MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by 0manrho | 2025-11-28 17:34:29+00:00
> To be sure, I happen to believe there is a lot of mileage for LLMs even in their current state—a lot of use-cases, integration we have yet to explore. But Sutskever I assume is a researcher and not a plumber—for him the LLM was probably over.

Indeed. Humans are a sucker for a quick answer delivered confidently. And The industry coalesced around LLM's once it was able to output competent, confident, corporate (aka HR-approved) english, which for many AI/DL/ML/NN researchers was actually a bit of a bummer. Reason I say that is because that milestone suddenly made the "[AGI is] always a decade away" to seeming much more imminent. Thus the focus of investment in the space shifted from actual ML/DL/NN research to who could convert largest pile of speculatively leveraged money into pallets of GPU's and data to feed them as "throw more compute/data" at it was a quicker/more reliable way to realize performance gains than investing in research did. Yes, research would inevitably yield results, but it's incredibly hard to forceast how long it takes for research to yield tangible results and harder still to quantify that X dollars will result in Y result in Z time compared to X dollars buys Y compute deployed in Z time. With the immense speculative backed FOMO and the potential valuation/investment that could result from being "the leader" in any given regard, it's no wonder that BigTech chose to primarily invest in the latter, thus leaving to those working in the former space to start considering looking elsewhere to continue actual research.
by OneDeuxTriSeiGo | 2025-11-28 17:34:46+00:00
> Companies like Intel, AMD, Arm, Broadcom, etc. afaik all pay their software folks of equivalent YoE or level roughly the same as their hardware folks.

This is a fairly new phenomenon and it's mostly a consequence of the AI hype wave driving investment in hardware. Wages have mostly caught up at the big boy hardware companies but you'll still generally see a disparity outside that big group.
by sillyfluke | 2025-11-28 17:34:48+00:00
Sorry for not responding for your request for tech advise and instead commenting on the idea:

1. I would want this.

2. If possible, if the detecting device could be clipped on somewhow and not force me to use different (sun)glasses might be my necessary condition unless you're selling glasses that I like as much as my curreny ones.

3. If I could demand anything, I would demand you pair up with someone who has some streetcred in the privacy tech department (streetcred as in a known public personality with trackrecord on being on the right side of these issues or known to be advocating for them).

Here's why: if Meta decided to add this feature to their glasses, if I found a way to shut down all the other shit, I might go and buy their glasses. Which means if you are sucessful, if I were Meta I would buy you out and shut you down. Hence the public personality or who have you to prevent you fron doing this.
by packetlost | 2025-11-28 17:35:05+00:00
Maybe not as obvious for those without formal education in """database normalization""" but it's pretty trivial to convert from a tree structure to a flat table structure using foreign key relations. Recursive queries aren't even that difficult in SQLite, so self-referential data can be represented cleanly too, if not a bit more difficult to write. IME most applications "tree structures" aren't self-referential and are better formalized as distinct entities with one-to-one relationships (ie. a subtree gets a table).

There's always the lazy approach of storing JSON blobs in TEXT fields, but I personally shy away from that because you lose out on a huge part of the benefits of using a SQL DB in the first place, most importantly migrations and querying/indexing.
by matklad | 2025-11-28 17:35:33+00:00
Just to avoid potential confusion, the claim is that this is a function that generates a random permutation:

pub fn shuffle(g: *Gen, T: type, slice: []T) void { if (slice.len <= 1) return; for (0..slice.len - 1) |i| { const j = g.range_inclusive(u64, i, slice.len - 1); std.mem.swap(T, &slice[i], &slice[j]); } }

And this is a function that enumerates all permutations, in order, exactly once:

pub fn shuffle(g: *Gen, T: type, slice: []T) void { if (slice.len <= 1) return; for (0..slice.len - 1) |i| { const j = g.range_inclusive(u64, i, slice.len - 1); std.mem.swap(T, &slice[i], &slice[j]); } }

Yes, they are exactly the same function. What matters is Gen. If it looks like this

https://github.com/tigerbeetle/tigerbeetle/blob/809fe06a2ffc...

then you get a random permutation. If it rather looks like this

https://github.com/tigerbeetle/tigerbeetle/blob/809fe06a2ffc...

you enumerate all permutations.
by wizzwizz4 | 2025-11-28 17:35:39+00:00
We don't understand human brains well enough to answer this question specifically: if we understood the mechanisms of the human brain, we could replicate them in software, and AI would be that much more advanced. We know that real human neurons don't work at all like artificial neural networks, but that isn't a proof: phonons aren't bosons or fermions (their spin isn't well-defined), yet a sonic black hole is a useful model for Hawking radiation.

So, I'll provide an example: humans can learn to do mathematics. LLMs cannot. This example is particularly galling because there are computer programs that can do (some, limited) mathematics: those operate largely by brute-force, yet can solve more mathematics problems using fewer resources than LLMs.
by 8jef | 2025-11-28 17:35:59+00:00
Another daydream in Wonderland.

AI and robots are owned, not by users, but by owners, VCs, LLCs and corporations.

If anyone has paid attention, someone would have realized these owning entities aren't contributing anything to our general wellbeing anymore. It's the other way around. It has been for a very long time. It will stay that way, and worsen, until we revolt.

UBI will only happen when most users (say 90% of actual World population) are gone (as in permanently turned into dust). And yes, the clock is ticking.
by raw_anon_1111 | 2025-11-28 17:35:59+00:00
Seeing the life if people in red states that continue to struggle and still vote for politicians that pass policies that hurt them, I disagree.

How many farmers right now are suffering between the current tariff policies and immigration policies are still professing support for Trump? The very people that unions and higher minimum wages would help the most are opposed to because they support the very people who favoring their employers getting rich over them.

If you take solace in “god will provide” as long as you give the church 10% of your income, you aren’t looking at things logically as long as the politicians can quote scripture.
by CamperBob2 | 2025-11-28 17:36:14+00:00
You don't get to unilaterally make laws for the rest of us, which is what you are trying to do when you throw around terms like "stealing" in contexts where they have no legal meaning. Sorry.

If the incumbent copyright interests insist on picking an unnecessary fight with LLMs or AI in general, they will and must lose decisively. That applies to all of the incumbents, from FSF to Disney. Things are different now.
by ajkjk | 2025-11-28 17:37:57+00:00
One announcement from a company or government can suddenly change the derivative discontinuously.

Derivatives irl do not follow the rules of calculus that you learn in class because they don't have to be continuous. (you could quibble that if you zoom in enough it can be regarded as continuous.. But you don't gain anything from doing that, it really does behave discontinuous)
by uxp100 | 2025-11-28 17:37:59+00:00
This is a little tangent, but up until somewhat recently Apple hosted ftp servers with old versions of Mac OS available. So you could get system 7.6 (released 1997) straight from them for a new install on your old machine. I think that is no longer the case, but within the last decade you still could. (I think, idk, time flies)
by aaronmdjones | 2025-11-28 17:38:31+00:00
> You obviously do not believe in freedom of speech as defined by US law.

Neither do you. The Supreme Court of the United States has repeatedly held in numerous rulings that freedom of speech and/or freedom of expression is not absolute and you can be sanctioned, prosecuted and/or imprisoned for some forms of speech and/or expression -- i.e. you do have consequences.

- Schenck v. United States (1919) -- Speech that has intent and a clear and present danger of resulting in a crime is not protected under the First Amendment

- Chaplinsky v. New Hampshire (1942) -- The First Amendment does not protect fighting words, which are those that inherently cause harm or are likely to result in an immediate disturbance

- Feiner v. New York (1951) -- The police are permitted to take action against those exercising speech that is likely to disturb the peace

- United States v. O'Brien (1968) -- You can be prosecuted for destroying certain property as an act of political speech; the law forbidding this was not unconstitutional

- Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969) -- It is permissible to restrict speech that advocates for imminent unlawful violence and is likely to incite people to perform such

- Paris Adult Theatre I v. Slaton (1973) -- Restrictions on the dissemination of obscene material are not by themselves unconstitutional (see also the ruling immediately below)

- Barnes v. Glen Theatre Inc (1991) -- Public indecency laws banning dancing nude are not unconstitutional

- Virginia v. Black (2003) -- Partial reversal: While a broad ban on cross-burning is unconstitutional, banning cross-burning for the express intent to intimidate is not

- Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006) -- As a public official, you can be sanctioned by your government employer for speech contrary to employment policy

- Morse v. Frederick (2007) -- Schools can ban students from sharing speech about illegal drug use at school

- Counterman v. Colorado (2023) -- True threats of violence are outside the bounds of the First Amendment, and laws covering stalking and making threats in this manner are not unconstitutional
by loeg | 2025-11-28 17:38:57+00:00
A lot of comments praising this summary, but I'll criticize it: it's still too verbose, and misses the point.

Meta wants to fund this project, but doesn't want the debt on own its books (because it would impact its vanity AA credit rating). Debt investors are happy to finance a special purpose vehicle guaranteed (in a non debt way) by Meta at a credit rating almost as good as Meta's (say, A). No one is confused this is Meta getting financing for their own project; they've just put it in a wrapper for vanity credit score reasons.

Levine wrote about it and his writing is better than ChatGPT, this snarky website, and obviously mine: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/newsletters/2025-10-29/put... .
by tomgag | 2025-11-28 17:39:12+00:00
Oh, I didn't mean to imply that the "cliff" is for certain. What I'm saying is that articles like Gutmann's fail to acknowledge this possibility.

Regarding the coaxial cables, you seem to be an expert, so tell me if I'm wrong, but it seems to me a limitation of current designs (and in particular of superconducting qubits), I don't think there is any fundamental reason why this could not be replaced by a different tech in the future. Plus, the scaling must not need to be infinite, right? Even with current "coaxial cable tech", it "only" needs to scale up to the point of reaching one logical qubit.
by svat | 2025-11-28 17:39:42+00:00
(2016)

Also, “direct” link: https://blog.plover.com/tech/tmpdir.html (This doesn't really matter, as the posted link is to https://blog.plover.com/2016/07/01/#tmpdir i.e. the blog post named “tmpdir” posted on 2016-07-01 and there is only post posted on that date, so the content of the page is basically the same.)
by manuel_w | 2025-11-28 17:40:14+00:00
What exactly is overly bureaucratic in the EU?

I as an European get the feeling people usually hate on the EU just because it dares to interfere with local legislation. But that's its job. And usually the EU interferes for a good reason. Usually because member countries falling back to only thinking about themselves and forgetting that we Europeans are in this shit together.

> you can't do that

It's good that you can't call sparkling wine that's not from the Champagne "Champagne". It's good that you can't screw over flight passengers the way they do in the US. It's good that you can't annoy customers with phone power sockets that change with every model.

When I hear about actual examples of excess bureaucracy, it's usually on the country-level.
by snowwrestler | 2025-11-28 17:40:29+00:00
Let's say you're shopping for something that is about $80. You have Prime so you pull it up in Amazon and see you can get it for $78.74. You throw it into Google and see Target lists it for $76.18. You usually order from Amazon; are you going to order from Target this one time to save $2.56? What if it was $3.56? What if it was $5.00? What if it was $7.86? What if it was $20.14?

Or let's say you need a flight. You usually fly American so you check there first. You've had Gold there for the last few years, and you're close now. You could go look up other airline prices and maybe you do as a quick gut check. American costs more, but not a lot more. Exactly how much more is it worth to you to fly American and hit your status? What if you just got a raise? What if you just moved? Or what if you just got laid off?

What is the exact price delta that would get you to change a purchase habit? How does that change from purchase to purchase? How does it change depending on the other circumstances in your life?

As a concept: there are price differences that don't matter to people, and those vary, sometimes wildly. Meanwhile, to a large company, adding even 1 percentage point to their margin, on average, could mean tens to hundreds of millions of dollars of additional profit that year. It could mean managers hitting targets and getting bonuses paid out.
by TeMPOraL | 2025-11-28 17:40:36+00:00
Exactly. Energy/resources line is by far the most silly out of anti-AI arguments being regurgitated by people.

Electricity is fungible. Before decrying that LLMs are using it to provide the world (probably) more utility on the net per watt than your own work output (which segues into an actual problem of labor as source of personal and social worth), contrast it with what we'd otherwise be doing with that same electricity - e.g. more sportsball streams in higher definitions, more cryptocurrency shams, more Juiceros and other borderline-fraudlent startups in physical space (cheap energy means cheaper manufacturing, which means materials become more like bits, and it's easier to pull the same crap in the real world, as companies now pull in virtual).

Point being, if you want to judge use of electricity on AI, judge it in context of the whole human condition - of everything else we'd otherwise be using it on.
by jauntywundrkind | 2025-11-28 17:40:40+00:00
Somewhat aside but I love the data architrcture. Jsonl lines checked into git, and a sqlite local cache. Auto-sync to replicate changes between the canonical and cache. https://github.com/steveyegge/beads?tab=readme-ov-file#the-m...

I finally started digging in to OpenCode for real these past couple weeks. It has a planning mode, which nicely builds out a plan on text chat as usual, but also a right pain on the TUI builds out a Todo list, which has been really nice. I often give it the go-ahead to do the next item or two or three. I've wondered how this is implemented, how OpenCode sets up and picks up on this structuring.

Beads formalizing that a bit more is tempting. I also deeply deeply enjoy that Beads is checked in. With both Aider and OpenCode, there's a nice history. But it's typically not checked in. OpenCode 's history in particular isnt even kept in the project directory, and can be quite complex with multiple sessions and multiple agents all flying around. Beads, as a strategy to record the work & understand it better, is also very tempting.

Would love to see deeper OpenCode + Beads integration.
by somat | 2025-11-28 17:40:50+00:00
I am not really classically trained on the subject but I think this is the idea behind relational storage, it is to have better extraction options, you don't have to treat your data as a single document at a time.

Naively, most data looks hierarchical and the instinctive reaction is to make your file format match. But if you think of this as a set of documents stacked on top of each other if you take the data as a bunch of 90 degree slices down through the stack now your data is relational, you loose the nice native hierarchical format, but you gain all sorts of interesting analysis and extraction options.

It is too bad relational data types tend to be so poorly represented in our programming languages, generally everything has to be mapped back to a hierarchical type.
by mips_avatar | 2025-11-28 17:42:17+00:00
One thing I didn’t see here that might be hurting your performance is a lack of semantic chunking. It sounds like you’re embedding entire docs, which kind of breaks down if the docs contain multiple concepts. A better approach for recall is using some kind of chunking program to get semantic chunks (I like spacy though you have to configure it a bit). Then once you have your chunks you need to append context to how this chunk relates to the rest of your doc before you do your embedding. I have found anthropics approach to contextual retrieval to be very performant in my RAG systems (https://www.anthropic.com/engineering/contextual-retrieval) you can just use gpt oss 20b as the model for generation of context.

Unless I’ve misunderstood your post and you are doing some form of this in your pipeline you should see a dramatic improvement in performance once you implement this.
by daemonologist | 2025-11-28 17:42:58+00:00
It seems to me that the lengthiness and opacity of the report is part of the joke, and therefore running it through ChatGPT kind of misses the point. (The "FSG analyst" would have intentionally spread a layer of BS on top of everything to make it a lot of extra work to understand that the debt should actually be on Meta's books. Of course it's satirical so it calls out its own absurdity instead of actually burying it.)

As has been mentioned though if you purely want the info there are more succinct articles out there, e.g.: https://www.forbes.com/sites/petercohan/2025/11/25/metas-ai-...
by neilalexander | 2025-11-28 17:43:15+00:00
I was surprised to see this on the HN homepage, I didn't create Tyr but I did create Yggmail (https://github.com/neilalexander/yggmail) which it is based on. There is no store-and-forward as such, the sending node will keep the message in its outbox and will keep retrying until the destination is online.
by listenfaster | 2025-11-28 17:43:42+00:00
What a solid piece of writing. I’m Gen X, and have talked with my siblings about the online realities my teenage nieces and nephews face, and it’s hard not to come to the conclusion the author comes to in the last paragraph. Along the way, though, there was framing of a lot of points that I’ve struggled to find the right words for. So, bravo.
by nanfinitum | 2025-11-28 17:43:53+00:00
I'm going to go against the grain and say that posting on LinkedIn is actually a good idea. It builds your brand and that is valuable. As cringe as it may be, it puts your name in the working memory of people who might be useful in your career (recruiters, hiring managers, potential collaborators, etc.)

I also think this goes for all the analogous versions of LinkedIn (like Tiktok if you're a creator, or Instagram if you're an artist). Not having a place to show off your work will slow down your growth and progress.

I'm a fairly private person but I've been considering the opportunity cost of it, and I think it's pretty high. Overall +EV: the risks of putting yourself out there are low (i.e. strangers think you're cringe), but the benefits are very high (new jobs/opportunities). I might just start embracing the cringe.
by f33d5173 | 2025-11-28 17:43:54+00:00
At a certain point, employing humans will become pointless. Robots will be able to do everything a person can for cheaper. This will divide people into two camps: those who own enough shares of robot companies to live off of dividends, and those who don't. The latter will be destitute, and also by far the largest camp. You will have an army of millions of smart, capable, very angry, and very hungry people. They will go into revolt, unless you give them some solution. That is why you will do UBI.
by mdelmundo | 2025-11-28 17:44:02+00:00
We’ve just launched a service built on top of alias1, an open-source cybersecurity LLM focused on static analysis, misconfiguration detection and security reasoning.

The goal isn’t to replace pentesters but to make high-throughput security analysis more accessible to individual practitioners, not only companies. The service runs with:

- 10M tokens/month - 20 sustained RPM - 50k TPM burst - access to the alias1 model - Discord community support

This release also comes after the same underlying agent (CAI) ranked first in the NeuroGrid CTF organized by Hack The Box, outperforming several autonomous agents based on general-purpose LLMs.

I’m sharing it here because I’d be interested in feedback from HN’s security and engineering community regarding: - practical use cases for LLMs in security workflows - where specialized models outperform general LLMs - where blind spots still remain

Not trying to sell anything — genuinely interested in technical feedback on specialized vs. general-purpose LLMs for security tasks.
by adrianmonk | 2025-11-28 17:44:59+00:00
> This computer stuff is amazingly complicated. I don't know how anyone gets anything done.

I wonder what could be done to make this type of problem less hidden and easier to diagnose.

The one thing that comes to mind is to have the loader fail fast. For security reasons, the loader needs to ensure TMPDIR isn't set. Right now it accomplishes this by un-setting TMPDIR, which leads to silent failures. Instead, it could check if TMPDIR is set, and if so, give a fatal error.

This would force you to unset TMPDIR yourself before you run a privileged program, which would be tedious, but at least you'd know it was happening because you'd be the one doing it.

(To be clear, I'm not proposing actually doing this. It would break compatibility. It's just interesting to think about alternative designs.)
Ask HN: Have you switched from AWS to GCP for more startup credits?
by fsto | 2025-11-28 17:45:10+00:00
We’re a pretty resource intense (compute + LLMs) GenAI startup and are just about to run out of AWS credits. Our infra is defined and deployed using Terraform so switching cloud provider shouldn't be a huge task.

I’m thinking of hiring a great infra consultant who I know well (so we can continue focusing on our product) to migrate us from AWS to GCP. We clearly assume the costs in terms of overhead and consultant help would be net worth it, given the generous GCP credits we can get.

Qs:

* What are your thoughts?

* Do you have any similar experience?

* Anything you wish you would have thought of?
by amoshebb | 2025-11-28 17:45:29+00:00
I have found daily-driving Ubuntu at Delft shocking pleasant. Chrome, zotero, obsidian, zoom, and so on all work great. Outlook, teams, and the office suite, and signing pdfs are all the sharpest edges by far.

I feel if the TUs were required to dogfood this, especially if generously funded such that startups could come along and provide the same service and support, that it could be a great positive externality