MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by vessenes | 2025-10-28 16:18:21+00:00
Interesting. Upshot - bill sent to Claude, Claude generated questions, human in the loop to negotiate and summarize. Ultimately they suggested a number to the hospital, the hospital chiseled them a few grand, and they settled.

Not mentioned, and I'm interested, is how accurate Claude's reading of the various medicare rules are. I presume these letters went to someone who had only slightly more knowledge of medicare billing rules than the author -- hospitals are arcane and cryptic places, most especially the billing departments.
by andreyk | 2025-10-28 16:19:05+00:00
But LLMs would presumably also condition on past observations of opponents - i.e. LLMs can conversely adapt their strategy during repeated play (especially if given a budget for reasoning as opposed to direct sampling from their output distributions).

The rules state the LLMs do get "Notes hero has written about other players in past hands" and "Models have a maximum token limit for reasoning" , so the outcome might be at least more interesting as a result.

The top models on the leaderboard are notably also the ones strongest in reasoning. They even show the models' notes, e.g. Grok on Claude: "About: claude Called preflop open and flop bet in multiway pot but folded to turn donk bet after checking, suggesting a passive postflop style that folds to aggression on later streets."

PS The sampling params also matter a lot (with temperature 0 the LLMs are going to be very consistent, going higher they could get more 'creative').

PPS the models getting statistics about other models' behavior seems kind of like cheating, they rely on it heavily, e.g. 'I flopped middle pair (tens) on a paired board (9s-Th-9d) against LLAMA, a loose passive player (64.5% VPIP, only 29.5% PFR)'
by dustbunny | 2025-10-28 16:19:07+00:00
I think the US Gov probably "incentizied" Nvidias stake in Intel, and I wonder if they did here as well.

It's like "if your going to sell chips to China, you have to spend some of the money funding non-Chinese tech".

Nokia's capabilities to deliver 5G networks is a direct competitor to Huawei, right?

Is Nvidia functionally an strategic hedge fund of the US Government? Would this fall under Jeffrey Sach's realm?
by _sgianelli | 2025-10-28 16:19:12+00:00
I've had this exact same issue as described but only on longer runs where I've had them in my ears for longer than 3 or 4 hours. When I figured out I could just turn off the pass through or noise cancellations and it'd go away I was relieved but it doesn't seem reserved for pressurized plane cabins. Never had this issue on previous generations.
by btilly | 2025-10-28 16:19:17+00:00
No, it is evidence. It is evidence that can be questioned and debated, but it is still evidence.

Second, you misrepresent. The therapists that I have heard recommend Rosebud were not paid to do so. They were doing so because they had seen it be helpful.

Furthermore you have still not clarified what it is you think is impossible, or provided evidence that it is impossible. Claims of impossibility are positive assertions, and require evidence.
by aeturnum | 2025-10-28 16:19:52+00:00
It seems like the AIs role was in applying lengthy and complex medicare billing rules - it did not do negotiating and it doesn't seem like the accuracy of its understanding of medicare practices was actually checked. The author reasonably accused the hospital of gouging and the hospital came back with a much lower offer.

I'd be interested to hear from a charge coding expert about Claude's analysis here and if it was accurate or not. There's also some free mixing of "medicare" v.s. "insurance" which often have very different billing rates. The author says they don't want to pay more than insurance would pay - but insurance pays a lot more than medicare in most cases.

It's pretty clear that even access to a potentially buggy and unreliable expert is very helpful. Whatever else AI does I hope it chips away at how institutions use lengthy standards and expertise barriers to make it difficult for people to contest unfair charges.
by notahacker | 2025-10-28 16:21:05+00:00
In fairness, when it comes to surviving the modern media landscape the Guardian seems to be good at online, but has the distinct advantage of the UK having no other remotely left leaning broadsheets or even middle market tabloids. Since Lebvedev destroyed the Independent, it's basically the Guardian or the Mirror which is a trashy rag, and the nominal centrist papers are owned by Murdoch and the Daily Mail General Trust.

Not sure how that translates into US media context.

The second lesson from UK media is that the Daily Mail General Trust is usually assumed to be a vehicle for whatever the owning dynasty wants, despite encompassing multiple newspapers with different editorial stances (this is also certainly historically accurate: in the 1930s the man who set up the trust was writing letters to the PM offering editorial support in exchange for being allowed to veto any government appointments the PM wanted to make). So I don't think a trust structure alone will make people believe Bezos has no influence over it.
by DubiousPusher | 2025-10-28 16:21:29+00:00
I guess maybe the tone would be less noxious if the core coceit of the satire felt more legitimate. I mean, Wikipedia was kind of a shit show back in the day. It's had 20 years of maturation which is more what makes it useful today.

And yes, the media is full of blatant and bald faced lies but is that worse than the credulous and uncritical way the media basically endorsed the war in Iraq?

I get that it's a joke but the joke kinda only works if there's some truth behind it. And I just don't think there is here. I think people are lamenting old media now, not because the information sphere is genuinely worse today but because it was a comfort to have a consensus in public opinion regardless of how true that consensus was.
by pavon | 2025-10-28 16:22:04+00:00
One significant difference in this study is that it focused on people with low baseline vitamin D (10-30 ng/mL 25(OH)D), and moderate intervention (2000 IU daily).

The meta-analysis you posted did perform subgroup analysis on people with low baseline vitamin D (<25 ng/mL), but this included a wide range of intervention levels, 90% of which were <2000 IU daily equivalent. They also performed subgroup analysis on high intervention levels, but this included a wide range of baseline vitamin D, 90% of which were >25 ng/mL.
by sougou | 2025-10-28 16:22:25+00:00
Hi HN, this is a series on a way to generalize consensus protocols and how to adapt them to existing systems.

This is part 4: This one has a nice animation that shows how requests get fulfilled.

One of our goals is to make this work for Postgres via Multigres. But the principles can be used to implement your own solutions also. This will make Durability and High Availability more accessible for users.

I'll post here as I release the subsequent parts.
by djha-skin | 2025-10-28 16:22:45+00:00
I think it depends on the subject. Sure, I have heard a historian call it "Wickedpedia" because it gets all the facts wrong. But have a look at the "hash function" page. That is pretty in-depth.

However, this all misses the point that the article is making: It's a store of knowledge added to and edited by humans. At least they're not AI, the article says. I don't know if this is true, but if so, I find it compelling.
by aunty_helen | 2025-10-28 16:23:00+00:00
I feel a bit the same. I rushed out to upgrade for the better noise cancelling, apparently better mic quality and live translation feature.

All three have been a miss. Noise cancelling is much the same and seems to leak higher pitch noises more. Mic is more or less still bad and the live translation only works in doors in a quiet room.

And I resent the upgrade to 26 and all of the bugs like phantom notifications.

They’re still good ear buds and the noise cancelling is valuable but I shouldn’t have made the upgrade from the 2 pros.

Ahh lastly, it seems the case battery depletes much faster now too.
by derbOac | 2025-10-28 16:23:13+00:00
Yeah I saw that... maybe I should amend it to say "every other time", or "whenever these claims are made without a caveat or exception". I'd edit it but will leave it there because you highlighted this mistake in my comment.

I think my underlying impression is the same: there's always a caveat or asterisk or footnote, or it's the person in question making the claim about lack of odor. In this case we're left not knowing what he considers "grime" or whether there's some other product he's using he's not talking about. We don't really know what his personal routine is, how he exercises or doesn't, and so forth. The author didn't say they were spending a lot of time with this person (maybe he was caught on a "good day"), in close physical contact (the author doesn't have to be physically intimate with him), and explicitly mentioned that he didn't ask him the really confounding questions (such as about his "nether regions"). We're left to assume because he has an attractive partner he has no smell, as if any problems with smell would keep anyone from getting a date at all and wouldn't cause problems in a relationship, or be something the partner would wish were different, and that there are no other reasons why an attractive woman might date someone.

It's just always so vague and significant questions are left unanswered, or if they are, there's a caveat or exception or asterisk. My general impression is that these people are maybe washing less, or being more selective in how they wash, or using gentler products, but that they're not forgoing "soap" completely (I assume they mean surfactants in general? This is another "gotcha" I wondered about.)
by nojonestownpls | 2025-10-28 16:23:18+00:00
I checked it out based on this comment. It's funny how in some ways it feels like a lazy student-assignment copied from Wikipedia: the subheadings and the structure are exactly the same as the Wikipedia article on the topic, and sometimes it even leaves in the citation numbers as normal text like a careless copy paste.

However, it also seemed less eurocentric, mentioning non-Greek non-Roman side of origins of fields where relevant, when the corresponding Wikipedia article doesn't. Wikipedia is generally pretty bad at this, but I had expected "Grokipedia" to be worse, not better in this regard!
by nicbou | 2025-10-28 16:23:21+00:00
I experience the same with my website. Very few people donate, despite constant claims that everyone uses it all the time and that it made their lives so much better.

Such is life. I do the same with so many little tools that make my life better. Why pay for something if I can get it for free? There are so many things asking for my money. I say no whenever I can.

There are not many solutions here. Either sell your services, sell your users, or sell to your users. If people aren't upgrading to the paid version, the free version might be enough. You might need to adjust what they get for free.
by Nek_12 | 2025-10-28 16:23:44+00:00
Right now, paying for my app DOES make you a sucker - the Level 177 user proves it. She gets full value free.

The Kagi model Lee mentioned above would flip this: free tier is limited (50-100 completions/month), heavy users pay to continue. Then paying makes you smart (you're getting 800 completions/month for $5), not a sucker.

But that requires confidence the core is worth paying for. And based on my conversion data (0.8%), most people try it and decide it's not.

So maybe the real issue is: the core isn't valuable enough to limit. And if I can't confidently say 'this is worth paying for after 100 uses,' then I don't have a product.
by bigbadfeline | 2025-10-28 16:23:46+00:00
> We’ve created systems that allow a few individuals to control resources beyond the wildest dreams of the monarchs of days past.

That didn't happen without vigorous help from the "servants of the people".

> I don’t think there has to be an ulterior motive per se, it’s simply human nature.

It's both, of course. Ulterior motives and human nature aren't mutually exclusive, in fact they overlap quite a lot given the chance.
by toomuchtodo | 2025-10-28 16:23:51+00:00
The direction is clear though; enable healthcare consumers using generative AI to appeal their bills, and scale up. If it breaks insurance companies and healthcare billing departments, well, we could fix this, right? It is a choice not to, healthcare consumers will act accordingly as rational actors in a suboptimal system. Working systems are rarely changed; failing systems at least have the opportunity for change to occur.

https://fighthealthinsurance.com/ was previously posted about a year ago, but I see no traction. There is no moat, just build and distribute, right?

Show HN: Make your health insurance company cry too Fight Health Insurance - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=41356832 - August 2024

(broadly speaking, my thesis is generative AI can be weaponized to break down bureaucracy designed to extract from the human, from cost efficiency and power asymmetry perspectives)
by armchairhacker | 2025-10-28 16:23:57+00:00
This is an interesting take, but I disagree.

Syntax is a UI problem, but programming languages are more than syntax sugar for assembly. Features like Rust's borrow-checker, type systems, even small things like name resolution and async/await provide "semi-formal"* guarantees. And LLMs are no substitute for even semi-formal guarantees; people have spent lots of money and effort trying to integrate (non-NN, rule-based) algorithms and formal methods into LLMs, some even writing LLM programming languages, because they may be the key to fixing LLMs' accuracy problem.

* Not formally defined or verified, but thoroughly defined and implemented via reliable algorithms. A true formal specification is completely unambiguous, and a true formally-proven implementation is completely accurate to its specification. A thorough language specification or reference (like https://tc39.es/ecma262/ or https://doc.rust-lang.org/nightly/reference/) is almost unambiguous, and a well-tested compiler or interpreter is almost always accurate, especially compared to LLMs.

Cases where true formal guarantees matter exist but are rare. There are many, many cases where LLMs are too inaccurate but well-tested algorithms are good enough.
by jimbokun | 2025-10-28 16:24:10+00:00
That's a quite persuasive argument.

One thing they acknowledge but glance over, is the autonomy of current systems. When given more open ended, long term tasks, LLMs seem to get stuck at some point and get more and more confused and stop making progress.

This last problem may be solved soon, or maybe there's something more fundamental missing that will take decades to solve. Who knows?

But it does seem like the main barrier to declaring current models "general" intelligence.
by Jon_Lowtek | 2025-10-28 16:24:18+00:00
has anyone tried the PoC for CVE-2025-12198 from that chinese site on a version more recent than rusty? It wants a signup with a mainland china phone number, and i only have a taiwanese fax machine.

The affected version 2.73rc6 is quite interesting, because it is from 2015, and it is not the version the relevant code was introduced in, that is even older (guessing 2.62). Why fuzz some random release candidate from ten years ago?

Even more interesting v2.77 from 2017 (commits 5614413 and 2282787 to be precise) changed the code and added an (++i == maxlen) check at the place that is being highlighted by CVE-2025-12198 as lacking an (i < maxlen) check. The commit message says it fixed a crash and thanks a friend for fuzzing the config file.

Now i am not well versed in heap smashing with C, so don't confuse my lack of skill with an expert opinion, but i have a hard time understanding how that check is circumvented in recent versions of the code. Any explanation would be welcome.

But more than that someone should verify if this PoC works in recent versions. As a prerequisite it should be shared internationally.
by whoknowsidont | 2025-10-28 16:24:18+00:00
What an astoundingly similar comment to: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45734456

I'm sorry but there is no way for reasonable people to believe that Grokipedia would be a legitimate alternative to wikipedia.

It betrays a deep misunderstanding about LLM's in general, but especially grok, and objectivity itself as a concept.
by herval | 2025-10-28 16:24:26+00:00
which alternative platform exists? Onedrive is absolutely awful (it gets stuck in sync and crashes on Mac frequently), Google Drive/Photos doesn't respect your privacy and actually changes the resolution of your photos. The only alternative is Dropbox, which doesn't have a photos app anymore, or a bunch of disjointed small apps that together would cost multiples of what I pay for iCloud.
by mikkupikku | 2025-10-28 16:24:27+00:00
> Calves live on pasture for the first few months, but are then transferred to backgrounding farms, that are technically still pastures, but are fed a highly supplemented diet and have less room to roam

Glad to see you finally looked it up and saw that I was right. Your attempt to save face is amusing though. From "factory farmed" to "the pastures are a bit small" is funny.

And no, feed lots aren't necessary. They make beef cheaper by making cows bigger, therefore making the industry more profitable, but if you did away with them Americans would still be eating enough beef to make urban vegan weenies seethe.
by antisol | 2025-10-28 16:24:37+00:00
I bet now you’d kill for a senior thesis based on my free, multilingual, publicly cited, text-based articles, motherfucker

Yeeeeeeeeah.... Not if it's written in or about the Scots language.

(see: https://www.theregister.com/2020/08/26/scots_wikipedia_fake/ ) (see also: that time the Scottish governmment used Scots wikipedia as a source)
by caconym_ | 2025-10-28 16:24:56+00:00
> I wasn't even arguing with you, nor saying that it doesn't matter to me, rather just pointing an out an observation.

My interpretation of your comment was that it related to my use of the word "important", which has a more subjective connotation than "significant" and arguably allows my comment to be interpreted in two ways. The second way (that I feel people should care more about the distinction I highlighted) was not my intended meaning, since obviously people can care about whatever they want. It was a relevant observation of imprecise wording on my part.

> there's no point in insulting the humans who could engage with you in that conversation.

There would be no point in engaging them in that conversation, either.

Disagreeing with me that the difference in kind I highlighted is important is fine, and maybe even an interesting conversation for both sides. Disagreeing with me that there is a significant difference in kind is just nonsensical, like arguing that there's no meaningful difference, at any level, between painting a painting yourself and buying one from a store. How can you approach a conversation like that? Yet positions like that appear in internet arguments all the time, which are generally arguments between anonymous strangers who often have no qualms about embracing total intellectual dishonesty because the[ir] goal is just to make their opponent mad enough that they forget the original point they were trying to make and go chasing the goalposts all over the room.

The only winning move is not to play, which requires being honest with yourself about who you're talking to and what they're trying to get out of the conversation. I am willing to share that honesty.

I am, to be clear, not saying you are one of these people.
by callumprentice | 2025-10-28 16:24:59+00:00
https://callumprentice.github.io/apps/iss_photo_explorer/ind...

My daughter and I made this 10 years ago for the NASA Space Apps Challenge and I notified a whole bunch of folk at NASA but never heard anything back. Laughably amateurish compared to this magnificent work but it was fun to make.

We actually started work on the next version - a tool that lets you mark begin/end photo frames from those incredible fly-bys and save them off as video but it's maybe not worth it now.
by timenotwasted | 2025-10-28 16:25:26+00:00
It does feel like AI has really started to level the playing field for some of these industries that are black boxes. Close family members have fed medical data to Claude and ChatGPT and had much more useful interactions with care providers than previously possible. Was it possible to sort this out before? Sure, but not without a lot of research, now it is become much more accessible and that is a great thing.
by cturner | 2025-10-28 16:25:28+00:00
"The only difference is how it presents itself to the switch (ie, says its a Cisco optic), not actual difference in performance."

That's not the only difference. I have had situations where I ran equivalent optics side-by-side, and then touched one and it was hot, and touched the other and it was not hot. They do contain different components. In the case of that test - the atgbics SFP was cool, and the other clone unit was hot. My dealer was able to get me in contact with someone technical at atgbics (the cool-running unit) who explained the difference, "The DSP might be say 13nm where more modern more expensive ones are 5nm."

But you definitely do not need to pay for "genuine" optics to get high-reliability optics. You just need to shop around the clones - atgbics is a clone.
by pelzatessa | 2025-10-28 16:25:42+00:00
I take 8000 D3 (+200ug K2 MK7) daily and I'm fine. since covid I go like this for entirety of winter and then back down when summer comes. Perhaps you live in a climate where you get a lot of sun exposure and somehow overdosed on that. A guy from vitadmindwiki.com even says that you'd have to take 14000IU daily for a year until reaching toxicity limit (although this guy tends to sometimes say different things on the same topic, so I'd be cautious on whether this is the exact amount) https://vitamindwiki.com/Overview+Toxicity+of+vitamin+D

Although it'd be great if you explained what exactly happened, perhaps it wasn't a result of taking vitamin D itself but rather some external thing. Judging by "painful experience" I assume kidney stones, which could be caused by too much calcium or genetic preference. not a doctor or an expert on the topic though, just open for a discussion :)
by ericmay | 2025-10-28 16:25:43+00:00
Really good call out on the AI/ML. Now that is dangerous.

Also, as an army veteran who served on active duty including a tour in Iraq (not direct combat role, thankfully) I can tell you that in my experience you're spot on - the systematic indoctrination isn't to a political party but it's to the military and to defending the country and the Constitution. That's up to interpretation. The military has never been faced with resolving a constitutional crises so we really don't know how things would play out - but not every soldier is a rabid Trump supporter or something. Far from it. Very far from it.
by potato3732842 | 2025-10-28 16:25:49+00:00
Exactly. You can do this with anything where the racket is based around the layman not being able to take in the amount of arcane subject matter info they'd need to argue their case, not just medical.

Tons of institutions that specialize in screwing people are built this way because it's pretty hard to "overtly" build an institution to screw people.