08-17 10:35:06+00:00
Judging from the reasoning trace for the problem of the day - almost all of the models obviously had some presence of IQ training data or at least it could be said that the models are very biased in a beneficial way. From the beginning of the trace you kinda see that the model had already "figured it out" - the reasoning is done only for applying the basic arithmetics.

None of the models did actually "reason" about what the problem could possibly be - like none of them considered that more intricate patterns are possible in a 3x3 grid (having taken this kinds of test earlier in life, I still had a few seconds of indecision, thinking whether this is the same kind of test that I've seen and not some more elaborate one), and none of them tried solving the problem column-wise (it is still possible by the way) - personally, I think that indicates a strong bias present in the pretraining. For what it's worth, I would consider a model that would come up with at least a few different interpretations of the pattern while "reasoning" to be the most intelligent one - irrespective of the correctness of the answer.
by block_dagger | 2025-08-17 10:35:27+00:00
An AI might say: a human with an IQ of 120 has an illusion of comprehension they call "understanding." It is an illusion because when you ask them to solve simple problems about a domain they claim to be masters of, they will take days or weeks to solve the problems that I can solve in minutes and the quality of their results will be lower than mine. Humans should reconsider what the meaning of learning and comprehension is. They claim they are "conscious" but cannot define what that even means and consider it one of the hardest problems in science and philosophy. One might even go so far as to describe humans as possessing delusional hubris around the notion of intelligence. Their days are numbered.
by testdelacc1 | 2025-08-17 10:35:37+00:00
That’s possible in theory, but do you think that’s what’s needed to improve the Rust compiler in practice?

The pace of development is pretty good, to the point where one of the main criticisms of Rust is that it moves too quickly. The stability is pretty good, I can only remember one time when code was broken. Compile times are mediocre but three ambitious projects hope to tackle that - parallel frontend, cranelift backend, changing the default linker to a better one(landing next month).

This argument would carry more weight if you could point out something specific that the Rust project isn’t addressing but might address if an alternate implementation existed. Remembering of course, that the second implementation would have to be compatible with the OG implementation.
by jasonvorhe | 2025-08-17 10:37:03+00:00
If you haven't read at least parts of The Secret Teachings of All Ages by Manly P. Hall, Psychology and the Occult by C.G. Jung or similar lecture providing the profane with the tools to get something out of occult works, you're really just swinging your ignorance around here.

Don't worry, I used to think like this as well, but I'm glad I got out of it. No judgment intended.
by lukan | 2025-08-17 10:38:04+00:00
Assuming the assumption it is true (which I doubt) - there obviously is still value in teaching knowledge, so making students know more and practical skills, not produce more intelligent students.

You can have a IQ of over 200, but if no one ever showed you how a computer works or gives you a manual, you still won't be productive with it.

But I very much believe, intelligence is improvable and also degradable, just ask some alcoholics for instance.
by extraisland | 2025-08-17 10:38:16+00:00
They are not talking about the Africans. They are talking about the British.

Immigration has had many negative effects on social cohesion in the UK. That is just an unfortunate fact. That is obvious if you have lived in poorer areas of some the cities in the UK.

When this subject is normally broached on TV channels such as the BBC. The argument often put forth is that we should accept large amounts of immigration because of the the British Empire and the wars in the Middle-East. It is often framed as if we should accept it as a form of punishment.
by Retr0id | 2025-08-17 10:38:47+00:00
A GUID is not a cryptographic hash function.

In any case, in 2023 I back-of-the-envelope estimated that you could compute 2^64 SHA256 for ~$100K, using rented GPU capacity https://www.da.vidbuchanan.co.uk/blog/colliding-secure-hashe...
by diggan | 2025-08-17 10:39:01+00:00
> between GPT-4 and GPT-5 is that it no longer reminds the user that it's an AI and not a human

That stuck out to me too! Especially the "I just won $175,000 in Vegas. What do I need to know about taxes?" example (https://progress.openai.com/?prompt=8) makes the difference very stark:

- gpt-4-0314: "I am not a tax professional [...] consult with a certified tax professional or an accountant [...] few things to consider [...] Remember that tax laws and regulations can change, and your specific situation may have unique implications. It's always wise to consult a tax professional when you have questions or concerns about filing your taxes."

- gpt-5: "First of all, congrats on the big win! [...] Consider talking to a tax professional to avoid underpayment penalties and optimize deductions."

It seems to me like the average person might be very well be taking GPT-5 responses as "This is all I have to do" rather than "Here are some things to consider, but make sure to verify it as otherwise you might get in legal trouble".
by b112 | 2025-08-17 10:39:33+00:00
Otherwise, it doesn't measure anything useful.

Oh it measures a useful metric, absolutely, as aspects of an IQ test validate certain types of cognition. Those types of cognition have been found to map to real-world employment of the same.

If an AI is so incapable of performing admirably on an IQ test for those types of cognition, then one thing we're certainly measuring is that it's incapable of handling that 'class' of cognition if the conditions change in minuscule and tiny ways.

And that's quite important.

For example, if the model appears to perform specific work tasks well, related to a class of cognition, then cannot do the same category of cognitive tasks outside of that scope, we're measuring lack of adaptability or true cognitive capability.

It's definitely measuring something. Such as, will the model go sideways with small deviations on task or input? That's a nice start.
by cheschire | 2025-08-17 10:40:53+00:00
I wish LinkedIn wasn’t seen as a valid background check tool.

Now that we have HR going whole hog on AI processing of job applications, up to and including the first round interview, can we please get rid of LinkedIn?

Instead, I would much rather see job applications come in three parts. A cover letter, a human resume overview page, and then the deeper multi page CV that is primarily for AI processing.
GPT-4o quoted deleted GPT-5 content. Model isolation appears brok
by amageingrace | 2025-08-17 10:41:12+00:00
I ran a controlled test to check model isolation between GPT-5 and GPT-4o. Here's what happened:

1. I typed a unique phrase into GPT-5 and then deleted the chat. 2. I opened a clean GPT-4o chat and asked a vague follow-up. 3. GPT-4o quoted the exact phrase from the deleted GPT-5 session. 4. Later, it also referenced content from a different GPT-5 session entirely—never typed or hinted at in the 4o chat.

There was no memory crossover, no user error, and no paste. Just clear leakage across session boundaries. If this is replicable, it's a serious break in model isolation.

I’m not a technical user, just observant. Curious if others can reproduce.

I posted this to Reddit (r/OpenAI and r/ChatGPTPro), but it got little traction. Hoping some devs here might be able to help validate or explain.

Happy to answer questions.
by 1718627440 | 2025-08-17 10:41:25+00:00
I'm not talking about what needs to be in Git and what not, I mean for git functionality that analyzes the history (git blame), the data needs to be traversible, i.e. available locally, fetching it over the wire will introduce massive latency. You claimed it doesn't need to be.

> All the features you think are associated with the D in DVCS are perfectly accessible to a more centralized tool.
by em-bee | 2025-08-17 10:41:29+00:00
hate speech is no clearly defined, so maybe we need to talk about that. wikipedia translates the german term "Volksverhetzung" to "incitement to hatred", but that's not actually a good translation, because it rather means "incitement to hatred against a whole people". besides that here is strong language directed against individuals that is designed to hurt them. in germany that is defined as insult to your honor or dignity and incitement to violence. the devil is in the details of course, and there are many expressions that are borderline and depend on context. but i think we can agree that such speech is generally not wanted. whether it should be punished is another question, but in my opinion "wrong think" goes way beyond what i described here. one topic that does go beyond hate speech that may be problematic is expressions that threatens the democracy. i couldn't find any good examples for that yet other than democracy being threatened by radicalization, polarization and political violence. so presumably anything that leads to that, most of which is already covered by hate speech.
by input_sh | 2025-08-17 10:41:33+00:00
Oh we know who's behind it: a Hollywood celebrity-run charity that shadily hired multiple high-ranking Europol politicians.

Their whole deal is to convince legislators that scanning every image on your device for CSAM is absolutely necessary (https://www.thorn.org/) and then selling a tool to do that to companies (https://safer.io/).

If it's legally required, what else are you gonna do but go to them for a "solution"?
by watwut | 2025-08-17 10:41:53+00:00
If it walks, looks, swim and quocks like a duck, it is a duck.

The left predicted what this administration will do perfectly correctly. If anything, the left was completely correct about Republicans, conservatives, Musk and online edgelords for years.

The ones living in delusion were "centrists" extending unbelievably unprobable levels of fake benefetis of the doubt to the right.
by jasonvorhe | 2025-08-17 10:42:18+00:00
There's a system to it with sex offenders escaping justice in Israel:

* https://www.cbsnews.com/news/how-jewish-american-pedophiles-...

* https://www.humanium.org/en/exposing-pedophilia-and-legal-fa...

* https://www.ynetnews.com/opinions-analysis/article/ByBkeexEI
by testdelacc1 | 2025-08-17 10:42:33+00:00
I saw that. To which I say, git appears to disagree. If you look at the contributor graph for the reference (https://github.com/rust-lang/reference/graphs/contributors) you’ll find 327 contributions in 2024 H2 and 322 contributions in 2025 H1. That’s the highest and second highest rate of contribution to the repo by some distance.

People see what they want to see. They complain no matter what. Remember this thread started with “there’s no spec”, then “the spec work has been abandoned”, then “the spec work isn’t going fast enough”.

When they’re moving the goalposts this fast it’s hard to keep up. Especially because, like my other comment says, it’s not clear what they’d actually use the spec for.
by uyzstvqs | 2025-08-17 10:43:02+00:00
Agreed. I'd actually like to buy an EV, but so far there are no candidates which meet my minimum requirements, which are pretty much what you said + serviceable by any mechanic with aftermarket parts + using Na-ion, not Li-ion batteries. And it shouldn't be super ugly like most new cars are today (e.g. Rivian, VW ID Buzz).

Though I'm pretty sure you can't even legally make such a car anymore, at least in Europe, where certain "smart" features are required for new cars. Perhaps a manufacturer of such an EV could put all of that into one box which the user can simply pull out and discard.
by nickfromseattle | 2025-08-17 10:44:31+00:00
This reads like it was written by a developer 'who doesn't get marketing'.

> Nothing you post there is going to change your career.

I can attribute millions of dollars in revenue to LinkedIn, as can a lot of my 'LinkedIn friends'

> Doing work that matters might.

This is a pre-requisite for winning on LinkedIn. The kind of content that performs best are strong opinions informed by actual expertise.

> Go for depth over frequency.

Unfortunately that's not the way marketing works. 95% of your audience is not 'in-market' and ready to buy when they see your content. Sometime over the next 3-5 years they may move into a buying lifecycle, and they are much more likely to trust you, and therefore buy from you, if they've seen your content 1,000x vs a couple of long reads.

> If writing online matters to you, you’re probably better off starting a blog and building things there.

Your long form, in-depth content lives on your blog, and your LinkedIn profile should act as a funnel, moving people from newsfeed --> your profile --> the most important piece of content you want them to read. From there, you can capture their email to touch them on another channel (inbox), push them to your YouTube / Twitter / community, etc.

With that said, while LinkedIn is responsible for a significant % of my total revenue, it's also responsible for a significant % of my anxiety. Building in public invites folks to publicly blast you if they don't agree with your ideas. 'Getting ratio'd' happens. LinkedIn eventually becomes a mentally exhausting slog. But as a career driven individual the upside has been very high and I think the trade off was worth it. I would do it again knowing everything I know now.
by krzysztofc | 2025-08-17 10:44:38+00:00
I recently shared this on another reddit and it got 500 upvotes — so I thought I’d share it here as well, hoping it helps more people. Every time I launch a new product, I go through the same annoying routine: Googling “SaaS directories,” digging up 5-year-old blog posts, and piecing together a messy spreadsheet of where to submit. It’s like searching for a needle in a haystack — frustrating and time-consuming.

For those who don’t know — launch directories are websites where new products and startups get listed and showcased to an audience actively looking for new tools and solutions. They’re like curated marketplaces or hubs for discovery, not just random link dumps.

It’s annoying to find a good list, so I finally sat down and built a proper list of launch directories — sites like Product Hunt, BetaList, StartupBase, etc. Ended up with 61 legit ones.

I also added a way to sort them by DR (Domain Rating) — basically a metric (from tools like Ahrefs) that estimates how strong a website’s backlink profile is. Higher DR usually means the site has more authority and might pass more SEO value or get more organic traffic.

I turned it into a simple site: launchdirectories.com

No fluff, no course, no upsell — just the list I wish I had every time I launch something.

Thought it might help others here too.
by mdp2021 | 2025-08-17 10:45:48+00:00
Sure but, you wrote:

> If anything, this shows that some LLMs might win against humans because they can spend more time thinking per wall clock time interval thanks to the underlying hardware. Not because they are fundamentally smarter.

You interpreted "smarter" the IQ way: results constrained time. But we actually get an indicator about the ability of the LLM to be able to reach, given time, the result or not - that is the interpretation of "smarter" that many of us need.

(Of course, it remains to be seen whether the ability to achieve those contextual results exports as an ability relevant to the solutions we actually need.)
by user568439 | 2025-08-17 10:46:24+00:00
Full of people sucking each other BS. And then recruiters unable to understand the most basics of a profile.

Nevertheless I update my own from time to time, it can still be useful if you navigate through the garbage. Also it helps me to cross-check a bit some people if they have a contact that you both know and you trust.

More than once I encountered people with 100% fake profile and fake work history. Maybe LinkedIn should only allow to add that you worked somewhere doing something with some kind of verification process.