MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by daveguy | 2025-10-22 15:00:29+00:00
Products directly generated by a generative model are not copyrightable in the US. And therefore public domain. Not a lawyer, but I think the cases and commentary have been pretty clear. If you make significant human contribution / arrangement / modification / etc it can be copyrighted.

Long story short, you can't prevent anyone from using AI slop in any way they want. You would have to keep the slop as a trade secret if you want it to remain intellectual property.

Jan 29th 2025 clarification from US Copyright Office: https://www.copyright.gov/newsnet/2025/1060.html
by alcide | 2025-10-22 15:00:33+00:00
Integrity of words and author intent is important. I understand the intent of your hypothetical but I haven’t run into this issue in practice with Kagi News.

Never share information about an article you have not read. Likewise, never draw definitive conclusions from an article that is not of interest.

If you do not find a headline interesting, the take away is that you did not find the headline interesting. Nothing more, nothing less. You should read the key insights before dismissing an article entirely.

I can imagine AI summarizes being problematic for a class of people that do not cross check if an article is of value to them.
by gus_massa | 2025-10-22 15:00:46+00:00
Small feature request: If I click on "upload image", I get a "please register" form. But if I click on the "text prompt" part, nothing happens. I expect to get the "please register" message too.

It would be nice to try without registration. Is it too expensive? Are there too many freeriders?

I've seen a lot of similar projects in the last months. Why is this different? (Sorry if it's an obvious question, but I'm totally lost about the current state of the art in this topic.)
by hnuser123456 | 2025-10-22 15:01:08+00:00
Do we have any good research on how much less often larger, newer models will just make stuff up like this? As it is, it's pretty clear LLMs are categorically not a good idea for directly querying for information in any non-fiction-writing context. If you're using an LLM to research something that needs to be accurate, the LLM needs to be doing a tool call to a web search and only asked to summarize relevant facts from the existing information it can find, and have them be cited by hard-coding the UI to link the pages the LLM reviewed. The LLM itself cannot be trusted to generate its own citations. It will just generate something that looks like a relevant citation, along with whatever imaginary content it wants to attribute to this non-existent source.
by colechristensen | 2025-10-22 15:01:23+00:00
>I see both sides of the argument here, the people maintaining minio should not have to push docker images for free, it is work to maintain and test, especially across all the host platforms. And, this work isn't that complicated if you want to do it yourself

I don't. It's automated, it needs approximately zero attention. This is just a company that got where it was benefitting from open source taking the free toys away thinking there'll be profit in it.
Show HN: Built a tool for founders to automate the grind of finding first users
by lui8311 | 2025-10-22 15:01:24+00:00
Hey HN,

We're all told to "do things that don't scale" to get our first users. For me, that meant spending 2-3 hours every day searching LinkedIn, Reddit and Twitter for anyone talking about a problem my software could solve.

The lead quality was great, but it took so long that it was getting in the way of my productivity.

I made a simple tool FeedPilot to fix this problem. It's a browser extension that runs in the background, scanning for keywords and conversations. It's not just a keyword alert; it uses a small AI model to find posts where people are actually asking for help or recommendations. This has been the main way I've got users, and it now takes me about 15 minutes a day instead of 3 hours.

I thought other founders were having the same problems, so I improved it. There's a free version that's really useful. Please tell me what you think.
by xhkkffbf | 2025-10-22 15:01:27+00:00
I think it's wrong to think of MAHA as "anti-science" because science is all about questioning. Something as important as medicine should be questioned and questioned again and again. Simply dismissing them out-of-hand with such a term is more anti-science than what they're doing.

Now having said that, it's perfectly fair to criticize some of their assumptions and methods. The article, for instance, talks about raw milk. Pasteurization seems like a smart idea to me, but to assert that anyone who drinks raw milk is "anti science" is wrong. They're just approaching science differently.
by wat10000 | 2025-10-22 15:01:36+00:00
That's not comparable. Reading news reports and summarizing them is about a thousand times easier than writing those news reports in the first place. If you want to see how humans fare at this task, have some people answer questions about the news and then compare their answers to the original reporting. I'm not sure if the average human would fare too well at this either, but it's completely different from the question of how accurate the original news itself is.
by danaris | 2025-10-22 15:01:40+00:00
> Neither Apple nor Google have any interest in making tracking opt-in or working to make this into a standard.

Apple has taken steps to make it harder to track, both in iOS apps and in the browser.

It's Google whose revenue depends entirely on surveillance advertising.

The problem is that the technical methods surveillance ad networks use within the browser to track us are features that are useful for many other things.

Trying to redefine this as a technical problem, that can be solved purely by getting the browser makers to change how browsers work, rather than a sociopolitical problem, will fail. Sure, there are more things that Google—and probably Apple—could be doing to protect us, but they can't completely stop the tracking.

The way to stop the tracking is to make laws banning targeted advertising.
by throwawayq3423 | 2025-10-22 15:01:44+00:00
It's his narrative. It's how he's making sense of it. But most importantly, it's his justification.

"The violence on my side is only in response to the violence on your side." This is how such an unambiguous act of political violence makes sense in his head, in the context of it being a defensive action.

Of course it's absurd. But in order to stay aligned with your pre-existing worldview, you sometimes have to say and believe absurdities.

We are just watching him work through it in public.
by mwsherman | 2025-10-22 15:01:44+00:00
There is mention of how len() is bytes, not “characters”. A further subtlety: a rune (codepoint) is still not necessarily a “character” in terms of what is displayed for users — that would be a “grapheme”.

A grapheme can be multiple codepoints, with modifiers, joiners, etc.

This is true in all languages, it’s a Unicode thing, not a Go thing. Shameless plug, here is a grapheme tokenizer for Go: https://github.com/clipperhouse/uax29/tree/master/graphemes
by PaulHoule | 2025-10-22 15:01:45+00:00
Note it is just a set of flags that subdivide the privileges root has which is potentially an improvement over what we had before but it's nothing like the real capability-based security

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capability-based_security

that you had in AS/400 or the iAPX 432 where a "capability" is a reference to a system object with associated privileges. It is possible to get this into a POSIX-like system

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capsicum_(Unix)

It reminds me of using a VAX-11/730 with the VMS operating system in high school where there was a long list of privileges a process could have

https://hunter.goatley.com/vax-professional-articles/vax-pro...

and it was a common game to investigate paths such as "if you have privilege A, B, and C you can get SETPRV and take over the machine"
by skeeter2020 | 2025-10-22 15:02:05+00:00
OK - I live in a place that's snowy for a lot of the year. I shovel not only my sidewalk but my neighbours' several houses on both sides. People are really happy and grateful. Over the years Mr. Johnson the senior on a fixed pension next door loses mobility and is really appreciative I keep his walk clean. The couple next to him has a new baby and a clear sidewalk helps them load up all the accompanying gear into the car. My snowbird neighbours are happy that their walk is accessible when they're out of town. The dad who walks several kids to school is happy there's less snow to trudge through twice a day (in both directions). The mail carrier is less likely to slip and is grateful. Dog walkers and (crazy) winter joggers don't even consciously realize the improvement but still benefit.

Then I decide to stop. It doesn't really matter why, I wasn't getting paid or had not made any sort of formal agreement or promise, I just don't want to do it anymore. Now I shovel my sidewalk to the property line exactly and that's it. Hey, that's my legal obligation; I don't need to do any more! Mr. Johnson now has a lot more trouble getting out of his house; we see him a lot less. The baby is crying while new mom slips around trying to load up strollers and diaper bags and a car seat. The snowbirds just got fined by city bylaw for not clearing their walk. That dad's school trip is just a little longer, colder and unpleasant.

Hey, this isn't my fault! All those people took my effort for granted; I never promised to shovel their walks! They have no basis to judge me! But you better believe that this decision reduced their assessment that I'm a "good neighbour". Community is built mostly on implicit agreements, norms and conventions that are established through practice & conduct over time. You're arguing the right/wrong of this in the face of legal formalizations, while others are just saying it is a fact, not weighing the benefits and obligations.
by charles_f | 2025-10-22 15:02:11+00:00
> Imagine if every time you got into your car, you had to manually approve the engine's use of oil, the tires' use of air, and the radio's use of electricity

Metaphor is incorrect. Tracking you is not essential to the function of the website. A more appropriate one would be:

> Imagine if everytime you got into your car, you had to approve or reject GM tracking your trip, the number of people in the car, recording your conversations, and sharing all of that with 500 indiscriminate partners including your insurance, law enforcement, supermarkets in the area, and why not your spouse or partner.

Or better even

> imagine if every time you entered a physical store they asked for your id and made you sign a contract that allows them to track you and sell that information

The proposal in that article sets a default tracking preference, it's trying to fix a UX issue with more UX. What it's missing is that there's no EU mandated UX. You don't have to show a banner if your cookies are not used to track random people on your website. The reason why it's bad UX is that it's bad on purpose, skimming the line of legality by deploying as many dark patterns as possible to trick you into consenting to your soul and your children's, in a desperate attempt to make that god awful banner go away and finally access your shot of endorphins.

Websites could very well decide to use only non tracking storage by default, and not show you a banner. Or have everything checked off with a single click to make the banner go away. Sending you to a separate page full of checkboxes and legalese is a choice, and a nefarious one, because most people don't want to be tracked.

If anything I think the law should be strengthened: make tracking default-off, and allow users to consent to more if they so wish. Not consenting should be a single, obvious click (or no click at all), rather than a sub menu. Your information should not be shared or sold by default, or even better, not sellable at all.
by sofixa | 2025-10-22 15:02:48+00:00
> Am I now assured that the copyright is mine if the code is generated by AI? Worldwide? (or at least North America-EU wide)?

Not only is the answer to that no, you have no guarantee that it isn't someone else's copyright. The EU AI Act states that AI providers have to make sure that the output of AI isn't infringing on the source copyright, but I wouldn't trust any one of them bar Mistral to actually do that.
by Workaccount2 | 2025-10-22 15:03:00+00:00
The media today is so polarized, so dishonest, and so bent on feeding the egos of it's users, the bar to pass them is literally underground.

You can go through most big name media stories and find it ridden with omissions of uncomfortable facts, careful structuring of words to give the illusion of untrue facts being true, and careful curation of what stories are reported.

More than anything, I hope AI topples the garbage bin fire that is modern "journalism". Also, it should be very clear why the media is especially hostile towards AI. It might reveal them as the clowns they are, and kill the social division and controversy that is their lifeblood.
by terminalshort | 2025-10-22 15:03:28+00:00
I don't think it's really possible to do that now just by throwing eng at it. Chrome being a monopoly hasn't actually stopped Google from improving it massively since it came out 17 years ago, so the bar is much higher. Browsers are a mature market now and I doubt that releasing something dramatically better than Chrome is possible just by engineering a better version of the same concept like Chrome was when it released. It would require a fundamentally novel breakthrough in UX design that renders Chrome obsolete, and that's much more likely to come out of a small startup than somewhere like OpenAI.
by insane_dreamer | 2025-10-22 15:03:41+00:00
Because that's how you build up a foundation that will be self-sustaining when the donations run out.

It's not a bad strategy. I've looked at Wikimedia's financial statements and have no problem giving a small monthly amount to them considering how much value I get from the site.

I certainly prefer my money going to them than to Zuckerberg or Altman or MSFT shareholders.
by hyperhello | 2025-10-22 15:03:54+00:00
I don't know about that. Does a schizophrenic "really want" to stop the CIA from implanting bugs in their teeth?

I think there are a hugely under appreciated percentage of people who are essentially fantasy based too. They've been encouraged to pick a cause, some of them decide that they know the secret that scientists are using vaccines to control the population or something.

If you talk to them they won't give you any more of a rational defense than the tooth bug guy. RFK Jr is just another resource Trump and the Republicans use to distract and degrade anyone in their way.
by mothballed | 2025-10-22 15:03:55+00:00
Yeah the price differential isn't high enough to justify narco smuggler like loss rates.

On the other hand, take a look at the price difference of cigarettes between Australia and Indonesia, like 20x. There must be a pretty insane volume of smuggling going on between those countries seperate by a short straight of Ocean, it would support narco submarine levels of sophistication.
by happytoexplain | 2025-10-22 15:04:08+00:00
"Arguing against robots" is an oversimplification. They're arguing against misery and harm, and against the unprepared nature of our government and businesses to account for the impact of large jumps in automation, which, of course, also means arguing against robots. The distinction is pointless. And yes actually, it is in fact the responsibility of everybody to decline to inflict misery, whether a law has been made to control your behavior yet or not. It would be dishonest to imply there is a binary where your business can't ever use any automation based on this principle.

The over-application of objective phrases like "valid" vs "invalid" when talking about non-formal arguments is a sickness a lot of technical people tend to share. In this case, it's dismissive of harm to humans, which is the worst thing you can be dismissive about. "Please don't make me and my family miserable" is not an "invalid argument" - that's inhuman. That person isn't arguing their thesis.

"The problem". Another common oversimplifying phrase used by us thinkers, who believe there is "the answer", as if either of those two things exist as physical objects. "The problem" is that humans are harmed. Everything else just exists within that problem domain, not as "part of the problem" or "not part of the problem".

But most importantly:

Yes, you're absolutely correct (and I hate to use this word, but I'm angry): Obviously the ideal state is that robots do all the work we don't want to do and we do whatever we want and our society is structured in a way to support that. You've omitted the part where that level of social support is very hard to make physically feasible, very hard to convince people of depending on their politics, and, most importantly: It's usually only enough to spare people from death and homelessness, not from misery and unrest. Of course it would be ridiculous to outright ban for-profit use of automation, but even more ridiculous to write a bill that enforces it, e.g. by banning any form of regulation.

Short and medium term, automating technologies are good for the profit of businesses and bad for the affected humans. Long term, automating technologies are good for everybody, but only if society actually organizes that transition in a way that doesn't make those affected miserable/angry. It isn't, and I don't think it's pessimistic to say that it probably won't.

I'd love to live in Star Trek! We don't. We won't for hundreds of years if ever. Technology isn't the limiting factor, the immutable nature of human society and resources are the limiting factors. Nothing else is interesting to even talk about until we clear the bar of simply giving a shit about what actually, in concrete reality, happens to our countrymen.
by actionfromafar | 2025-10-22 15:04:32+00:00
It’s the same problem as those reading the Scripture literally. You can’t. You are reading a translation, for starters. To come even close, you need a subtle understanding of semite languages, culture and Greek, depending on your denomination. You need some guidance when reading, whether that is the Holy Ghost, your pastor, or a decade or two of yeshiva school.
by riskalpha_ | 2025-10-22 15:04:34+00:00
Traditional models often treat uncertainty as something to eliminate — but Bayesian reasoning turns it into information, updating beliefs as data arrives.

The article explains how smoothing these Bayesian updates prevents overreaction to noise and creates more stable, interpretable probability forecasts.

I had enough of excel for my forecast, so I built a tool called RiskAlpha since september, that applies these concepts to macroeconomic datasets, but the focus of this post is the idea — how smoothed probability updates can bring more clarity to financial forecasting.

I’d love to hear what others think about applying Bayesian smoothing or adaptive priors to markets or forecasting models.
by jonfw | 2025-10-22 15:04:38+00:00
It's less about the punctuation used, and more about the necessity of the punctuation used.

In the sentence you provided, you make a series of points, link them together, and provide examples. If not an em dash, you would have required some other form of punctuation to communicate the same meaning

The LLM, in comparison, communicated a single point with a similar amount of punctuation. If not an em dash- it could have used no punctuation at all.
by lysace | 2025-10-22 15:04:52+00:00
It appears the idea is to fund this using frozen Russian funds in EU. Zelenskyy and Kristersson (Swedish PM) both made a point of saying they are travelling to Brussels tonight to attempt to make this happen. (I watched the press conference stream from Saab/Linköping. It's available here: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NF6PUxSPEKU)
by simonw | 2025-10-22 15:04:53+00:00
There's definitely a "too big to fail" thing going on here given how many billion/trillion dollar companies around the world now have 18+ months of AI-assisted code in their shipped products.

Several of the big LLM vendors offer a "copyright shield" policy to their paying customers, which effectively means that their legal teams will step in to fight for you if someone makes a copyright claim against you.

Some examples:

OpenAI (search for "output indemnity"): https://openai.com/policies/service-terms/

Google Gemini: https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/ai-machine-learning/p...

Microsoft: https://blogs.microsoft.com/on-the-issues/2023/09/07/copilot...

Anthropic: https://www.anthropic.com/news/expanded-legal-protections-ap...

Cohere: https://cohere.com/blog/cohere-intellectual-property
by skeeter2020 | 2025-10-22 15:04:56+00:00
I agree, but it is always harder to have someone fill a void for a previously solved problem. I think they eventually will, but it's almost like maintenance programming vs. greenfield development; it's a harder task that's not much fun, plus the interpretation that you need to do a buch of work for something you previously already had. Ill-will towards MinIO is completely understandable.
by splittydev | 2025-10-22 15:05:06+00:00
All of these are incredibly obvious. If you have even the slightest idea of what you're doing and review the code before deploying it to prod, this will never succeed.

If you have absolutely no idea what you're doing, well, then it doesn't really matter in the end, does it? You're never gonna recognize any security vulnerabilities (as has happened many times with LLM-assisted "no-code" platforms and without any actual malicious intent), and you're going to deploy unsafe code either way.
by mrob | 2025-10-22 15:05:21+00:00
>I'm not sure why they have a he-man scale going up to 11

There's a big difference between air resistance and magnetic resistance machines. Air resistance scales with the square of velocity, the same as real rowing, while magnetic resistance is linear. On an air resistance machine you can get a good workout by keeping the difficulty setting realistically low and rowing faster, but on a magnetic resistance machine you'll end up going so fast it becomes difficult to maintain good technique. The higher difficulty settings are more useful on a magnetic resistance machine.
by Narciss | 2025-10-22 15:06:07+00:00
> All participating organizations then generated responses to each question from each of the four AI assistants. This time, we used the free/consumer versions of ChatGPT, Copilot, Perplexity and Gemini. Free versions were chosen to replicate the default (and likely most common) experience for users. Responses were generated in late May and early June 2025.

First of all, none of the SOTA models we're currently using were released in May and early June. Gemini 2.5 came out in June 17, GPT 5 & Claude Opus 4.1 at the beginning of August.

On top of that, to use free models for anything like this is absolutely wild. I use the absolute best models, and the research versions of this whenever I do research. Anything less is inviting disaster.

You have to use the right tools for the right job, and any report that is more than a month old is useless in the AI world at this point in time, beyond a snapshot of how things 'used to be'.
by schmidtleonard | 2025-10-22 15:06:26+00:00
Thanks for reminding me, he also broke campaign finance laws with the pornstar payoff.

No, if Joe Biden had the same facts against him the entire right wing -- including you -- would be eagerly prosecuting them and singing of the high-minded justice in doing so. Have you forgotten "lock her up!"?

"President is above the law" is a far more dangerous precedent to set, and "nominees are above the law" is out-of-this-word nuts.