MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by leobg | 2025-10-19 18:44:40+00:00
Many ppl think to fine tune an LLM on domain knowledge means to feed it chunked text of, say, psychology books. That is, of course, a wrong application if your goal is for the model to become an expert psychologist. You want the behavior of applying psychology, but you are training the behavior to write about it. TL;DR, many fine tuning fails are due to wrong dataset curation. On the orher hand, if yiu get the dataset right, you can get a 7B model outperform a 180B one.
by mschild | 2025-10-19 18:45:16+00:00
Even at an enterprise its absolutely possible. I work for one after all. My team owns the product anyway though and my "just fix it" tasks are 99% of the time annoyances that I encounter in my day-to-day work.

For example, we run a Jenkins instance for our platform that has bi-weekly production releases. We write announcements in slack when there was a release with a list of PRs and links to the tickets in Jira. That used to be manual work. At one point I was annoyed by it and took 30 minutes to write a 15 line script to automatically take the merged PRs, create a Jira link and announce it in our slack channel.
by rpcope1 | 2025-10-19 18:45:57+00:00
I'm unsure if the comparison to more standard automation is totally apt (but agree if you rob people of purpose which many get from their jobs, lots and lots of bad shit happens), but what you're poking at is frankly nightmare fuel. Look how much chatbots that are in sycophantic "romantic relationships" absolutely break people (there was some subreddit linked once recently full of these types), and consider what happens when they're actually manifested. I'm sure some lolbert types will be like "but muh freedoms", but that sort of shit is so dangerous and so destructive on the same way brown glass bottles are to Australian jewel beetles, that we damn well better crush any of that and anyone that proposes producing robots like that. They're basically weapons and should be treated as such.
by hker | 2025-10-19 18:45:58+00:00
Quantity ≠ Quality.

> Chen-Ning Yang was technically not wrong with his 1998 prediction, since Tu Youyou got 1/3 of the 2015 Nobel in medicine, but it didn't really make sense for him to link this to continued development, since the delay between discovery and award means that most of the prizes from 1998–2018 were for work that was already done before he made his prediction.

Agreed. Though to nitpick, the part on “even more than one, if the country’s economic development continues at its current rate” is technically wrong, if we just count Chinese Nobel scientists developed in Mainland China (only Tu Youyou).

Chen-Ning Yang was bullish on Chinese science, but reality did not deliver.

Shing-Tung Yau is as bullish on Chinese mathematics in the future, but even he admitted that China is still decades behind in mathematical research, due to systematic issue which ‘“places too much emphasis on material rewards” and tends to encourage young researchers to work for titles instead of scientific advancements’. [1]

[1]: https://archive.is/MRDlP "China has problems to solve before its mathematics research can rise above WWII levels, scholar says"

This is a problem with the culture of science.
by nine_k | 2025-10-19 18:46:24+00:00
> What do you mean by laser focused?

I mean that universities, like any large organizations, are very not free from internal politics and peer pressure. Also, like any large group of people, they are subject to irrational but powerful phenomena like the intellectual fashion, or religious zeal (which does not take an established religion). These all are impediments on the way of truth-seeking, but are inevitable due to human nature.
by sodality2 | 2025-10-19 18:46:25+00:00
> Trying to cram in as much knowledge as possible when your brain is fried isn't going to help you all that much.

I think the trade-off of being a little jittery and possibly scoring better on an exam is probably worth it. Unless you turn it into a habit, a few hours short on sleep a month isn't going to measurably harm you. Then again, it depends on how much you stand to gain from studying those extra few hours - and it's equally important to be realistic on that quantity.
by loganc2342 | 2025-10-19 18:47:22+00:00
The article brings up some interesting points but doesn’t really go anywhere with them. I came into the article with a mindset of “freedom of choice is objectively better, explain to me why I’m wrong,” and only came away with the caveat of “if public health and safety demands less choice.” Which is fair, and essentially how (the majority of) people reason politically, at least in the US; on paper, your choice of political party affiliation rests on how much individual choice you believe people should have on individual issues, such as the choice to have an abortion or the choice the manufacture a product that harms the environment. The debate is essentially: does giving people this choice have a significant enough negative impact on public health and safety to warrant limiting the freedom to make this choice?

However, I still think that, in general, more freedom of choice is only a good thing.

> Is there any real difference between the scores of toothpastes or breakfast cereals in contemporary supermarkets?

That depends. Do you have a preference for one flavor of toothpaste or cereal over another? Do you have dental issues that require a toothpaste with whitening effects, or without fluoride, or with baking soda? In a cereal, do you value health concerns over taste, or vice versa? If so, then yes, there is a real difference between different choices in these cases. Making one choice over another can have a direct impact on quality of life, if often a minor one. And this is what makes freedom of choice so important for me: it’s the freedom to strive to improve quality of life—synonymous with the pursuit of happiness.

Of course, as the article briefly touches on, freedom of choice isn’t the only kind of freedom, and arguably isn’t the most important one, either. I think this is the point the author was trying to make, but she doesn’t go into much detail. Freedom from oppression is a prerequisite for freedom of choice, and freedom from suffering is (on paper) the ultimate goal of it. Therein lies the debate: when does increased freedom of choice impede on these other two freedoms? Which should be prioritized in these cases? The line is different for everyone. I would’ve liked to see the article add more nuance to the discussion.
by ben_w | 2025-10-19 18:47:26+00:00
The first electronic computers were referred to as "electronic brains": https://vintagecomputer.net/simon.cfm

"Computer" used to be a job. Not anymore: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_(occupation)

What counts as "AI" is a moving target: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/AI_effect
by Levitz | 2025-10-19 18:48:01+00:00
>You are literally arguing against history, not me.

I'm not arguing against history, you are arguing against reality.

University of Pennsylvania, which I picked because it was the literal first university mentioned in the article in the OP:

https://www.ese.upenn.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/ESE-Sta...

And I quote:

>We face many challenges as a community, including entrenched bias, both conscious and unconscious; self-reinforcing cycles of preferential treatment towards people with particular characteristics; limited awareness of the impediments faced by our colleagues that stem from racism, sexism, ableism, transphobia

It goes on to talk about actions taken to deal with this:

>We will provide resources - including time, materials, financial support, and facilities - to promote education about diversity, equity, and inclusion within our department and to support our engagement on these themes with external communities

>An atmosphere of trust and accountability is a prerequisite for complete and honest reporting. Discrimination in academic settings can be subtle and complex, and it is not always recognized immediately. Even when racism, gender discrimination, and harassment are overt, victims can have a legitimate perception of powerlessness to address it.

There's LITERALLY not a single one mention of wealth, or money, or class in the entire document. There is about bias, about race, about sex. It ends with this:

>We ask that all community members pledge: >● To seek out knowledge on the forms, causes, and impacts of bias

>● To acknowledge that we are all susceptible to bias, and to strive to be anti-discriminatory with respect to race, gender identity or expression, sexual orientation, age, national origin, religion, disability, socioeconomic status, citizenship, and cultural background

>● To engage constructively and respectfully with people of varied backgrounds and perspectives

>● To prioritize empathy and consideration, and to avoid making assumptions or judgements

>● To be alert for instances of injustice or discrimination, and to intercede by speaking out against injustice

Pray tell, what part of all of this is supposed to be about dealing with wealth disparities? And again, how can you possibly argue about wealth disparities in terms of gender for college-aged people? It's insane.
by crazygringo | 2025-10-19 18:48:59+00:00
I use all of the current versions of ChatGPT, Gemini, and Claude.

The hallucination rates are about the same as far as I can tell. It depends mostly on how niche the area is, not which model. They do seem to train on somewhat different sets of academic sources, so it's good to use them all.

I'm not talking about deep research or advanced thinking modes -- those are great for some tasks but don't really add anything when you're just looking for all the sources on a subject, as opposed to a research report.
by ssl-3 | 2025-10-19 18:49:10+00:00
PCs used to be pretty noisy even in the 90s.

The drives were numerous (hard, floppy, tape, optical), and the noises were too loud to avoid using diagnostically. Printers clacked and whooshed (and sometimes moved furniture). Scanners sang songs. Monitors produced clicks and pops and buzzes and sizzles, and the flyback transformer would continuously whine at different frequencies depending on mode. Modems made dialing and shrieking noises. Sound cards were anything but silent; a person could hear noises that varied based on the work the system was doing. And for a long while, CPUs and/or front side bus speeds put a lot of noise right in the middle of the FM dial.

Computing is pretty quiet these days.
by cardanome | 2025-10-19 18:51:00+00:00
Where did you hear that? This is completely false.

First of all, when buying a set from Lego you are mostly paying for the actual design of the set and the license for the franchise if it is based on a certain movie or video game. The actual cost of producing the plastic is negligible.

Secondly, those alternative manufacturers do exists and they offer vastly lower prices for the same or better quality. They evidently make money with it.

For example the German company Bluebrixx designs sets and then buys the bricks from Chinese producers like xingbao as a white label solution. Cobi, a polish company, on the other hand even manages to produce in the EU while Lego produces in China and Vietnam and they are still making a profit and have vastly superior quality compared to Lego.
by KaiserPro | 2025-10-19 18:51:35+00:00
The world would be a lot better if people looked at near history more often for the political movements that failed:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_credit

(its where the excess profits from mechinisation will be fed back to the citizens so that they don't need to work as much. That failed spectacularly.)

PG's argument is a huge amount of words to miss the point. Money is a tool that reflects power. Wealth derives from power.

> AI & robots will generate wealth at unprecedented scale. In the future, you won't have a job nor have any money,

I would gently tell you that you might want to look at the living conditions of the working class in the early 20th century. You might see planned cities like borneville or what ever the american version is. they were the 1% of working classes. The average housing was shit, horrid shit. If AI takes off and makes say 10% of the population jobless, thats what those people will get, shit.

It wasn't until those dirty socialists got into power in the UK (I don't know about other countries) did we start to see stuff like slum clearances where the dispossessed we actually re-homed. rather than yeeted to somewhere less valuable.
by hn_throwaway_99 | 2025-10-19 18:52:13+00:00
I don't like "submarine" PR articles like this, because I feel like the author didn't ask any of the obvious questions around this zipper:

1. No closeup pics of how the zipper is actually sewed onto fabrics.

2. Is this design more likely to tear fabrics than a traditional zipper? A video another commenter linked made it look more fragile to me, but I don't know.

3. The biggest issue with any zipper is snags. This design looks like it would be a lot more likely to snag, but maybe not.

4. As other commenters mentioned, can it be repaired without special equipment?

I'm not saying this design is good or bad, just that this puff piece article didn't ask any of the immediate questions I had.
by Theodores | 2025-10-19 18:52:34+00:00
The UK's Natural History Museum is quite instructive. No staff anywhere apart from where money gets taken for food and souvenirs. Free entry to hordes and hordes of children with parents and grandparents in tow.

So how do they manage it?

There is ticket booking, which is done in advance or else there is a queue. Once in, you are just following the same walk as everyone else to see the dinosaurs - what else?!? After the dinosaurs have been seen people can tire themselves out seeing some of the rest of the museum, but most don't see a lot else and head for the gift shop before going home.

At the Louvre they have the slight problem that the hordes are there to see that one painting, the one that isn't exactly massive. Everyone knows exactly what it looks like before taking the pilgrimage. Really they should just get rid of it and put it in on a regional tour indefinitely, so as to share the tourist money elsewhere.
by card_zero | 2025-10-19 18:52:44+00:00
I'm pleased that there are still jewel thieves in the 21st century, perhaps even international jewel thieves, but I have misgivings about the reality. What if they're funding something unpleasant? And did they have to take so many jewels? I appreciate that they're not running a charity, but they could have left some for future jewel thieves.
by onraglanroad | 2025-10-19 18:54:11+00:00
Oh I'm aware workers in the US are treated extremely badly. In the UK statutory maternity pay is 90% of full salary for the first 6 weeks and around $250 a week for the next 33 weeks.

But I was just trying to clarify if work contracts were a normal thing there. The original post said they weren't where you seem to be saying they are, but effectively unenforceable.
by skybrian | 2025-10-19 18:54:45+00:00
I think a lot of people will be okay with paying $20 a month if they're getting value out of it, but it seems like you could just buy an AI subscription from someone else if you're dissatisfied or it's a bit cheaper?

This is not like cell service or your home ISP; there are more choices. Not seeing where the lock-in comes from.
by anon7725 | 2025-10-19 18:55:01+00:00
> Techies are angsty because they are the small minority who will be disrupted. But let's not pretend most of the economy is even amenable to this technology.

Think of all the jobs that do not involve putting your hands on something that is crucial to the delivery of a service (a keyboard, phone, money, etc does not count). All of those jobs are amenable to this technology. It is probably at least 30% of the economy in a first pass, if not more.
by dingnuts | 2025-10-19 18:55:04+00:00
yes, and the fact that the article brushes over this and is so breathless -- it's an ad, right?

My first question was: if they remove the tape, how do you affix it to the garment? and you're right, the article glides over the fact that this company, which is largely a monopoly, is creating garments that will apparently require a proprietary device to repair.

It's like a Juicero ad, but for your fly. I'm good.
by WarOnPrivacy | 2025-10-19 18:56:03+00:00
> One point of clarification, the IC has never been about law enforcement, so complaints about surveilling people not suspected of a crime is a non-sequitor.

It is true that IC and LEO are distinct groups and ought to be considered that way.

Regarding surveillance and specifically the points I raised, I belive the similarities (of LEO and IC) matter more than their differences. Here we can consider them in the same light.

By way of example: While the FBI utilizes IC collected data, they also run their own surveillance units - which present the same issues raised by IC collections. The vast majority of individuals who appear in FBI data are not suspected of a crime and the FBI rarely (if ever) tells meaningful public truths about their collections.
by jgrahamc | 2025-10-19 18:56:14+00:00
It's pretty common for museums here (in Lisbon/Portugal) to offer discounted entry to residents. I was just a the MAAT (for example) and I asked for and got the resident discount.

And there's the scheme which allows residents 52 museum entries per year for free: https://www.museusemonumentos.pt/pt/noticia-com/novo-regime-...
by notthemessiah | 2025-10-19 18:56:50+00:00
The problem is that the AI companies are most interested in displacing the existing labor force more so than they are interested in developing new uses of AI in areas that humans are inherently bad at. They are more interested in replacing good jobs with AI rather than bad jobs. It's not that machines are doing jobs better, they are just doing them for cheaper and by cutting more corners.

Best summarized in this comic: https://x.com/9mmballpoint/status/1658163045502267428
Ask HN: Delay one major discovery by decades–what changes most?
by schrodinger | 2025-10-19 18:57:39+00:00
Thought experiment: Pick one scientific or technological breakthrough and imagine it arrived meaningfully later. How does that change the trajectory of history?

To keep this interesting:

* Keep it plausible—think "transistors delayed 40 years," not "no electricity until 2100."

* Play along with it. Suspend disbelief enough to make it interesting.

* Focus on the _consequences_, not the missing invention. How does this alter the arc of history?

Progress often feels inevitable in hindsight, but it's really a sequence of lucky breaks. Change the timing of one, and everything downstream shifts. What's your parallel universe?
by DiggyJohnson | 2025-10-19 18:58:20+00:00
Even though I disagree with this extension, I do think it’s an interesting and completely valid metaphor for your point.

How would we handle regulating sex bots? Complete ban on manufacturing and import of full size humanoid bots? They are large enough that it could be partially effective I guess. I’m imagining two dudes in a shady meetup for a black market sale of sex bot which is kinda funny but also scary because the future is coming fast.

Or in this case, a husband having police investigate and apprehend the wife in the act? Crazy times.
by somenameforme | 2025-10-19 18:58:56+00:00
I don't think it's the "process" of science that achieved much of anything. You could go back thousands of years ago, teach everybody the scientific method in excruciating detail and it's unlikely much of anything would change. And vice versa the researchers in modern times producing work that has basically 0 ability to be replicated or those overtly pursuing their own biases are equally well aware of the scientific method.

It's actually somewhat hard to say what did change. Einstein, for instance, went to his grave rejecting the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics simply because he felt, solely due to his own personal biases, that the world must be deterministic and rational. His famous quotes like 'spooky action at a distance' or 'god doesn't play dice' were essentially sardonic mocking of the Copenhagen Interpretation, the interpretation we hold to be most accurate to this very day. That's not exactly the behavior of some guy able to step outside the normal ideological biases and bounds that constrains us all, to say the least.

But nonetheless something did change. And similarly, in modern times I think it's very arguable that science has again regressed. Trust in science and scientists isn't declining because of Facebook or Trump or whatever. It's declining because politics and science have once again become deeply intertwined - like they have been for about 99.99% of humanity's entire history, the overwhelming majority of which we achieved essentially 0 from a scientific perspective.
by aleph_minus_one | 2025-10-19 18:58:59+00:00
> The Gell-Mann Amnesia effect. And you're absolutely right, it's extremely pronounced in LLM users.

And I guess a lot of LLM-hype critics have the trait to be much less capable of "being able to flip to the next page and read a story on a subject they're not an expert on and they just accept all of it without question".

Because this is an unusual personality trait, these LLM-hype critics get reprimanded all the time by the "mob" that they don't see the great opportunities that LLMs could bring, even though the LLMs may not be perfect.
by progbits | 2025-10-19 18:59:09+00:00
If you haven't done it before, I strongly recommend picking some RFC and implementing it, with no other references (you can of course look up language and library questions, just without referencing existing implementations or anything specific to that RFC).

It's really nice to have a complete and rigorous specification. It's quite common today for docs to be extremely incomplete or vague, especially as more and more teams use LLM to generate a lot of prose that is devoid of information.

For example 1495 is nice if you like IRC. You can pick to implement a server and try to connect with existing clients to validate your implementation, or make a client and join your favorite server (though test on some test server first).
by homarp | 2025-10-19 18:59:16+00:00
"Eight objects were taken, according to officials: a sapphire diadem, necklace and single earring from a matching set linked to 19th-century French queens Marie-Amélie and Hortense; an emerald necklace and earrings from the matching set of Empress Marie-Louise, Napoleon Bonaparte’s second wife; a reliquary brooch; Empress Eugénie’s diadem; and her large corsage-bow brooch — a prized 19th-century imperial ensemble."
by rpcope1 | 2025-10-19 18:59:20+00:00
> This is not a zero sum game. For an economy to exist we need consumers.

I think that's really unimaginative and not thinking about it right. If you control the basic resources and own the tools needed to convert those into whatever you want, why does the "economy" even matter? If you can get anything you want without needing anything from the other 95% of people, having "consumers" in the sense you're thinking doesn't matter any more.
by bigstrat2003 | 2025-10-19 18:59:38+00:00
When I visited the Louvre it was absolutely wild to me how many people were just there for the Mona Lisa. I took a look at it in person because of course I did, but I don't think it was anywhere close to the most interesting piece the museum has on display (I preferred the classical sculptures), nor even the best painting. It seems like such a waste for people to fawn over that one painting and pretty much ignore all the other masterpieces you can see there.