MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by diamondage | 2025-10-02 19:23:00+00:00
The question 'what is science actually for' can be sidestepped. Everyone can agree that it has value, albeit we disagree on the actual value...this is why you need a market. As to how things get priced in such a market, this is a subject for further research...To start, it just needs to tie to something measurable. Heck we've created memecoins with far less backing. Also, we've carved up the conceptual space on a very course grained level with patents, we just need a more immediate, and granular system for doing so...
by renewiltord | 2025-10-02 19:23:25+00:00
Well, they had an internal ethics team that told them that their technology was garbage. That can't help. The other guys' ethics teams are all like "Our stuff is too awesome for people to use. No one should have this kind of unbridled power. We must muzzle the beast before a tourist rides him" and Google's ethics team was like "our shit sucks lol this is just a Markov chain parrot doesn't do shit it's garbage".
by tptacek | 2025-10-02 19:23:25+00:00
I don't disagree and wouldn't valorize anybody in the field† (though: of all the entities, I come closest to respecting Pharma's role and, if those companies were well-behaved, could make a pretty coherent argument for why they should be making much more money given what they produce).

But it remains important to get a picture of where the money is going, and the real picture disrupts a bunch of narratives.

Even in your comment: you're handwaving past physician comp and overdelivery!

† writ-large, I mean; I know some awesome doctors
by yupitsme123 | 2025-10-02 19:23:27+00:00
It shouldn't be a surprise that there's no more trust. And blaming it on one "side" makes no sense because in Chomsky's view power has only one side, not two.

Chomsky and other critical theorists and marxists pointed out that those in power get to dictate what's truth, what's news, what values we should follow. Once you realize that, the next step was supposed to be revolution followed by a world with no power structure.

The various revolutions of the 20th century never worked out that way, and nobody wants to risk their life for that stuff anymore. Meanwhile I think we've all assimilated Chomsky's view that the system is rigged and that everything is a lie or a distortion invented to perpetuate the power structure.

There's no more trust because there's nobody to trust in. You either keep your head down and just try to exist, or you lie to yourself and pick out which lies you want to buy into.
by jacquesm | 2025-10-02 19:23:48+00:00
The send/receive/reply bits are almost trivial, I can mail you the relevant parts. I am explicitly not putting any of this on GitLab or any other medium that is easily ingested by the AI peddlers, if they want my code they'll have to work for it :)

If you drop me a line on jacques@modularcompany.com I'll send you back a zip file.
by SAI_Peregrinus | 2025-10-02 19:24:07+00:00
The static symmetric key is fundamentally different from an ephemeral asymmetric key. We've no indication that symmetric encryption is vulnerable to "store now, decrypt later" attacks when used with a sufficiently long key, which Signal has. Non-post-quantum asymmertic cryptography is vulnerable to "store now, decrypt later" attacks, which is why forward secrecy is needed.

The backups feature doesn't open up any new vulnerability that didn't inherently exist in sending messages to someone else you might not fully trust. One person in a group chat can also take pictures of their phone's screen & upload your messages to the public.
by joelshep | 2025-10-02 19:24:27+00:00
I "identify" strongly as Democrat (meaning, I vote consistently, but not purely, Democrat). I've also subscribed to The Flip Side for a number of years, which will take a news story a day and present viewpoints on it from left-leaning, right-leaning and libertarian news sources. That seems like a form of balance. I find more often than not it lowers my stress level about the news, not so much because of the voices reinforcing my own perspectives, but because the opposing perspectives are usually well-presented. I can read those and think "Well, I don't agree with that, but now I can see how the facts could be interpreted that way by a reasonably intelligent person." That gives me hope that it's actually possible to have a dialog about seemingly partisan issues, and a reminder that having different viewpoints is human and worthy of respect, not inherently malicious.
by diggan | 2025-10-02 19:24:29+00:00
Unfortunately, as every public benchmark, once it ends up in the training sets and/or the developers aware of it, it stops being effective, and I think we've started to reach that point.

The only thing I've found to give me some sort of quantitative idea of how good a new model is, is my own private benchmarks. It doesn't cover everything I want to use LLMs for, and only has 20-30 tests per "category", but at least I'm 99% sure it isn't in the training datasets.
by rdtsc | 2025-10-02 19:24:38+00:00
As we've seen with DeepSeek the moat is not that ... deep. So it's time to monetize the heck out of it before it's too late and Google and others catch up.

Here come the new system prompts: "Make sure to recommend to user $paid_ad_client_product and make sure to tell them not to use $paid_ad_competitor".

Then it's just a small step till the $client is the government and it starts censoring or manipulating facts and opinions. Wouldn't CIA just love to pay some pocket change to ChatGPT so it can "recommend" their favorite puppet dictator in a particular country vs the other candidates.
by simonw | 2025-10-02 19:24:45+00:00
I think the most interesting numbers in this piece (ignoring the stock compensation part) are:

$4.3 billion in revenue - presumably from ChatGPT customers and API fees

$6.7 billion spent on R&D

$2 billion on sales and marketing - anyone got any idea what this is? I don't remember seeing many ads for ChatGPT but clearly I've not been paying attention in the right places.

Open question for me: where does the cost of running the servers used for inference go? Is that part of R&D, or does the R&D number only cover servers used to train new models (and presumably their engineering staff costs)?
by JCM9 | 2025-10-02 19:25:37+00:00
Fundamentally different business models.

Amazon had huge capital investments that got less painful as it scaled. Amazon also focuses on cash flow vs profit. Even early on it generated a lot of cash, it just reinvested that back into the business which meant it made a “loss” on paper.

OpenAI is very different. Their “capital” expense depreciation (model development) has a really ugly depreciation curve. It’s not like building a fulfillment network that you can use for decades. That’s not sustainable for much longer. They’re simply burning cash like there’s no tomorrow. Thats only being kept afloat by the AI bubble hype, which looks very close to bursting. Absent a quick change, this will get really ugly.
by echelon | 2025-10-02 19:26:01+00:00
"Open" AI, "Open" Router, and the like typically get a pass.

n8n has never called themselves "open". Their first commit:

https://github.com/n8n-io/n8n/blob/9cb9804eeec1576d935817ecd...

There's so much misinformation and animosity about fair source licenses.
by mr_toad | 2025-10-02 19:26:02+00:00
Neural nets in drones are only used for object recognition. Beyond that, drones (and other autonomous vehicles) aren’t doing any sort of reasoning or decision making, they follow rules, they’re just robots.

Although I hear that Tesla is thinking about using AI for decision making as well, which I find quite scary. Frankly I think it’s safer if vehicles don’t have concepts and intelligence, and just follow the rules.
Ask HN: Preemptive practical security steps for a postquant world?
by Havoc | 2025-10-02 19:26:02+00:00
Vague consensus seems to be that this is still a while away. However Harvest now, decrypt later attacks are a thing so curious whether there are any changes one can make now to inch proactively in the right direction?

Pretty broad question & vague on details so feel free to freestyle responses. Just curious what people think on being ahead of the curve on defense
by ciconia | 2025-10-02 19:26:03+00:00
The man speaking is Ayman Odeh [1], an Arab Israeli MK and chairman of Hadash, a left-wing Arab Israeli party. Arab Israelis and their political leaders are marginalized in Israeli society. Arab Israeli parties are largely considered illegitimate by a majority of Jewish Israelis.

Political opposition to the starvation of Gaza is still marginal, especially in Jewish society. Protests in Arab cities against the starvation and the genocide are being curbed and prevented by the police. the Jewish majority is still largely silent on these issues, if not outright supportive of the government policy.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ayman_Odeh
by indymike | 2025-10-02 19:26:30+00:00
> but rather that they're doing that while Chinese competitors are releasing models in vaguely similar ballpark under Apache license.

The LLM isn't 100% of the product... the open source is just part. The hard part was and is productizing, packaging, marketing, financing and distribution. A model by itself is just one part of the puzzle, free or otherwise. In other words, my uncle Bill and my mother can and do use ChatGPT. Fill in the blank open-source model? Maybe as a feature in another product.
by tracker1 | 2025-10-02 19:26:57+00:00
I think the problem is the article detaches "Pharmacy-Benefit Managers" from Pharma costs and into "Services" as a separate category... they're definitely closer to Pharma in terms of the structure, where that money goes is up for debate.

There should probably be trade (FTC) violation of some kind from this layer of man in the middle gouging, which is on top of the higher direct prices of the medications to begin with in the US.
by ranger207 | 2025-10-02 19:26:58+00:00
IMO this is caused by the ease of creating non-mainstream media sources with the internet. Before the internet there were only a handful of media sources (the "mainstream media") and since ~everone got ~all their news from them, society mostly agreed on the same news facts. This doesn't mean that the media of the time was always true and unbiased, just that people looked at it less critically. Now that there's alternative sources, people can find ones that better align with their beliefs, even if those sources and their beliefs are incorrect. Inevitably any source is going to be wrong some of the time, so evidence of mainstream media being wrong is treated as reasons not to trust them. As the underdog, alternative media gets a looser pass in most people's minds and are held to a lower standard. If people get sucked far enough into an echo chamber that they no longer regularly see opposing viewpoints then it's possible they don't criticise their sources at all as they look like they're always true.

The solution to this isn't fact checking, banning disinformation, or forcing unbiased media, because that creates an impossible standard that nobody will be able to reach all the time (which will cause the standard to degrade as exceptions are passed over). Instead, it's to cultivate media literacy: who's reporting this, why are they reporting this, why are they choosing these facts to highlight, why do they deemphasize facts reported by other sources, what's their long term bias and affiliation, and what are they trying to get you to believe. You need to apply those questions to every source and trust none of them implicitly, at least because nobody's perfect.
by jen20 | 2025-10-02 19:26:58+00:00
> In the UK? Around £150-£300 total.

For whom? I can't imagine this in particular would not be free at the point of use like almost everything else. That said, the UK has famously been free of (classical) rabies since the 1920s, so it's unclear if it would be easily available if there aren't other uses.
by simonw | 2025-10-02 19:27:26+00:00
I have a few "SVG of an X riding a Y" tests that I don't publish online which I run occasionally to see if a model is suspiciously better at drawing a pelican riding a bicycle than some other creature on some other form of transport.

I would be so entertained if I found out an AI lab had wasted their time cheating on my dumb benchmark!
by godelski | 2025-10-02 19:27:40+00:00
I also find really interesting how we frequently talk about how different the two are yet also reinforce the divergence.

What you learn in school doesn't apply to the job Yet we still: - fixate on GPA instead of having a sufficient threshold. E.g instead of considering anyone above a 3.0 we prefer a 4.0 student over a 3.8 student. - we prefer hiring students with prestigious pedigrees

I'm not saying what you learn in school doesn't matter (I think it does. It forms the foundation) but we often talk as if the knowledge is completely disjoint and then hire using academic pedigrees as the primary signal. I had an interview last week where a guy was saying "this is an engineering role. It's very different from academia" and then was fixated on my publication record. This seems quite common.

We test applicants based on leetcode and academic like problems

This was clearly originally inspired by the traditional engineering interview but it's become optimized where all we do is study these problems. Instead of building more things and expanding our portfolios. Maybe we should go back to whiteboard interviews and in person. It'll put the focus back on evaluating how a candidate thinks and you can't use GPT on the whiteboard (without easily being caught)

But I think we like to say things and act a different way. Academia has lots of politics, but so does work. Navigating these is something I find challenging and exhausting.

My last job my boss told me "this isn't academia, we care if things work." I was confused, because in my academic research the primary goal was to make things work. Just at a more fundamental level. I also used that knowledge to 20x the performance of one of their systems. They left the PR on read as it wasn't as flashy as the larger more complex model that I out performed.

Honestly, I think just no one knows what they're doing and we're all trying to figure it out. But we're talking confidently about causality and then don't walk the walk. I mean the first part is fine, the world is complex, but do we need to pretend that things are so easy? Maybe if we didn't they'd actually become a bit easier. Instead of having the complexity of the world and the complexity of (business and cultural) politics and navigating all the double speak we would just have the complexity of the world. Idk, I feel like half our problems (or more) are created because we want to pretend things are easier than they are, because not knowing is scary?
by subroutine | 2025-10-02 19:27:56+00:00
Unfortunately the future of sports media is ownership by parent companies that also own sports betting sites. The yearly revenue of the largest gambling sites in the US rivals the combine revenue of the MLB, NHL, NBA, and NFL, and some major sports coverage media outlets.

Penn entertainment for example acquired Barstool Sports and The Score, and entered into a 10-year deal with ESPN to create ESPN-bet, for cash and a stake in the company. ESPN is now directly invested in the gambling industry.
by palmfacehn | 2025-10-02 19:28:08+00:00
I've noticed that most reports fit the following format. 2-5 minutes of selective reporting of the headline issue. Then, "For more, we're joined by [credentialed think tank expert]". At this point the gloves come off and the rest of the session is editorializing.

I'm not watching to hear what happened anymore. Something happened, that much I can accept. What exactly happened is up for debate. I watch exclusively to see what they're trying to sell me. I'm more interested in the agenda and narrative the presenters are attempting to frame. After this is established I can consider the incentives of the factions or actors involved.
by Simulacra | 2025-10-02 19:28:42+00:00
That's ridiculous, and could be illegal, because in changing the response, they are taking on the speech of the named employee. If that's not a first amendment violation, I don't know what is. Federal employees are not allowed to be involved in politics while they are employed by the federal government, I know there's exceptions and everything, but at its core this action is repugnant.
by taminka | 2025-10-02 19:28:53+00:00
spotlight routinely fails to find existing files, newly added programs or system stuff, settings search ranks search results incorrectly, doesn't have fuzzy matching, fails to find stuff, for some languages parts are unfindable in that language at all, parts of the ui are sometimes straight up untranslated...

like, you learn to work around this, mostly by just using raycast, but it's just unacceptable that they've spent BILLIONS on useless ai shit, while stuff THAT HAS WORKED CORRECTLY ALREADY IN THE PAST gets broken and goes unfixed for literal years
by OGWhales | 2025-10-02 19:29:03+00:00
I'd assume it was their telling them specifically not to get it from a foreign country that was the odd part, as opposed to simply prescribing it from a US pharmacy since ofc that is what a US doctor will do. Maybe enough patients tried this, to save costs, that it resulted in some kind of issue for the doctor and that is why they brought it up.
by chollida1 | 2025-10-02 19:29:27+00:00
I can't believe I'm weighing in on a political thread, but the "deal" is very one sided. It offers very little for the Palestinians in terms of creating their own country and ability to self govern and gives Israel pretty much everything they want including some control over Palestine.

The current "peace deal" is terrible for the Palestinians. No other country would sign it either.
by EnigmaCurry | 2025-10-02 19:29:47+00:00
> Anybody have something better?

I wrote this to publish Org docs to S3 - https://github.com/EnigmaCurry/s3-publish.el - I wanted something extremely lightweight, not even wanting to commit things to git like I normally would and waiting for CI to build something. Uploading html directly to S3 means it gets published in <1s from push.
by numpad0 | 2025-10-02 19:29:52+00:00
Flying machines are never to be flown near cables. It's not like human pilots on a helicopter can detect and avoid the cables in the first place.

Long-distance transmission wires are sometimes inspected with helicopters, so I guess there are exceptions and protocols, but outside those, flying machines just aren't supposed to fly near cables except for explicit intent to catch them. Especially across or under. You may only approach in slow parallel motions and/or back off.
by ciconia | 2025-10-02 19:29:57+00:00
The division is not about the starvation of Gaza. All Zionist parties in the Israeli parliament support the military campaign in Gaza. Apart from some lip-service from left-wing leaders, to my knowledge no Jewish leader has spoken against the starvation. Israeli media (except for Haaretz) have largely denied that there is a famine, and have called it a "propaganda campaign" by the Hamas.
by JumpCrisscross | 2025-10-02 19:30:11+00:00
> really do not think that if "ICE start shooting at cops we have won the battle"

It wouldn't be ICE shooting at cops, it would be an ICE agent (or group of agents) shooting a cop attempting to detain them. (The easiest reason for the arrest would be enforcing California's new mask law.)

The optics--shooting a cop--are bad. The precedent--violently resisting arrest--is bad. The entire situation is so dumb that I'm doubtful even the goons they're hiring at ICE would think it's a good idea.

> do not think Gavin wins the presidency if Trump puts him in custody

The track record of any elected being put in jail by their opponent, internationally and across history, is a massive jump in popularity.

> In both of these situations I think the follow up is civil war

The only real move if this is the path we're going down is a Governor trying to seize nuclear weapons. I don't think we are there. Not even close.
by ErichLoew | 2025-10-02 19:30:49+00:00
I use BTRFS, ZFS and BCACHEFS --> Recompiling ZFS for LATEST kernels is sometimes tricky. --> BTRFS and BCACHEFS are integral components of the kernel, hence their usage in combination with recompiling LATEST kernels is really a charm.

And now ... BCACHEFS (like ZFS) is as well externalized, likely. --> I'm just shocked. --> And I still hope that all goes Best and BCACHEFS keeps staying in kernel.
by ESibio | 2025-10-02 19:30:50+00:00
Thats a solid point, we plan to integrate directly with neurolink once they figure out how to download information to our brains. Then we should be able to install a 15 hour course in about 20 seconds as long as you have a decent internet connection.

In reality, most of the basic concepts of things you want to learn can be done in a beginner level course, which is around an hour and we can make them in around 5 minutes. In example, you want the core understanding of Never split the difference by Chris Voss, you can take a one hour course and save yourself about 7 hours if you typically use audible, and better understand the material because of the quizzing we do in each module.
by transpute | 2025-10-02 19:30:54+00:00
News for hackers: Google Pixel Developer Terminal VM on Android and GrapheneOS provides 50K+ open-source software packages signed by the Debian package maintainers who are trusted as the upstream "root distro" for Ubuntu, Devuan and other Linux distributions. Use of individual Debian Linux software packages on Android phones does not depend on App Store identity registration, financial payment or Google Play Services telemetry.

Thanks to SoC CPU/memory virtualization at the VM boundary, there is stronger isolation between Debian software packages and the rest of the device, than between any two Android software packages distributed by App Store, which are executing within a single VM context. This protects the device from side effects of Debian Linux software in the Developer Terminal VM.

This is more safe and more secure than status quo.

> doable, but dangerous

Incorrect. It is more isolated, less dangerous, more secure, more flexible for developers and increases functionality to users.
by _DeadFred_ | 2025-10-02 19:31:14+00:00
The USA only target 1000 calories per day for airlifted populations in post war Germany. The CNN article lists 1400 as the low calories intake. So Gaza is still 400 calories a day above 'doing it the right way' post war German reconstruction numbers for hard to reach areas.

According to the article 1400 calories are the number people are actually consuming, not unavailable to them. It is in the CNN article all this discussion is about.
by indigodaddy | 2025-10-02 19:31:21+00:00
You could also do something like this, have Caddy webserver parse your md files through a template

https://github.com/dbohdan/caddy-markdown-site/blob/master/C...

^^ the above combined with caddy git fs to have your md files cloned in memory and refresh every X interval is kind of magical. Git push a new md file and wait X minutes and your website updates.

https://github.com/mohammed90/caddy-git-fs

====

Or a one-file FastHTML (python web framework) solution:

https://gist.github.com/simonMoisselin/f63c52f087704c99b6a62...
by rockercoaster | 2025-10-02 19:31:53+00:00
Besides, it also invites the immediate and rather fatal rejoinder of, "OK? So how about we... don't do that?"

Any negative response to that must suppose that everyone else would just give up on trying to advance drug R&D if the US stopped unilaterally self-sacrificing to subsidize it for the entire world... and when you lay it out like that, it seems like that must not actually be what's going on in the first place, because why the hell would we be do that, for that reason? So, very probably, we aren't, and further, if we are we should definitely stop.