MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by n4r9 | 2025-10-22 14:32:42+00:00
There's definitely some truth to that. There are situations where someone might restrain themselves because of the consequences of getting caught. I suppose the question is whether the consequence needs to be punishment as opposed to correction or isolation. In the case of a narcissist like Sarkozy, the reputaional tarnish of being publicly labeled as guilty would be an emotional blow.
by Mistletoe | 2025-10-22 14:32:50+00:00
> In 2023, as part of an effort to "accelerate digital transformation across its business", JLR signed a five-year, £800m deal with corporate stablemate Tata Consultancy Services to provide cybersecurity and a range of other IT services.

I found this hilarious in another article. Lol so you sold the company to India Tata Motors and then you went full incest and had your IT done by Tata Consultancy Services.
by piltdownman | 2025-10-22 14:32:51+00:00
You're missing the subtlety here. There is no legal precedent requiring corporate fiduciary duty to focus solely on shareholders. In practice, however, it's a reference to the Realpolitik of being ousted by a Board, enabled to do so by arguing a fiduciary responsibility to shareholders.

If it wasn't, the ghoulish masquerade of Corporate Social Responsibility wouldn't be a thing - it in itself a response to Milton Friedman's 1970 article “The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits” which argued that corporate executives are agents of shareholders and should focus solely on maximizing returns, not social responsibility.
by jbstack | 2025-10-22 14:33:13+00:00
Isn't it then more reasonable to have a policy that "people who submit low quality PRs will be banned"? Target the actual problem rather than an unreliable proxy of the problem.

LLM-generated code can be high quality just as human-generated code can be low quality.

Also, having a "no recourse" policy is a bit hostile to your community. There will no doubt be people who get flagged as using LLMs when they didn't and denying them even a chance to defend themselves is harsh.
by willahmad | 2025-10-22 14:33:21+00:00
This sounds limiting. I compare LLM generated content to autocomplete.

When autocomplete shows you options, you can choose any of the options blindly and obviously things will fail, but you can also pick right method to call and continue your contribution.

When it comes to LLM generated content, its better if you provide guidelines for contribution rather than banning it. For example:

* if you want to generate any doc use our llms_doc_writing.txt * for coding use our llms_coding.txt
by 4ggr0 | 2025-10-22 14:33:22+00:00
TL;DR Depends on who you ask, but yes.

i had a conversation with a colleague today - we both said that we'd feel more comfortable to visit China over the US, and for his next vacation where he would have to fly via the US he's now considering to take a different flight-path which avoids the US.

as someone from europe one of my dreams as a kid was to visit the great United States. 20 years later this has drastically changed, still never been to the US, but would now rather visit other places.

people are trying to migrate away from US tech to other alternatives.

just last weekend i was joking with the person i watch Formula1 with - the last race was in the US. anyways, we joked that we used to laugh at races and events being held in Azerbaijan, just because it seemed weird to hold western sports events in dictatorships, similar to the football world cup in Qatar. now a world cup and F1 race in the US feels at least as bad as the other options.

but that's my POV. another friend still wants to visit the US for a third time and wants me to go with him and someone else i now even recently got married in the US.

but for me and the people around me - yes, the status of the US has taken a hard nose-dive, especially in the last 1-2 years.

also doesn't help to grow up and learn about the US history, by which i mean the overthrowing of foreign governments, global NSA scandals, needless wars for oil, trade wars etc. etc. etc.

no ill will against the average american citizen, but writing this comment made me a bit angry again. your country's government and some parts of the population cause so much pain on a global scale, but y'all seem too isolated and privileged to realize that. add to this that not even US citizens seem to benefit from this, i mean even y'all get swindled.

you know, i still feel like visiting the US. i want to meet the people and get to know the culture which influences my life in a big way. it just feels wrong, almost like visiting Germany in the early 1930s or late 1920s as a tourist. hope y'all calm down sometime, you'll maybe catch me on Route66, in one of the big cities or wherever.

that's kind of the essence of my rant i think. i could list soooooo many places in the US i'd like to see. but right now and since a couple of years, i'd rather not. the world is big, nice places everywhere. y'all have some great marketing, that's for sure.
by falcor84 | 2025-10-22 14:34:43+00:00
But the issue is that the vast majority of "human news" is second order (at best), essentially paraphrasing releases by news agencies like Reuters or Associated Press, or scientific articles, and typically doing a horrible job at it.

Regarding scientific reporting, there's as usual a relevant xkcd ("New Study") [0], and in this case even better, there's a fabulous one from PhD Comics ("Science News Cycle") [1].

[0] https://xkcd.com/1295/

[1] https://phdcomics.com/comics/archive.php?comicid=1174
GitHub and Fastly having partial outage
by terracatta | 2025-10-22 14:35:24+00:00
I know GitHub uses Fastly so there might be a relationship. Personally seeing Fastly's endpoint API returning errors https://api.fastly.com/public-ip-list and Unicorns on cached GitHub pages like looking at code in the main branch.

GitHub: https://www.githubstatus.com/incidents/dlvf3sfmz7dm

Fastly: https://www.fastlystatus.com/?
by ACCount37 | 2025-10-22 14:35:27+00:00
We have no clue what "consciousness" even is, let alone what the prerequisites are. Our best guesses are just that. Guesses. Guesswork based on information so sparse that astronomers in ancient Greece might have had a better time guessing what the stars truly are.

For all we know, an ICE in a 2001 Toyota truck is conscious too - just completely inhuman in its consciousness.

Nonetheless, here we are - building humanlike intelligence. Because it's useful. Having machines that think like humans do is very useful. LLMs are a breakthrough in that already - they implement a lot of humanlike thinking on a completely inhuman substrate.
by JoshTriplett | 2025-10-22 14:35:30+00:00
> This sounds limiting.

Coding guidelines generally are, by design.

> * if you want to generate any doc use our llms_doc_writing.txt

That's exactly what the project is providing here. The guidelines for how to use LLMs for this project are "don't".

You say "generally better to", but that depends on what you're trying to achieve. Your suggestion is better if you want to change how people use LLMs, the project's is better if the project is trying to change whether people use LLMs.
by glenstein | 2025-10-22 14:35:45+00:00
>and in 2025 they are gaslighting me about ever having had those arguments at all

This part is especially fascinating because I have heard of, and even had, remarkably similar experiences. The only real thing is the perpetual now. It's not even that they aren't curious or aware of what they said previously, they even emphatically deny their own words.

I don't know if you remember when Ebola was a big news topic because there were two or three cases in the U.S., but I had a family member insisting it was "just the beginning" and was going to get worse. A year later he said there's "probably a lot of stuff happening that's not reported yet". Two years later he forgot he ever said it.
by delusional | 2025-10-22 14:35:52+00:00
That's a scary thought to me. They're not just outsourcing their thinking. They are actively sabotaging the only tool in their arsenal that could ever supplant it.

I've felt it myself. Recently I was looking as some documentation without a clear edit history. I thought about feeding it into an AI and having it generate one for me, but didn't because I didn't have the time. To think, if I had done that, it probably would have generated a perfectly acceptable edit history but one that would have obscured what changes were actually made. I wouldn't just lack knowledge (like I do now) I would have obtained anti knowledge.
by aryairani | 2025-10-22 14:36:22+00:00
> There aren’t enough swear words in the English language to adequately describe how frustrating computers and programming can be, but we have at least always been able to count on them for precision: to perform exactly as instructed through programming.

This is so true. That feeling when you're debugging an issue in your code, only to rule out all the possibilities and have to expand your search to include not-your-code: the tooling, the libraries, the operating system, the hardware. This is the worst feeling in debugging, when the problem and the solution /might/ be outside of your control. With LLM/GenAI, the primary problem solving surface is nondeterministic by design, very much out of your control, and you will likely be gaslit into believing that you're just not hitting it right. Like a tube tv that has to be slapped just the right way to restore proper reception. (Sorry, bots, no offense intended.)

> What’s next, TPS reports?

I bet LLMs are really good at producing TPS reports w/ cover sheet.
by colonwqbang | 2025-10-22 14:36:23+00:00
Some people post vulnerability disclosures or pull requests which are obviously fake and generated by LLM. One example: https://hackerone.com/reports/2298307

These people are collaborating in bad faith and basically just wasting project time and resources. I think banning them is very legitimate and useful. It does not matter if you manage to "catch" exactly 100% of all such cases or not.
by Luker88 | 2025-10-22 14:36:51+00:00
Has the situation changed on AI code legally speaking?

Am I now assured that the copyright is mine if the code is generated by AI? Worldwide? (or at least North America-EU wide)?

Do projects still risk becoming public domain if they are all AI generated?

Does anyone know of companies that have received *direct lawyer* clearance on this, or are we still at the stage "run and break, we'll fix later"?

Maybe having a clear policy like this might be a defense in case this actually becomes a problem in court.
by bparsons | 2025-10-22 14:37:36+00:00
One thing that makes me pessimistic about the short term utility of LLMs has been their inability to produce basic media monitoring documents. This is an intern type entry level task that it simply cannot complete with any reliability or consistency. It doesn't matter if I use the expensive paid services or spend dozens of prompts trying to configure, it simply wont produce a document that is of any use to me.

If that is the case with a task so simple, why would we rely on these tools for high risk applications like medical diagnosis or analyzing financial data?
by dheera | 2025-10-22 14:37:48+00:00
> 240V AC and 5V DC manage to live close in a charger without problems.

I mean, yes and no. My laptop case is at 78VAC to ground right now. It gives the tingles. I don't use my laptop much while plugged in. They all skimp on making proper 3-pronged chargers these days. My desktop has a grounded case and doesn't have this issue.

My phone, when plugged into wall AC, the touch screen stops working because the whole phone is at an elevated potential and it messes up the capacitive sensing.
by ricksunny | 2025-10-22 14:37:50+00:00
That’s all well-put. (btw First alleged MiB incident is the Maury Island 1947 one, which was abduction-free).

So, that most SETI of all SETI people, Carl Sagan posed the role of the security apparatus in Contact, in the form of NSC head Michael Kitz. The film version gace superficial treatment - Kitz locks down message data, and at the end repudiates Arroway’s visit. In his book version, however, the state apparatus is much more insidious. The astronauts (plural, multiple countries rep’d) are threatened with having their psychological reputations destroyed if they ever utter a word that their encounter ever actually took place, or contravene the governments’ (plural) line that the intended journey had failed. Arroway takes extraordinary measures to make sure her hidden testimony will get out ‘should anything happen to her’. Sagan had a security clearance. One is left with the impression that maybe he wasn’t just making up conflict for dramatic reasons.
by threetonesun | 2025-10-22 14:37:59+00:00
Yes, that's obviously my point. A wrapper around already simple problems is not impressive. And yes, most of the time scheduling a doctor's appointment or doing regular taxes isn't hard, but the points when they do become complicated (finding a specialist, dealing with some unusual one off income) is where I want a tool to save me time, not reordering enough Cheetos for the month.
by noir_lord | 2025-10-22 14:38:23+00:00
From their point of view it was a good plan - given JLR is owned by Tata who had the resources to bail them out and didn't they (Tata) likely see it as a good deal.

Late stage capitalism in action as usual - privatise the profits, socialise the costs.

Technically what the government did was underwrite the loan but again - why is the government underwriting the loan when Tata has the resources to do that (13bn net income at last FY).
by LtdJorge | 2025-10-22 14:38:29+00:00
The problem I see, is that while the electronic assists and auto gearbox are great in general and win over the older generation everytime in comparisons, having a mild electrical problem or a malfunction in any electronic module would render it basically unusable.

My father told me many stories about the old Land Rovers they had in the military service in Spain. One time, he successfully climbed a hill with two captains after snapping the back axle (the one coming from the transfer case), by locking the differential. These new machines rely too much on electronics without backup, I believe.

Also, and this is fully my opinion, I would never take an automatix off-road.
by croon | 2025-10-22 14:38:42+00:00
> Which descriptor do you think is unambiguously violated by making it easier to provide consent than withhold it?

> Art 7(3) It shall be as easy to withdraw as to give consent. [0]

But legal interpretation of GP I believe is reaching the consensus that that phrasing too is broken by that implementation:

> Free and informed consent (Art. 7 GDPR): Consent is valid only if it is freely given. When the option to decline is hidden or unnecessarily cumbersome, the user's choice is affected and consent is no longer "free." [1]

[0] https://gdpr.eu/article-7-how-to-get-consent-to-collect-pers...

[1] https://www.ictrechtswijzer.be/en/complaint-about-cookies-wi...
by imiric | 2025-10-22 14:38:43+00:00
> Why isn't there similar expectations for users of Open source? That is be ready to take over yourself if maintainers do not want to do something anymore?

Of course there is. Which is why many hostile projects get forked.

"That is the beauty of OSS", I hear you say. And I agree, but most people aren't developers. Even those who are, might not be familiar with the technology to continue maintaining the project. And even those who are, will still need time and effort to understand the codebase at a level that they're comfortable with maintaining it. And even those who are interested in all of that, might not do a good job at it.

So, ultimately, it is a very small subset of users who would not only have the capability to continue maintenance, but would manage to do as well as the original maintainers for the benefit of the entire community.

Most people saw an interesting piece of software, gave it a try and enjoyed it, and, if the project is successful, would probably like to continue using it. When the original developer ignores or is actively hostile towards these users, you're saying that they have no right to be upset about it? That's what I find ridiculous.

Yes, some people can be demanding and annoying, but that's true regardless if they're a paying customer, a contributor, or a "freeloader". The way you deal with this is by communicating and setting clear boundaries, not by alienating your user base.
by Valodim | 2025-10-22 14:38:50+00:00
The language is actually:

> Any contribution of any LLM-generated content

I read this as "LLM-generated contributions" are not welcome, not "any contribution that used LLMs in any way".

More generally, this is clearly a rule to point to in order to end discussions with low effort net-negative contributors. I doubt it's going to be a problem for actually valuable contributions.
by vidarh | 2025-10-22 14:39:04+00:00
> Now let's run this experiment against the editorial boards in newsrooms.

Or against people in general.

It's a pet peeve of mine that we get these kinds of articles without a baseline established of how people do on the same measure.

Is misrepresenting news content 45% of the time better or worse than the average person? I don't know.

By extension: Would a person using an AI assistant misrepresent news more or less after having read a summary of the news provided by an AI assistant? I don't know that either.

When they have a "Why this distortion matters" section, those things matter. They've not established if this will make things better or worse.

(the cynic in me want another question answered too: How often does reporters misrepresent the news? Would it be better or worse if AI reviewed the facts and presented them vs. letting reporters do it? again: no idea)
by vatsachakrvthy | 2025-10-22 14:39:18+00:00
Great work by the authors!

But... As Karpathy stated on the Dwarkesh podcast, why do we need brain inspired anything? As Chollet says a transformer is basically a tool for differentiable program synthesis. Maybe the animal brain is one way to get intelligence, but it might actually be easier to achieve in-silica, given the faster computational ability and higher reproducibility of calculations
by aj_hackman | 2025-10-22 14:39:39+00:00
As someone working on a game engine with a multithreaded SSE/NEON implementation of ~GL 1.3 under the hood, this is rad for many reasons other than portability or compatibility. You get full access to every pixel and vertex on the screen at any point in the rendering pipeline. This allows for any number of cool (also likely multithreaded) postprocessing effects that you don't have to shoehorn through a brittle, possibly single-platform shading language and API.
by gus_massa | 2025-10-22 14:39:49+00:00
Sorry for the delay, it has been a busy week and it will continue busy, so I'll reply before reading the 300 pages report. I'll try to read it another day, ...

> You are making some definitive statements which cannot be accepted unless you have the necessary background and knowledge.

Which one you think it's wrong? I can try to clarify it or acknowledged my mistake(s).

> I linked to the Stanford technical report itself

Note that it's a report hosted in a Stanford "preprint" server, not a report made or signed by Stanford. Nobody has reviewed it. It's more interesting to read https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.ads9158 that is peer review, but that does not guaranty correctness and it's published in the "policy forum" section.

I'm not impressed about 100 pages of references. Going to a stupid extreme, a report about Flat Earth can cite papers that are about the density of rocks, or the strength, or whatever, hundred of them. It does not mean that the references support their conclusions.

From the CNN article:

> However, most experts agree that making a synthetic cell with natural chirality is safe, because if a bacterium made from a synthetic cell were to enter an environment, it would be subject to the normal controls of any ecosystem, making it easy prey to natural predators such as viruses that target bacteria. Thus, it wouldn’t be able to spread uncontrollably.

Did you spot the mistake? Normal virus will definitively not target mirror bacterias. Anyway, I expect other bacterias to target them, to eat their tasty fats.
by mattlondon | 2025-10-22 14:40:22+00:00
In the UK they don't have CCS plugs though, only chademo so they're as good as useless (or at least didn't when I was looking to buy semi-recently). What a retarded technical decision - makes you wonder what other stupid decisions they've made that you can't see. As such it is very very rare to see a lexus EV in the UK
by lunias | 2025-10-22 14:40:54+00:00
I understand the frustration, but this is everywhere. I went to McDonald's and saw that they were running their Monopoly game again. I peeled the sticker off of my fries nostalgically, but in order to even see what I may have won I need to download the app and manually enter the code. Why even print a physical Monopoly piece sticker? I'm definitely not installing your app. We used to just walk up to the counter and redeem the reward. This change you've made, it's not for me, is it?

The solution is the same as it has always been, stop spending time and money on things that are frustrating. If enough people do it in aggregate, then things will change; but I'll be damned if people aren't slow to catch on.
Ask HN: How to estimate (even rough) the effect of AI on environment?
by akudha | 2025-10-22 14:41:10+00:00
What are some ways to estimate how much (bad) effect my AI use is having on the environment, even if it is a rough estimate? I use Claude code, ChatGPT and Gemini.

1. Are there any APIs, datasets that can tell me per API call effect (X KwH per million tokens or gallons of water used per million tokens, noise levels etc)

2. Are there any tools that I can install on my computer that can track (again, even if rough) how many tokens I am sending to LLMs?

And so on.

Is it possible to do the same within a network? Say 50 employees in my company, how to track in total?

We can ignore LLMs running locally for this experiment.

I fully understand MegaCorps like Google, OpenAI etc will not share how much they are fucking up the environment, they won't share resources used etc (unless they are "good" numbers that makes them look good). I am only trying to get an idea, even if it is very rough.
by Gazoche | 2025-10-22 14:41:21+00:00
With geostationary orbit you won't ever get less than 200ms round-trip latency from the ground (at the speed of light).

Fine for some applications, but a massive regression from modern fiber infrastructure and definitely not suitable for everything (just think how slow the modern web is even with 15ms connections to datacenters). There's a reason why Starlink & co are trying to set up communication satellites closer to the ground.
by rufo | 2025-10-22 14:41:33+00:00
What's interesting is the change in the policy. Old policy:

> If you use an LLM (Large Language Model, like ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, GitHub Copilot, or Llama) to make a contribution then you must say so in your contribution and you must carefully review your contribution for correctness before sharing it. If you share un-reviewed LLM-generated content then you will be immediately banned.

...and the new one:

> If you use an LLM (Large Language Model, like ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, GitHub Copilot, or Llama) to make any kind of contribution then you will immediately be banned without recourse.

Looking at twpayne's discussion about the LLM policy[1], it seems like he got fed up with people not following those instructions:

> I stumbled across an LLM-generated podcast about chezmoi today. It was bland, impersonal, dull, and un-insightful, just like every LLM-generated contribution so far.

> I will update chezmoi's contribution guide for LLM-generated content to say simply "no LLM-generated content is allowed and if you submit anything that looks even slightly LLM-generated then you will be immediately be banned."

[1]: https://github.com/twpayne/chezmoi/discussions/4010#discussi...