MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by zackmorris | 2025-10-26 19:01:42+00:00
I just heard about this post, so did a quick search and currently it looks like Sriko is the only company providing affordable sodium-ion batteries. They appear to be within about half the energy density of lithium-ion batteries. I used AI (first Google then Bing because it has ChatGPT 5) to create tables comparing battery types:

A($/Wh) D(Wh/kg) D(Wh/L) P($) E(Wh) M(kg) Vol(L) V(V) C S URL(Sodium-ion) 0.46 97.50 235.79 1.81 3.9 0.04 0.017 3.0 3000 18650 https://srikobatteries.com/product/sodium-ion-18650-3-0v-1-3ah-3-90wh-20c-rechargeable-battery/ 0.34 114.29 258.31 3.23 9.6 0.084 0.037 3.0 3000 26700 https://srikobatteries.com/product/sodium-ion-26700-3-0v-3-2ah-9-60wh-3c-rechargeable-battery/ 0.32 134.78 258.89 9.98 31.0 0.23 0.120 3.1 5000 33140 https://srikobatteries.com/product/sodium-ion-battery-33140-3-1v-10ah-31wh-12c-cylindrical-battery/ 0.40 112.50 224.09 21.85 54.0 0.48 0.241 3.0 5000 46145 https://srikobatteries.com/product/sodium-ion-46145-3-0v-18ah-54wh-10c-rechargeable-battery/ 0.20 122.22 231.09 43.70 220.0 1.8 0.952 3.2 5000 pack https://srikobatteries.com/product/sodium-ion-na-5c-70ah-220wh-battery/ C($/Wh) D(Wh/kg) D(Wh/L) P($) E(Wh) M(kg) Vol(L) V(V) C S URL(Lithium-ion) 0.23 252.00 761.77 2.85 12.6 0.05 0.017 3.6 300 18650 https://www.18650batterystore.com/products/samsung-35e 0.16 262.01 742.41 2.85 18.0 0.069 0.024 3.6 300 21700 https://www.18650batterystore.com/products/samsung-50e O: outlay D: density P: price E: energy M: mass Vol: volume V: voltage C: cycles S: size Note: 26700 is not the same as 27100, they are just what each site specializes in. Comment: I think that it should have been 18065 instead of 18650 because then the last 3 digits could be length in mm, same for the others, but what do I know. Edit: I forgot to add cycles. When considered, they drop the price of sodium-ion to roughly 5-10 times less than lithium-ion for the batteries shown here.
by isodev | 2025-10-26 19:03:04+00:00
> more a topic of plagiarism than copyright

You’re right, in the context of a technical legal interpretation they’re different. In the context of right or wrong, they amount to the same.

> anyone who studies GCC internals

LLMs are not a someone, they’re more like … the indigo printout of some text or design, you then use to make a scrapbook to be mass produced for profit. Very different situation.

When the AI bubble pops, I hope we will have some equalisation back to something more ethical.
by bongodongobob | 2025-10-26 19:03:11+00:00
I agree. It's an interesting discussion for those who have never taken college level philosophy classes I suppose. What consciousness/thought is is still a massively open question. Seeing people in the comments with what they think is their novel solution has already been posited like 400 years ago. Honestly it's kind of sad seeing this stuff on a forum like this. These posts are for sure the worst of Hackernews.
by NitpickLawyer | 2025-10-26 19:03:17+00:00
I'd say yes, by at least one old definition made by someone who was at the time in a position to have a definition.

When deepmind was founded (2010) their definition was the following: AI is a system that learns to perform one thing; AGI is a system that learns to perform many things at the same time.

I would say that whatever we have today, "as a system" matches that definition. In other words, the "system" that is say gpt5/gemini3/etc has learned to "do" (while do is debateable) a lot of tasks (read/write/play chess/code/etc) "at the same time". And from a "pure" ML point, it learned those things from the "simple" core objective of next token prediction (+ enhancements later, RL, etc). That is pretty cool.

So I can see that as an argument for "yes".

But, even the person who had that definition has "moved the goalposts" of his own definition. From recent interviews, Hassabis has moved towards a definition that resembles the one from this paper linked here. So there's that. We are all moving the goalposts.

And it's not a recent thing. People did this back in the 80s. There's the famous "As soon as AI does something, it ceases to be AI" or paraphrased "AI is everything that hasn't been done yet".
by theaniketgiri | 2025-10-26 19:04:37+00:00
Totally fair question!

Docs / Markdown: AI handled repetitive stuff like READMEs and summaries.

Core logic / Python: fully written by me.

Commit messages: some minimal ones just for quick iterations — the real work is in the code.

AI helped with boilerplate so I could ship faster; all functionality is hand-crafted.
by DrewADesign | 2025-10-26 19:05:24+00:00
Unfortunately, like most other kinds of commercial art, the mere presence of generated literature waters down the market enough to make actual literature essentially a leisure activity. Sure there was always crap, derivative filler books — it’s just that the ratio will now be 1000x worse and the better of the books just won’t justify the funding for intensive work and novel research that they used to, so even the good ones will probably be worse. Yet another example of the efficiency-obsessed more cheaper > less more expensive mentality making our world worse.
by cjbarber | 2025-10-26 19:05:34+00:00
Some AGI definition variables I see:

Is it about jobs/tasks, or cognitive capabilities? The majority of the AI-valley seems to focus on the former, TFA focuses on the latter.

Can it do tasks, or jobs? Jobs are bundles of tasks. AI might be able to do 90% of tasks for a given job, but not the whole job.

If tasks, what counts as a task: Is it only specific things with clear success criteria? That's easier.

Is scaffolding allowed: Does it need to be able to do the tasks/jobs without scaffolding and human-written few-shot prompts?

Today's tasks/jobs only, or does it include future ones too? As tasks and jobs get automated, jobs evolve and get re-defined. So, being able to do the future jobs too is much harder.

Remote only, or in-person too: In-person too is a much higher bar.

What threshold of tasks/jobs: "most" is apparently typically understood to mean 80-95% (Mira Ariel). Automating 80% of tasks is different to 90% and 95% and 99%. diminishing returns. And how are the tasks counted - by frequency, by dollar-weighted, by unique count of tasks?

Only economically valuable tasks/jobs, or does it include anything a human can do?

A high-order bit on many people's AGI timelines is which definition of AGI they're using, so clarifying the definition is nice.
by mafuy | 2025-10-26 19:07:13+00:00
Fwiw, I fully agree with you. Any MS Office between 2000 and 2013 was consistent and easy to use with some experience. LibreOffice is not. It has such a strange UI and has needlessly complicated or convoluted ways to do things. It feels like waterfall/checklist software where everything "is technically possible".

I switched to OnlyOffice even though its capabilities are extremely limited for any non-trivial use case.
by inovaitech | 2025-10-26 19:07:45+00:00
A look into how AI and automation are shaping innovation: <h2>Introduction</h2> <p>Are you looking to supercharge your productivity at work? In today&#8217;s fast-paced world, having the right tools can make all the difference. Discover the best productivity apps that can help you streamline your tasks, stay organized, and enhance your overall efficiency.</p> <h2>Boost Your Efficiency with Productivity Apps</h2> <h3>Why Productivity Apps Matter</h3> <p>Productivity apps are designed to help you work smarter, not harder. By utilizing the right tools, you can optimize your workflow, prioritize tasks, and eliminate distractions.</p><div class="inova-contenido" id="inova-1753574472"><script async src="//pagead2.googlesyndication.com/pagead/js/adsbygoogle.js?client=ca-pub-3819610652573424" crossorigin="anonymous"></script><ins class="adsbygoogle" style="display:block; text-align:center;" data-ad-client="ca-pub-3819610652573424" data-ad-slot="7238266388" data-ad-layout="in-article" data-ad-format="fluid"></ins> <script> (adsbygoogle = window.adsbygoogle || []).push({}); </script> </div> <h3>Top Productivity Apps to Consider</h3> <ul> <li><strong>Todoist:</strong> A versatile task manager that lets you create to-do lists, set reminders, and collaborate with team members.</li> <li><strong>Evernote:</strong> Capture ideas, notes, and tasks in one place and access them from any device.</li> <li><strong>Trello:</strong> Organize projects into boards, lists, and cards to visually track progress and manage tasks efficiently.</li> <li><strong>Forest:</strong> Boost your focus and productivity by planting virtual trees while staying away from your phone.</li> </ul> <h3>Maximize Your Workflow</h3> <p>By incorporating these productivity apps into your daily routine, you can streamline your workflow, prioritize tasks effectively, and achieve more in less time. Take advantage of the features offered by these tools to enhance your efficiency at work.</p> <h2>Conclusion</h2> <p>Enhance your productivity and streamline your work tasks with the top productivity apps available today. By leveraging these tools, you can optimize your workflow, stay organized, and achieve your goals more efficiently. Try out these apps and discover a new level of productivity!</p>
by darepublic | 2025-10-26 19:07:51+00:00
I don't quite understand how you get from this:

> I wanted to understand how these things work by building one myself.

Directly to this:

What if training an LLM was as easy as npx create-next-app?

I mean that the second thought seems to be the opposite of the first (what if the entirety of training llm was abstracted behind a simple command)
by ls612 | 2025-10-26 19:09:46+00:00
My dad’s dad died when he was 13, and this dropped his family from upper middle class to basically in poverty except for owning a fully paid off house. It radically colored his outlook on life and left him risk averse and frugal, even to the expense of his quality of life. What’s the point of saving up an 8 figure nest egg and working into your 70s if you spend less than 100k/year?

I’m lucky to have him still at the age of 30 but it’s clear how traumatic losing a parent young is.
by jimleroyer | 2025-10-26 19:10:32+00:00
He has the lowest first 100 days polls amongst presidents, beaten only by himself on his first term. On his current & second term, he is losing on what should should be strong issues historically for the gop such as the economy and immigration. His core base is indeed difficult to move but independents are not.

* https://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/statistics/data/presidential... * https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-lowest-100-day-approva...

Now that was 100 days, but we are 278 days into his second term now. The polls went down further and polls on issues he should have addressed are not going up.

For a better view of what's normal and compared with presidency of the past:

* https://news.gallup.com/interactives/507569/presidential-job...

The first 6 months are usually a honey moon period. The full effect of Trump's policies are still to be felt, and with the current political / economic / legal / etc.. context, the approval ratings won't go up.

But indeed, his core is difficult to move. My opinion on what follows, but I think they attached too much of their identity to the guy and their coping mechanism will be studied for decades to come in political, psychology and history classes.
by array_key_first | 2025-10-26 19:10:42+00:00
Not that I can think of, but the reason I think it happened for AI so quickly:

AI enshittified way, WAY too quickly.

The thing is that all these tech companies are really just innovating new ways to scam consumers into adopting something that's worse for them. They just subsidize the bad stuff and, eventually, have to start bleeding consumers dry.

Uber is now more expensive than taxis, AirBNB is more expensive than hotels, placing an order online is more inconvenient than calling, and on and on. But it took decades for this to transpire. For a long time, these new things were actually better.

But AI was pushed so hard, so severely, that it became enshittified way too quick. And consumers are already on guard after seeing tech A-Z slowly make their life worse.
by commandersaki | 2025-10-26 19:11:40+00:00
I don't see how any of what you said makes Swift memory unsafe. Memory safety is about security, not about whether or not the program crashes, in fact you want a crash as opposed to continuing on which could admit corruption.

From that article I linked:

If you have conflicting access to memory from within a single thread, Swift guarantees that you’ll get an error at either compile time or runtime.

Does any of what you said lead to a vulnerability that can be exploited?
by kelseyfrog | 2025-10-26 19:13:18+00:00
There's at least two distinct basis in AGI refutations : behaviorist and ontological. They often get muddled.

I can't begin to count the number of times I've encountered someone who holds an ontological belief for why AGI cannot exist and then for some reason formulates it as a behavioralist criteria. This muddying of argument results in what looks like a moving of the goalposts. I'd encourage folks to be more clear whether they believe AGI is ontologically possible or impossible in addition to any behavioralist claims.
by amarant | 2025-10-26 19:13:28+00:00
According to Randall Munroe, you'd actually experience less radiation about a metre under the water in a spent fuel pool then you do walking down the street.

https://what-if.xkcd.com/29/

On a tangent, I kinda love the fact that I've learned more about nuclear physics, orbital mechanics, and relativistic speeds from a poorly drawn webcomic than I have from any other source. (Ok KSP might actually have xkcd beat on orbital mechanics)
by wakawaka28 | 2025-10-26 19:13:54+00:00
Your views are contradictory. Copyright shouldn't exist, but the businesses infringing on it are the bad ones?

>We have to perpetually pay them for their works and if we break their little software locks it's felony contempt of business model

You don't have to pay them, or break their restrictions.

>but they get to train their AIs on our works and reproduce them infinitely and with total impunity without paying us a cent.

You don't need to allow this either. Unfortunately open-source code is necessarily public.

>It's that "rules for thee but not for me" nonsense that makes me reach such extreme logical conclusions that I feel empathy for terrorists.

The way LLMs use code is fundamentally different from wholesale copying. If someone read your code and paraphrased it and tweaked it, it would be a completely new work not subject to the original copyright. At least it would be really hard to get a court to regard it as an infringement. This is like what LLMs do.
by NitpickLawyer | 2025-10-26 19:14:08+00:00
Interesting read. I agree completely with their Introduction, that the definition of AGI is constantly shifting, and this leads to endless (and useless) debates.

What I find cool about the paper is that they have gathered folks from lots of places (berkley, stanford, mit, etc). And no big4 labs. That's good imo.

tl;dr; Their definition: "AGI is an AI that can match or exceed the cognitive versatility and proficiency of a well-educated adult."

Cool. It's a definition. I doubt it will be agreed on by everyone, and I can see endless debates about just about every word in that definition. That's not gonna change. At least it's a starting point.

What I find interesting is that they specifically say it's not a benchmark, or a test set. It's a framework where they detail what should be tested, and how (with examples). They do have a "catchy" table with gpt4 vs gpt5, that I bet will be covered by every mainstream/blog/forum/etc out there -> gpt5 is at ~50% AGI. Big title. You won't believe where it was one year ago. Number 7 will shock you. And all that jazz.

Anyway, I don't think people will stop debating about AGI. And I doubt this methodology will be agreed on by everyone. At the end of the day both extremes are more ideological in nature than pragmatic. Both end want/need their view to be correct.

I enjoyed reading it. Don't think it will settle anything. And, as someone posted below, when the first model will hit 100% on their framework, we'll find new frameworks to debate about, just like we did with the turing test :)
by dns_snek | 2025-10-26 19:14:10+00:00
> If you’re thinking as a strategist, however, outcomes are what matter. And on an outcome basis, October 7 was strategically stupid

"It didn't work therefore it was stupid to even try" is one hell of a way to judge strategic decisions. When all your options have a near-0% chance of success, everything is going to look "stupid" in retrospect, by that logic.
by doublerabbit | 2025-10-26 19:14:51+00:00
Most UK domestic ISP's are part of the IWF (Internet Watch Foundation) where your net passes through a transparent squid proxy. [0]

As well as "family friendly filters" that block rouge sites via their own DNS.

[0] https://www.blocked.org.uk/about

And if you're a person of interest your connection is routes through GCHQ Cheltenham.

So it wouldn't be to hard for Ofcom to apply a filter. If they did expect domestic ISPs will comply but hopefully independent ISPs won't.
by tialaramex | 2025-10-26 19:15:42+00:00
Right, mini-spoiler if you've never reached 50 stars for a year:

The 50th star is awarded for having the other 49 stars and then basically clicking OK I think. If you've been diligently solving them in order, it means you effectively get two stars for your final 49th puzzle of the year on Christmas Day, which makes sense because then the puzzles are very hard and a "normal" puzzle wouldn't leave much time for other Christmas Day activities. But if you're the sort of person who often gives up on a day and never comes back you may never have seen this because you never got to 49 stars.

You're not quite right that the Christmas Day puzzle is trivial - it's the first half of a maybe week 1 type difficulty puzzle, but there just isn't a second half:

Here's the puzzle text for last year's Xmas Day (if you are logged in you can play, but even without it will explain the puzzle it just won't give you an input to test your solution):

https://adventofcode.com/2024/day/25
by charlycst | 2025-10-26 19:16:14+00:00
Another way to build emulators that I am very interested in is to start from a spec, and automatically translate it into executable code. High-fidelity emulators have a lot of potential for testing and verification.

The best example I know of is Sail [1]. Among other, they have RISC-V spec [2] and a bunch of compiler back-ends. They can already generate C or OCaml emulators, and I have been working on a new Rust back-end recently.

[1]: https://github.com/rems-project/sail [2]: https://github.com/riscv/sail-riscv
by richardlblair | 2025-10-26 19:16:51+00:00
The technical capacity of a CTO matters less then the CTOs ability to stay in their lane (for a lack of a better term).

I once worked for a company with a self taught CTO (and not the good kind). They had a number of star players, and this CTO would frequently lash out at them. All because he was getting in the way of them doing their jobs, doing work he wasn't qualified to do, trying forcing them to clean up after him, and then yelling at them for it. It was insanely toxic. I only lasted a few months. It was so bad I back channelled patches and project briefs to people he liked to get them approved.

Had this CTO remained people, project and product focused everything would have been fine.
by mycodendral | 2025-10-26 19:16:56+00:00
None of my points or clarifications hinge on a specific crime. Those were your incorrect projections.

You say, ‘I’m doubting the validity of the investigation. It appears as though they are not investigating a crime.’ Do you have evidence for that, or are you basing it entirely on the phrase ‘investigating a protest’? What do you think that means, and what exactly are you asserting they are doing?
by array_key_first | 2025-10-26 19:17:37+00:00
I think it's pretty much indisputable that AI is currently in a bubble and our economy will, eventually, crash. I mean the S&P 500 is, what, 10% nvidia? And all these companies are just... buying from each other and then giving it back. It's some of the most blatant stock engineering I've ever seen.

What we don't know, of course, is when that will happen. Because a lot of people have a real monetary incentive to pretend it isn't happening.
FAANG/BigTech Exit Path?
by conqrr | 2025-10-26 19:17:50+00:00
Curious how do current FAANG and BigTech folks living in VHCOL areas think of their path ahead? Specifically, Senior IC folks. The old playbook of switching for a higher pay when things go sour is no longer valid. Things would go sour around 3-4 years along with RSUs. But now they seem to be in a never ending sour loop. Almost all tech companies have toxic work setting. Not everyone is willing to sacrifice everything and all of their time for these new AI mission companies. Makes it harder to upskill. If you stay, you stagnate and your workload keeps going up but not pay. If you're on a visa, its even more harder.

For those of you that have a job but unhappy and find it unsustainable, What are you doing? Have you had success taking a paycut and moving to a lower COL area?
by zahlman | 2025-10-26 19:18:04+00:00
> For what it's worth, I'd guess there is a real author, whose command of the English language is worse than ChatGPT, and who asked the LLM to rewrite his work in the right style for the website.

Sure. But if the author doesn't notice the nonsense that the LLM is introducing, it harms as well as helping.

"Primed for colour" is a strangely uninteresting thing to be saying about the sacks. If this requires any non-trivial effort, it would make more sense to describe the process. If the author actually wanted to talk about that, chances are the LLM removed useful information.

And putting aside that "These weren’t just any flour sacks either — they were durable, easy to roll up, and ready for reuse." is three "classic LLM tropes" in a row ("not just any"; a gratuitous emdash where any dash at all only becomes necessary because of that introduction; an ascending tricolon), it's just a bizarre thing to say. First off, if the sacks were sewn together to make a larger banner, then it doesn't make sense to talk about rolling up the individual sacks. Second, the phrasing suggests something exceptional, but these are all totally ordinary and trivial properties of pretty much any sort of flour sack. Many different materials are used, but all of them would be "easy to roll up" when empty, and making them durable and reusable is just common sense in that environment. The artists were clearly just using a fairly obvious material they had at hand, so this sudden bit of marketing-speak is entirely out of place. Third, the features highlighted all have to do with the sacks, but not with either each other nor the banners. In particular, a sack being "ready for reuse" is ready for reuse as a sack, not for its material being repurposed for something completely different (we typically call that "recycling", not "reuse").

The bit about "the designs" may well even be true, but it's a complete non-sequitur here, a point that doesn't really merit deeper explanation.

The writing isn't just "banal" but nonsensical in context, veering off into free-association. There's more potentially being hallucinated here than just the "facts". Never mind the accuracy or truth of what's written; this sort of thing makes it hard to accept that the prose even reflects the author's intent.
by incomingpain | 2025-10-26 19:18:37+00:00
>Are there any actual good studies that show what jobs are declining right now due to AI? not what theoretically could be?

Unemployment:

Singapore 2%

Russia 2.1%

South Korea 2.5%

Japan 2.6%

Denmark 2.6%

Switzerland 2.8%

Mexico 2.9%

Israel 2.9%

Taiwan 3.35%

Netherlands 4%

United States 4.3%

The premise of the point is job losses but that's not happening. I reject the premise and so no study is needed. You might look at:

Spain 10.45%

Finland 9.1%

Sweden 8.3%

Greece 8.1%

France 7.5%

But none of these are because of AI, it's because of government policies which cause unemployment.