MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by ajnin | 2025-11-05 21:30:44+00:00
Ah, capitalism. It's only rainbows, children laughing and happiness. Well, if you're a potentially profitable customer, of course, otherwise you're left on the side of the road. And if you're not part of that low 10% that can't repay the costs and presumably gets violently thrown back to the last century.

Are massive infrastructure projects a failure ? Most definitely. But is corporate driven development the panacea this articles makes it out to be ? I don't think so. Especially telling is the last bit explaining how 3 households of a village sign a contract, then 30, but never does the whole village get solar. Public projects have that universality that is sorely needed. Should that one person that can't pay be left in the dark ? Too poor, too sick, too old, too unique, not profitable!
by sjsdaiuasgdia | 2025-11-05 21:31:12+00:00
My problem with generative AI is that it makes different errors than humans tend to make. And these errors can be harder to predict and detect than the kinds of errors humans tend to make, because fundamentally the error source is the non-determinism.

Remember "garbage in, garbage out"? We expect technology systems to generate expected outputs in response to inputs. With generative AI, you can get a garbage output regardless of the input quality.
by bsenftner | 2025-11-05 21:32:18+00:00
Most customers do not want to host anything if they can prevent it. My employer was selling the servers that host the entire shebang, and most did not want to host them. We'd explain they'd save a lot by hosting and viewing/streaming everything locally, but their IT people were not comfortable, and their execs wanted to see everything on their phones when not at work. We made it all plug and play, and still they wanted to pay 10-20X more for a web service.
by m463 | 2025-11-05 21:32:22+00:00
hmm... searching I find:

“Gel-forming psyllium is good for both softening hard stools and firming up loose stools. It is effective in preventing or relieving constipation. Research shows viscous fibers like psyllium or the fiber in oats can have some impact on improving blood sugar control and lowering blood cholesterol levels."

“Fermentable wheat dextrin does not form a gel with liquid, so it is not helpful for constipation or diarrhea. Nor can it help lower cholesterol or control blood sugar. It does, however, serve as a prebiotic, providing nourishment to the gut microbiota. When microbiota ferment fiber, they release gas, so wheat dextrin may cause bloating and flatulence."

https://www.nutritionletter.tufts.edu/gi-health/psyllium-vs-...
by fengjiabo2400 | 2025-11-05 21:32:24+00:00
Interesting to see how Blink is approaching developer tool distribution through affiliates. The economics are notable: $100 flat commission per conversion with a 30-day cookie window, no minimum sales requirement, and monthly payouts.

This seems like a shift from traditional SaaS affiliate models that typically offer percentage-based recurring commissions. The fixed $100 suggests they're optimizing for rapid user acquisition rather than long-term affiliate relationships.

For context, Blink is an AI-powered app builder targeting developers. Curious what others think about this affiliate structure compared to recurring commission models.
by jqpabc123 | 2025-11-05 21:32:41+00:00
In summary, ChatGPT should only be used for entertainment.

It's not to be used for anything that could potentially have any sort of legal implications and thus get the vendor sued.

Because we all know it would be pretty easy to show in court that ChatGPT is less than reliable and trustworthy.

Next up --- companies banning the use of AI for work due to legal liability concerns --- triggering a financial market implosion centered around AI.
by ben_w | 2025-11-05 21:32:42+00:00
Last time my building lost power was about 19 years ago, when I was living in a Welsh valley halfway between the two nearest villages.

Since then, none of the extended Portsmouth conurbation, Sheffield, Cambridge, rural Cambridgeshire or Berlin have had any problems big enough to even notice while I've lived in them.

I have seen at least two circuit breakers trip in that time though.
by brandall10 | 2025-11-05 21:33:01+00:00
"Bound by real data" meaning not hallucinations, which is by far the bigger issue when it comes to "be an expert that does x" that doesn't have a real capability to say "I don't know".

The chance of different models hallucinating the same plausible sounding but incorrect building codes, medical diagnoses, etc, would be incredible unlikely, due to arch differences, training approaches, etc.

So when two concur in that manner, unless they're leaning heavily on the same poisoned datasets, there's a healthy chance the result is correct based on a preponderance of known data.
by neonsunset | 2025-11-05 21:33:20+00:00
You are not "forced" into unsafe APIs with Vector<T>/Vector128/256/512<T>. While it is a nice improvement and helps with achieving completely optimal compiler output, you can use it without unsafe. For example, ZLinq even offers .AsVectorizable LINQ-style API, where you pass lambdas which handle vectors and scalars separately. It the user code cannot go out of bounds and the resulting logic even goes through (inlined later by JIT) delegates, yet still offers a massive speed-up (https://github.com/Cysharp/ZLinq?tab=readme-ov-file#vectoriz...).

Another example, note how these implementations, one in unsafe C# and another in safe F# have almost identical performance: https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/..., https://benchmarksgame-team.pages.debian.net/benchmarksgame/...
by mikestew | 2025-11-05 21:34:23+00:00
Oh, c’mon, it’s 44K. One can easily spend 30K or more on a motorcycle these days, we are a long way from “country club” prices. If it came to the U. S., I’d probably pick one up to park next to our Hyundai (yeah, a Hyundai, not a Range Rover).
by kelnos | 2025-11-05 21:34:44+00:00
> Yes, the cameras would not have helped here, but it dorsn’t mean they are useless in general.

I think that statement needs the support of actual evidence. Air incident investigation agencies make detailed reports of the causes of crashes, with specific, targeted recommendations to help ensure that similar incidents don't recur.

If we haven't seen recommendations for cameras like that, then I think it's reasonable to assume that the actual experts here have determined that cameras would not be helpful.
by dmz73 | 2025-11-05 21:34:54+00:00
Having seen LLMs so many time produce incoherent, nonsense, invalid answers to even simplest of questions I cannot agree with categorization of "thinking" or "intelligence" that applies to these models. LLMs do not understand what they "know" or what they output. All they "know" is that based on training data this is most likely what they should output + some intentional randomization to make it seem more "human like". This also makes it seem like they create new and previously unseen outputs but that could be achieved with simple dictionary and random number generator and no-one would call that thinking or intelligent as it is obvious that it isn't. LLMs are better at obfuscating this fact by producing more sensible output than just random words. LLMs can still be useful but they are a dead-end as far as "true" AI goes. They can and will get better but they will never be intelligent or think in the sense that most humans would agree those terms apply. Some other form of hardware/software combination might get closer to AI or even achieve full AI and even sentience but that will not happen with LLMs and current hardware and software.
by hnlmorg | 2025-11-05 21:35:04+00:00
> You're getting downvoted for stating falsehoods.

I'm getting downvoted because people are either to young to remember the web in the 00s, or just misremembering what the web was like.

> The big platforms were accessible without login a few years ago, now they're not. That is literally a recent phenomenon.

I gave examples of big platforms that weren't accessible without a login. And modern platforms were also heading this way long before LLMs existed.

Redit and Twitter didn't restrict their API use because of LLMs. Meta haven't locked down Instagram because of LLMs. they do it because they need people locked into their ecosystem. LLMs are just the latest way to scrape data, but the practice isn't new. Search engines did it before. And before then, it was just people leeching off other people's work. This is a tale as old as the web. And I remember it well, having been both a web developer and user of the web since 1994.

Lets also not forget all the attempts that Microsoft took to try and control the internet and how AOL had their own walled gardens too. Yahoo had a plethora of cool features, most of which weren't available without a Yahoo account. And so on and so forth.

Walled gardens are not a recent phenomenon.

> In the past, I've often looked at Facebook posts without logging in.

You're misremembering. Literally the only reason I have a Facebook account because I needed to check someone's profile and couldn't without signing up. This was back in the early to mid 00s (I can't recall exactly when, but it was long before Facebook was a household name. Back when MySpace was still cool and before Twitter was launched)

For example this archived page from Facebook. Notice how there's no way to advance without signing up? https://web.archive.org/web/20070630190243/https://register....

---

I know people want to blame AI for everything that goes wrong these days be that simply isn't the reason that platforms lock down. They do it because thats how you make money. You either:

1. lock down and charge people for access

or

2. lock down and sell your user data

(or, depressingly too often, both)

Giving people free and anonymous access isn't profitable. It wasn't before and it still isn't now. AI hasn't changed that.

What AI has changed is the increase in invasive bot detection on sites that don't monetise anonymous access.
by epistasis | 2025-11-05 21:35:15+00:00
I think it's a bit different, I never heard a story of iPhones being manufactured like this:

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-china-57124636

However most of the "slave" talk these days comes from highly politicized sources, so it's hard to cut through to the truth. For example, it's not likely that there's enough Uyghur slave labor to be involved with "most" of the polysilicon even from Xinjiang, much less the entire world's supply.

IMHO, like the cobalt getting mined by children from artisanal-scale mines in Africa, it's a very serious issue that gets trotted out more as a political football against the entire technology, rather than expressed as an earnest concern to solve the underlying problem.
by snowwrestler | 2025-11-05 21:35:24+00:00
Seems like most of the comments are focusing on the happiness angle, but I am liking the framework that some people are good at solving poorly-defined problems.

It makes me think of people who have huge impact and success in life, with little obvious explanation. People like Bill Gates, Larry Ellison, Steve Jobs, Barack Obama, Donald Trump, etc. People to whom a lot of success is attributed, but it’s hard to say exactly, specifically, what skill or task they did to get it.

There’s a joke that Steve Jobs “invented the iPhone,” which is funny to people who are familiar with how products like the iPhone are actually created. But on the other hand… Steve Jobs definitely did something that was important to the creation of that product. Maybe it’s enough to say it was a poorly defined problem, which is why it’s also hard to define exactly what he did to solve it.

I also think intelligence itself is a poorly-defined problem, and AI will help us define it. I think this essay leans in that direction by recognizing the distinction between predictive intelligence (which AI is good at), vs a less-easy-to-define mental facility that defies prediction. Or maybe precedes prediction. Like if I want tacos for dinner, I can use my intelligence to navigate the problems necessary to get tacos. But can I reliably predict what I’ll want for dinner? Seems a lot harder.

What people want, vs what they do to get it, are probably a distinction similar to poorly-defined problems and well-defined problems, respectively. If you can figure out what people really want, well, that seems like a huge step toward being successful. But hard to define.
by ChrisMarshallNY | 2025-11-05 21:35:27+00:00
BeOS was one.

When Apple was looking for its "next generation" OS, everyone assumed that Gassé and BeOS were going to be it, but they chose Jobs and the legacy (FreeBSD-based) NextOS.

I know that "old is bad," in today's tech world, but, speaking only for myself, I'm glad they made the decision they did. BeOS was really cool, but it was too new.
by chermi | 2025-11-05 21:36:13+00:00
I think smart people are told much more often as kids how bright of a future they have. So they build up expectations of "succeeding" in some sense (becoming a doctor, getting rich, etc.). These are the sort of expectations you mention in your quote. Not only is there often pressure put on you if you're smart, you adopt those expectations yourself. Or at least hold yourself to that standard. Of course, being smart doesn't automatically equal success, there are so many other factors. So people often fall short of expectations and feel shitty about themselves and are unhappy. Then there's also the fact that high achievers often hold themselves to unrealistic standards even if they "succeed", so they also struggle to be happy.
by estearum | 2025-11-05 21:36:14+00:00
That is just an inaccurate analysis of Bantam. It is not solely whether the requestor has the ability to punish or reward, though this is a component (one which is lacking in the Biden administration scenarios, for what it's worth).

> No one here argued that the government cannot issue PSAs, coordinate emergency messaging, or report CSAM. The issue is when the same channels are used to influence lawful political speech or to "pre-bunk" narratives before elections. That is not analogous to public-safety communication.

The Biden scenarios you mentioned are, quite obviously, public safety related. There are not bright lines between "lawful political speech" or "pre-election narratives" or "law enforcement necessity" or "public-safety communication."

More importantly, your suggestion that enforcement should be content-specific is directly contrary to how First Amendment protections work. Content-neutrality is a core tenet!

The government is allowed to request and isn't allowed to coerce you for speech containing any content whatsoever. Maybe that's where your line shifts from coordination to censorship, but that is not where any legal line is.

> So yes, governments can ask. But when the asking is done by regulators, with implied power over those they're asking, the line between request and command gets very thin. That's the danger people are pointing to and it's not partisan.

This is far too abstract to be useful. There were no "regulators" involved in the Biden <> platform COVID conversation.
by metalman | 2025-11-05 21:36:17+00:00
the vast majority of solar panels are imaculately concieved in fully automated factorys,some where in fact there are NO people and they turn the lights off, as the robots are blind to those frequencys anyway. surviving solar PV production facilities operate on razor thin margins, and gargantuan volumes, the results of which are the electrification of most of the world, useing the absolute minimum of carbon. first lights, and dev8ces, small appliences, then the next step will be universal access to clean water and refrigeration, and then the worlds largest continent will be something to recon with.
by cloudhead | 2025-11-05 21:36:32+00:00
Thanks for your comment.

I do think Linux is good enough (it's what I use daily), but I'm a software person. I don't think linux is good enough for the average person or for kids learning how to use computers. It's hard to use and quite unfriendly, even distros like Ubuntu.

The second point is simply that I think we can do better. Progress does not stop here, but most people are afraid to take on big problems, so they never try.
by TheOtherHobbes | 2025-11-05 21:37:04+00:00
Given the other content, the author appears unhappy that some people may be smarter than he is. Perhaps even smarter than his grandma.

You don't have to be a genius to see that all of the author's "poorly defined problems" are social, relational, and emotional.

'One way to spot people who are good at solving poorly defined problems is to look for people who feel good about their lives; “how do I live a life I like” is a humdinger of a poorly defined problem.'

This is just silly. It is, as one smart person might have said once, not even wrong.

Happiness isn't a poorly defined problem. There's a lot of research and evidence. Being psychology, there's also a fair amount of opinionation and speculation. But the outlines of the mysterious object are fairly clear.

https://positivepsychology.com/psychology-of-happiness/

The problem is more that this is an emotionally underdeveloped culture which prioritises cut-throat aggressive competition. Instead of being fundamental, self-care techniques are treated as band-aids to reduce the stress of the rest of life and (supposedly) lead to greater success and - most importantly - productivity.

The subtext of competitive happiness is just more of the same.

And so is the subtext of competitve intelligence.
by jkestner | 2025-11-05 21:37:36+00:00
Many cities have removed cameras before their contract was up (though that didn’t stop Flock from putting them back up in Evanston!). You can also target the next time the contract is up for renewal - gathering community support takes time anyway. You can focus on removing some or all cameras, or on the contract language (ACLU has a good resource on this that I can’t find right now). Municipalities should care about the liability they’re being exposed to - some states like Illinois have laws against sharing data with the federal government, and there’s a federal case going through the courts now.
by sans_souse | 2025-11-05 21:37:40+00:00
Article has since been updated for some clarity;

> Correction

An earlier version of this story suggested OpenAI had ended medical and legal advice. However the company said "the model behaviour has also not changed." [0]

[0] https://www.ctvnews.ca/sci-tech/article/chatgpt-users-cant-u...
by tekbruh9000 | 2025-11-05 21:37:51+00:00
The post you replied to called out how the argument is complicated arguing for both ways; Brenda bad-AI good and AI bad-Brenda good. You reduced it to "AI bad, Brenda good." Not sure about the rest of your response then.

Brenda just recalls some predetermined behaviors she's lived out before. She cannot recall any given moment like we want to believe.

Ever think to ask Brenda what else she might spend her life on if these 100% ephemeral office role play "be good little missionaries for the wall street/dollar" gigs didn't exist?

You're revealing your ignorance of how people work while being anxious about our ignorance of how the machine works. You have acclimated to your ignorance well enough it seems. What's the big deal if we don't understand the AI entirely? Most drivers are not ASE certified mechanics. Most programmers are not electrical engineers. Most electrical engineers are not physicists. I can see it's not raining without being a climatologist. Experts circumlocute the language of their expertise without realizing their language does not give rise to reality. Reality gives rise to the language. So reality will be fine if we don't always have the language.

Think of a random date generator that only generates dates in your lived past. It does so. Once you read the date and confirm you were alive can you describe what you did? Oh no! You don't have memory of every moment to generate language for. Cognitive function returned null. Universe intact.

Lack of understanding how you desire is unimportant.

You think you're cherishing Brenda but really just projecting co-dependency that others LARP effort that probably doesn't really matter. It's just social gossip we were raised on so it takes up a lot of our working memory.
by aydyn | 2025-11-05 21:37:54+00:00
> Each 9 of reliability for infrastructure is EXTREMELY expensive. And grid has a lot of 9s.

Correction: should have a lot of 9s.

But in a lot of places in the U.S., even rich states, it doesn't because a combination of regulatory capture, profiteering and straight corruption.

I can see why solar and batteries are so attractive because at least its your prerogative when the power goes out.
by 1718627440 | 2025-11-05 21:37:56+00:00
I'm out of school for 3 years. For most of the time smartphones existed, but were forbidden in class. It were the teachers, who allowed it and even encouraged it to be used in class. When the students are already staring at a screen during class, they continue doing so after. When they do not, they don't (at least initially). In my final years, it was obvious who thought about class and who was completely mind-absent, by looking who looked at an school-supplied iPad. > 90% of these people were just playing games during the whole lesson. This was known by everyone in the classroom and the teachers just ignored them.
by veidelis | 2025-11-05 21:38:08+00:00
Totally agree. One might require to be "in their head" a lot of the time to not get swung down, and enjoy himself such as laughing at his own jokes. To make it possible, one has to be free enough to express oneself (also internally). But freedom of thought and action is on the decline as I've come to observe lately, but that's another topic.
by throwaway150 | 2025-11-05 21:38:20+00:00
> but "nothing" is an overstatement

Absolutely not. There was genuinely nothing in their thoughtful and informative reply that seemed AI generated to me. Have you never seen people on HN write detailed, articulate answers? This was one of them.

Asking a question, getting a helpful response, and then implying it was written by AI is quite rude. Saying, "Excuse me if not, $SOMETHING_VERY_OFFENSIVE" does not make "$SOMETHING_VERY_OFFENSIVE" any less offensive! It's disheartening to see someone take the time to write a great answer only to be met with such a rude question. Please don't do that here. It's frustrating and discourages genuine contributors.
by jay_kyburz | 2025-11-05 21:38:33+00:00
As a layperson, I read that 2024 was the hottest on record, and I see charts that go up. I have no reason to believe that the charts will go down. I don't care if its 3 deg by the end of the century or 5 deg. But what about the century after that, or by 3000.

I'm not so concerned about disasters or economic impacts, I just have a deep moral belief that we should leave our environment the same as when we entered it. We know that fossil fuels release pollution that we have no technology to clean up. We we should not be using it. It's not rocket science.

Admittedly, it makes no rational sense go without today so that future humans can experience the earth in the same way I have. I understand why many people dismiss risks of things unlikely to effect them or their children, but to me to feels wrong, and I would like to have as little impact on the climate as I can.

https://wmo.int/news/media-centre/wmo-confirms-2024-warmest-...
by jjk166 | 2025-11-05 21:38:52+00:00
Prior to the citywide election there are primary elections where the major parties pick their candidates. Normally the winner of the democratic primary would only have the republican candidate as a serious opponent. Republican candidates have won 4 of the last 9 mayoral elections, and the most recent republican mayor won an additional election after becoming independent. This was the first election since 1985 with 3 major candidates on election day; and a fourth, the current incumbent mayor, dropped out only a few weeks earlier.