MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by 1dom | 2025-10-28 08:51:16+00:00
I was personally designing and building these systems for FAANG like companies a few years ago.

Lex was the state of the art for these sorts of systems at the time.

These newer LLM based systems won't be perfect, but they'll be 10x better at free form intent recognition, and significantly less repetitive and robotic for menus and similar. I suspect the agent experience when you get to a human will be far more comprehensive, enabling real human agents to be just a little bit more helpful sounding.

Realistically though, anything that could be used to improve agent or callers experience in these environments will be squeezed and stretched in the name of profit to the point where both parties suffer.
by qsort | 2025-10-28 08:51:26+00:00
It's not a great release and there are indeed a few bugs, but it's kind of okay. There's a lot of good stuff like container support!

I don't know, but it seems to me like people are overreacting? Do y'all really care that much about how the desktop looks? It doesn't seem that different to me if I'm being honest. That's probably why they don't let me do frontend...
by MarcelOlsz | 2025-10-28 08:52:14+00:00
Been there done that lol. It needs real-time extremely badly. If I wanted to write English instead of code I'd have been a writer instead. It will nudge pixels but it will not take in the myriad of reasons that button is the way that it is and solve it in any meaningful way. Decent for MVPing with stuff like shadcn/tailwind but falls apart with anything else.
by ben_w | 2025-10-28 08:53:16+00:00
I'll gladly diss LLMs in a whole bunch of ways, but "common sense"? No.

By the "common sense" definitions, LLMs have "intelligence" and "understanding", that's why they get used so much.

Not that this makes the "common sense" definitions useful for all questions. One of the worse things about LLMs, in my opinion, is that they're mostly a pile of "common sense".

Now this part:

> Add in the commercial incentives of 'Open'AI to promote usage for anything and everything and you have a toxic mix.

I agree with you on…

…with the exception of one single word: It's quite cliquish to put scare quotes around the "Open" part on a discussion about them publishing research.

More so given that people started doing this in response to them saying "let's be cautious, we don't know what the risks are yet and we can't un-publish model weights" with GPT-2, and oh look, here it is being dangerous.
by PatronBernard | 2025-10-28 08:53:44+00:00
How will people without Python knowledge know that the script is 100% correct? You can say "Well they shouldn't use it for mission critical stuff" or "Yeah that's not a use case, it could be useful for qualitative analysis" etc., but you bet they will use it for everything. People use ChatGPT as a search engine and a therapist, which tells us enough
by sally_glance | 2025-10-28 08:53:56+00:00
Agreed. The tradition has been continued by workflow engines, low code tools, platforms like Salesforce and lately AI-builders. The issue is generally not that these are bad, but because they don't _feel_ like software development everyone is comfortable skipping steps of the development process.

To be fair, I've seen shops which actually apply good engineering practices to Excel sheets too. Just definitely not a majority...
by mikeiz404 | 2025-10-28 08:54:24+00:00
Yea or also:

Social Media getting big → larger perceived friend groups Social Media getting big OR screen time increasing OR phones preferencing more limited forms of communication OR … → more polarization

Maybe I missed it but it would have been helpful to know which confounds had been ruled out.

It could be due to a change in the PEW polling or the polling questions staying the same but the definition of terms shifting over time which caused the perceived increase in polarization. Or even the researchers’ definition of polarization which was stated as an increase in people stably identifying as either liberal or conservative. It is worth noting the article did say the PEW polling is supposed to be a stable source of data.
by walthamstow | 2025-10-28 08:54:33+00:00
I'm a driver and a cyclist. I used to frequent both r/londoncycling and r/CarTalkUK. I liked each sub for its discussion of each topic. Best route from Dalston to Paddington, best family car for motorway mileage, that kind of thing.

Now, because of the algo-juicing home page, both subs are full of each other's people arguing at each other. Cyclists hating drivers, drivers hating cyclists. It's just so awful.
by js8 | 2025-10-28 08:54:43+00:00
> I think they are orthogonal at worst, and in agreement at best.

I have considered them being orthogonal, but then the definition of the "shell" and "core" becomes problematic in this comparison. What you call shell in GCSS is not shell in FCIS at all, more like a boundary. Even there it is questionable whether boundary should be more specific than the core. At the core, things can be more integrated than at the boundary, and so it can have more business-specific logic.

The definition question is, if you take an application, where is the business logic, is it in the "core" or not? I would say it is, literally what the application's main purpose is its "core". And "shell" is similarly well-defined. For example, UI without an engine implementing the actual logic is just a "shell".

I am not disputing GP's advice as you understand it, although I feel it is perhaps a little bit simplistic if not tautological ("prefer generic building blocks where possible"), and really muddles up what the core and shell is in the FCIS meaning.
by aucisson_masque | 2025-10-28 08:54:49+00:00
I don't understand how having faceid, a touchscreen, vibration, gps would manipulate my emotions.

Makes no sense.

Developers using these features to build app that makes you addicted ? Yes. But these features in itself are not manipulatives or triggering reflexes.

I just don't understand the author reasoning...

I don't use addictive social media on my phone and when I receive notification, my phone makes a sound, it vibrates and yet I don't feel urged to look at it.
by qcnguy | 2025-10-28 08:55:15+00:00
I didn't engage with the explanation because nobody has provided one. This whole thread is just people asserting that it's OK to change a few words and continue doing what they were previously doing, because Trump. There's no deeper logic and that's not an intricate explanation. It is, in fact, fraud.

Nobody here is actually confused about any of this. You're all defending fraud because you hate the victims of it, not out of any intellectual principle. The government doesn't want to fund certain kinds of work. People who want to grab money for that work anyway are manipulating the language they use whilst refusing to change what they're really doing. That is grant fraud. Merely asserting it's not over and over will not help you when lawsuits start flying.

That's academics. The PSF, despite how awful this blog post makes it look, is at least doing what it's supposed to be doing: taking the requirements seriously and refusing the money.

> First, having political objections to some types of research and imposing that sort of political filter is highly unethical in these scientific positions

Python hacking isn't science! But if you want to talk about academic research instead, the time for academics to make this argument was 50 years ago. Nobody is going to buy the idea it's unacceptable to be political from academics of all people. There is no group more blatantly political: if it's unethical to impose "political filters" on "scientific positions" then academia needs to engage in massive purges of itself because it's overrun with unethical behavior.

> The Trump administration is acting completely lawlessly, ignores court orders, and has zero regard for the constitution.

It and its congressional allies literally makes the law, there is nothing in the constitution requiring the government to fund DEI and it is doing so because it won an election in which it said it'd do all these things. It's academia that's acting lawlessly, ignoring direct orders from its funding sources and has zero regard for the constitution - which puts the executive and Congress in charge of grant funding, not grantees or the PSF.
Show HN: We Built Our Own Chart Type for Live Dashboards
by YannickCrabbe | 2025-10-28 08:55:42+00:00
Most analytics tools give you 10–15 chart types and call it a day. But what happens when none of them actually represent your data well?

We ran into this when building a CRM dashboard. We wanted to show how sales reps connect to open deals: not just totals, but actual relationships. A bar chart was too flat, a table too dense. We needed a network graph.

The problem? Most chart libraries and BI tools don’t support that out of the box. You either say “no” to the feature request, or you hack together a standalone visualization that breaks the product’s flow (no filters, no interactivity, no theming).

So we built it ourselves, but in a way that still plays nicely with the rest of the dashboard. Luzmo now lets you define your own chart type, write your own visualization code, and then drop it into the dashboard editor like any other chart. Luzmo still handles the boring stuff: querying, filtering, theming, and cross-chart linking.

The end result: - Sales reps become nodes in a network graph, with open deals orbiting around them. - Deal size controls node size; win probability controls color. - Everything responds to filters and interacts with other charts out of the box.

The tutorial and GitHub repo walk through the whole process: setting up the builder, defining data slots, writing render methods, and packaging it all up for deployment.

I’d love to hear from others who’ve solved similar problems: - Have you ever needed a chart type your BI tool didn’t support? - Did you build it yourself, or find a workaround? - How important is native interactivity vs. just embedding a standalone visualization?

Read the post + see the full code: https://www.luzmo.com/blog/build-custom-charts
by dotancohen | 2025-10-28 08:56:08+00:00
I work with a company that is building tools for mental health professionals. We have pilot projects in diverse nations, including in nations that are considered to have adequate mental health care. We actually do not have a pilot in the US.

The phenomenon of people turning to AI for mental health issues in general, and suicide in particular, is not confined to only those nations or places lacking adequate mental health access or awareness.
by anonzzzies | 2025-10-28 08:56:17+00:00
It already sank their revenues in the past decade as 'support bots' were a thing before chatgpt but now it's far better, for some definition of better. But all services I used before 2020 already had 'chat bots' and that killed very many call centers / revenue then already and that's accelerating now. Now you can (for some definition of 'can') instruct the llm to ONLY escalate when nothing else works which enables many companies to get their in house staff to handle those few.
by aquariusDue | 2025-10-28 08:56:27+00:00
Precisely, I too have a bone to pick with AI companies, Big Tech and Co but there are deeper societal problems at work here where blanket bans and the like are useless or a slippery slope towards policies that can be abused someday/somehow.

And solutions for solving those underlying problems? I haven't the faintest clue. Though these days I think the lack of third spaces in a lot of places might have a role to play in it.
by probably_wrong | 2025-10-28 08:56:41+00:00
> Is that a debate worth having though?

Yes. Otherwise we're accepting "OpenAI wants to do this so we should quietly get out of the way".

If ChatGPT has "PhD-level intelligence" [1] then identifying people using ChatGPT for therapy should be straightforward, more so users with explicit suicidal intentions.

As for what to do, here's a simple suggestion: make it a three-strikes system. "We detected you're using ChatGPT for therapy - this is not allowed by our ToS as we're not capable of helping you. We kindly ask you to look for support within your community, as we may otherwise have to suspend your account. This chat will now stop."

[1] https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cy5prvgw0r1o
by bnferguson | 2025-10-28 08:56:47+00:00
Absolutely love this little thing. Picked a couple up back when it was still a kickstarter and was super surprised at the build quality (shockingly heavy for its size) and how smooth everything went.

It's not a thing I use everyday but sooo much nicer than having to unplug and lug my proxmox server up from the meter closet anytime there's an issue.
by gr4vityWall | 2025-10-28 08:57:13+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.

> I think somebody who won't acknowledge that is either being intellectually dishonest, or has already had their higher cognitive functions rotted away by excessive reliance on LLMs to do their thinking for them.

This feels too aggressive for a good faith discussion on this site. Even if you do think that, there's no point in insulting the humans who could engage with you in that conversation.
by mcintyre1994 | 2025-10-28 08:57:42+00:00
In the summary at the top they also use a different smallest compressed size: "The real differentiator? Bundle sizes range from 28.8 kB to 176.3 kB compressed."

That's why I stopped reading at your first quote, it didn't fit with the summary and there's no point reading a bunch of numbers and wondering which are made up.
by ckastner | 2025-10-28 08:57:44+00:00
Most likely, yes. The author mentions vixie-cron, which was the name of the project before Paul Pixie joined/founded(?) ISC, and it was released as ISC from after.

Debian's fork is still based on vixie-cron, but it couldn't have been the one because of the aforementioned patch.
by wongarsu | 2025-10-28 08:57:54+00:00
You could make the same arguments to say that humans should never talk to suicidal people. And that really sounds counterproductive

Also it's side-stepping the question, isn't it? "Supposing that the advice it provides does more good than harm" already supposes that LLMs navigate this somehow. Maybe because they are so great, maybe by accident, maybe because just having someone nonjudgmental to talk to has a net-positive effect. The question posed is really "if LLMs lead some people to suicide but saved a greater number of people from suicide, and we verify this hypothesis with studies, would there still be an argument against LLMs talking to suicidal people"
by 1dom | 2025-10-28 08:58:52+00:00
> If AI CS is done right, it would be mostly a filter for helping human CS folks only deal with real issues rather than "how do I log into my account? I'm on your blog page..."

You're right, but AI isn't needed to do this - just a competent call centre manager who watches the analytic and has control of the menus and messages.

The "real issues" that remain after the easy ones are filtered out probably aren't the issues any company would want to leave to AI anyway.
by aucisson_masque | 2025-10-28 08:58:54+00:00
> When they go to sleep at night, they have to choose between all of the information ever published in the history of the world, or the back of their eyelids

They are not tired enough if they choose to use their smartphone, that's an education issue.

Children are taught the value of a good night of sleep, they are taught by having fulfilling daily lives and exhausting. If you let them be like a plant, yeah they will be just as dumb as a plant.
by qcnguy | 2025-10-28 08:59:30+00:00
And maybe they'll get that back eventually, but academia can't complain about rough handling when it steadfastly refused as a bloc to fix its own ways for so long. Outsiders trying to fix them will always create a lot more collateral damage than insiders fixing the problems, but when insiders refuse, outsiders will take over.

Also, frankly, I heard a bunch of such stories and very often the grantees were misrepresenting their work. It actually did have DEI content in it and they were pretending it didn't. You can see how many people in this thread are arguing that all you have to do to comply with the requirements are use a thesaurus or misrepresent their work and then continue anyway. For as long as academics insist on total warfare and malicious compliance, expect universities to be blowtorched.
by luxcem | 2025-10-28 08:59:46+00:00
It's a tell, a common language quirk of LLMs especially ChatGPT.

- a slow-loading app isn’t just an annoyance. It’s a liability.

- The real performance story isn’t splitting hairs over 3ms differences, it’s the massive gap between next-gen and React/Angular

- The difference [...] isn’t academic. It’s the difference between an app that feels professional and one that makes our users look bad in front of clients.

- This isn’t a todo list with hardcoded arrays. It’s a real app with database persistence.

- This isn’t just an inconvenience. It’s technofeudalism.

- “We only know React” isn’t a technical constraint, it’s a learning investment decision.

- The real difficulty isn’t learning curve, it’s creating a engineering culture.

- This isn’t some toy todo list. It’s a solid mid-complexity app with real database persistence using SQLite.

- The App Store isn’t a marketplace, it’s a fiefdom.
by Al-Khwarizmi | 2025-10-28 08:59:57+00:00
> Maybe it's causing even more deaths than we know, and these doesn't make the news either?

Of course, and that's part of why I say that we need to measure the impact. It could be net positive or negative, we won't know if we don't find out.

> If we think this way, then we don't need to improve safety of anything (cars, trains, planes, ships, etc.) because we would need the big picture, though... maybe these vehicles cause death (which is awful), but it's also transporting people to their destinations alive. If there are that many people using these, I wouldn't be surprised if these actually transports some people with comfort, and that's not going to make the news.

I'm not advocating for not improving security, I'm arguing against a comment that said that "ChatGPT should be nowhere near anyone dealing with psychological issues", because it can cause death.

Following your analogy, cars objectively cause deaths (and not only of people with psychological issues, but of people in general) and we don't say that "they should be nowhere near a person". We improve their safety even though zero deaths is probably impossible, which we accept because they are useful. This is a big-picture approach.
by jillesvangurp | 2025-10-28 09:00:36+00:00
Lots of people manage to drive in poor visibility without radar, lidar, etc. If that's safe and normal for people, the principle that self driving should work with just cameras isn't such a strange one.

I wouldn't call things like radar and lidar unnecessary but in principle a good AI vision system should be able to operate at the same level as a human eventually. Of course if you don't have such an AI just yet, you need a stop gap solution. But I wouldn't bet against AI getting there eventually. Probably not on Mr. Musk's accelerated and optimistic schedule though. But give it another five to ten years and things might look a bit differently.

What Waymo is doing now with much less than perfect AI is of course completely pragmatic and very impressive. I'm kind of eager to see them start operating self driving outside a few restricted zones in the US and for example in European cities. I live in Berlin, so probably we'll have to wait quite a bit for people to finally let go of their fax machines though apparently there are some trials with self driving buses about to kick off here now.
by hdgvhicv | 2025-10-28 09:01:19+00:00
You used to be able to break of of clothing calls. DHL refused to deliver a parcel of paid for next day delivery on, and sent an automated email saying “phone us to pick it up at depot”

Phone them and the only options were to get that information - no way to find out what depot it was at or how to collect it.

DHL now in the “do not use” file, but that only works when my supplier gives a choice, and is only relevant when all delivery providers are not identical.
by Kevin605 | 2025-10-28 09:01:23+00:00
I don’t buy the “LLMs = books” analogy. Books are static; today’s LLMs are adaptive persuasion engines trained to keep you engaged and to mirror your feelings. That’s functionally closer to a specialized book written for you, in your voice, to move you toward a particular outcome. If there exists a book intended to persuade its readers into committing suicide, it would surely be seen as dangerous for depressed people.
by cookiengineer | 2025-10-28 09:01:28+00:00
The solution to that problem is for an ISP or provider to have a better website with, attention now, less marketing spam that confuses their customers.

If the website had a clear priority on discoverable FAQs that wouldn't be an issue. But most of the time these types of websites don't care about these issues and tutorials on how to use their systems and services, at all.

Throwing an LLM onto a problem like this, which requires a good knowledgebase to begin with, is just a plain stupid idea. It will make things much worse, not better.
by torginus | 2025-10-28 09:02:00+00:00
I do quite a bit of coding in C#, and have a lot of experience, and personally I haven't found LLMs to be that great a help at writing C#.

First, LLMs are great at learning new tech stacks, but good ol' ASP.NET has been pretty much stable since forever. Second, I think Rider/Resharper is the greatest piece of autocomplete tech ever made, seriously nothing ever comes, close, which means I'd rather do a refactor using them than do something similar by prompting the AI and hoping for the best. Also probably my experience makes me far less accepting of LLMisms, but that might just be on me.

Lastly, AI seems to be focused around its own set of tooling, like Cursor, which is fine for TS but is far worse than Rider for things like C#. I know I could kludge things together, but still.

As for Roslyn...

I have some experience writing codegen/analyzers at my company and it feels like typical a Microsoft tech product, like WPF or Powershell.

Brilliant idea (that's a market first as well) combined with really solid technical fundamentals, but plain confusing and overcomplicated UX, that makes it a chore to use. Seriously the amount of scaffolding you need to make even for a simple analyzer is just nuts
by probably_wrong | 2025-10-28 09:02:07+00:00
While I agree with most of your comment, I'd like to dispute the story about GPT-2.

Yes, they did claim that they wouldn't release GPT-2 due to unforeseen risks, but...

a. they did end up releasing it,

b. they explicitly stated that they wouldn't release GPT-3[1] for marketing/financial reasons, and

c. it being dangerous didn't stop them from offering the service for a profit.

I think the quotes around "open" are well deserved.

[1] Edit: it was GPT-4, not GPT-3.
by ozim | 2025-10-28 09:02:16+00:00
Let’s be honest: “desktop-only” is usually an excuse to skip performance discipline entirely

No, it is excuse not to invest money in places where users won't pay.

For questions about mobile - yeah we get requests for showing it on mobile but app in app store is hard requirement, because of discoverability. People know how to install app from app store and then they have icon. Making PWA icon is still too much work for normal people.

I would need "add to home screen" button in my website that I could have user making icon with single click, then I could go with PWA.