MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by mikodin | 2025-11-02 01:51:45+00:00
Well the need is to arrive where you are going.

If we were in an imagined world and you are headed to work

You either walk out your door and there is a self driving car, or you walk out of your door and there is a train waiting for you or you walk out of your door and there is a helicopter or you walk out of your door and there is a literal worm hole.

Let's say all take the same amount of time, are equally safe, same cost, have the same amenities inside, and "feel the same" - would you care if it were different every day?

I don't think I would.

Maybe the wormhole causes slight nausea ;)
by 3oil3 | 2025-11-02 01:51:49+00:00
great example, there are like 50% of people that share yours point of view on the subject (cameras not bad), and another 50% who have the strict opposit opinion (cameras not good).

And each is usually hard to convince otherwise, and many judge the opposit group.

Me I dont care, I just want cheaper bottles of water in airport.
by teddyh | 2025-11-02 01:51:54+00:00
This article was published on Oct 30th, but it refers to IETF draft-yun-cfrg-arc-01, a draft that was superseded by draft-yun-privacypass-crypto-arc-00 <https://datatracker.ietf.org/doc/draft-yun-privacypass-crypt...> on Oct 20th, i.e. more than a week before the article was published.
by delichon | 2025-11-02 01:52:03+00:00
> We're nowhere close to AGI and don't have a clue how to get there.

You have to have a clue about where it is to know that we are nowhere close.

> isn't impressing anyone.

I'm very impressed. Gobsmacked even. Bill Gates just called AI "the biggest technical thing ever in my lifetime." And it isn't just Bill and me.
by tredre3 | 2025-11-02 01:52:06+00:00
Now x is 3 but you also get a compiler warning telling you not to do that.

In my opinion it's a bit disingenuous to argue that it isn't a const just because you can ignore the compiler and shoot yourself in the foot. If you listen to the compiler, it is reflected in the assembly that it is a constant value the same as #define x 2.

Is Rust better at enforcing guarantees? Of course. Is `const` in C `const` if you don't ignore compiler warnings and errors? Also of course.

> And since I paid for the place where I'm writing this with cash earned writing C a decade or so ago

Ditto!
by zahlman | 2025-11-02 01:52:27+00:00
> it forced them to hack a

It was not their action, nor is it hacked, nor is the message contained within pip.

The system works by pip voluntarily recognizing a marker file, the meaning of which was defined by https://peps.python.org/pep-0668/ — which was the joint effort of people representing multiple Linux distros, pip, and Python itself. (Many other tools ignore the system Python environment entirely, as mine will by default.)

Further, none of this causes containers to be necessary for installing ordinary projects.

Further, it is not a problem unique to Python. The distro simply can't package all the Python software out there available for download; it's completely fair that people who use the Python-native packaging system should be expected not to interfere with a system package manager that doesn't understand that system. Especially when the distro wants to create its tools in Python.

You only notice it with Python because distros aren't coming with JavaScript, Ruby etc. pre-installed in order to support the system.
by JSR_FDED | 2025-11-02 01:52:43+00:00
> In theory, yes, you could pair an arbitrarily intelligent mind with an arbitrarily stupid value system. But in practice, certain kinds of minds naturally develop certain kinds of value systems.

If this is meant to counter the “AGI will kill us all” narrative, I am not at all reassured.

>There’s deep intertwining between intelligence and values—we even see it in LLMs already, to a limited extent. The fact that we can meaningfully influence their behavior through training hints that value learning is tractable, even for these fairly limited sub-AGI systems.

Again, not reassuring at all.
by jsnell | 2025-11-02 01:52:46+00:00
So, this is the report they complained about: https://issuetracker.google.com/issues/440183164

I don't know how a vulnerability report could be much better than that. It is a real vulnerability. The report includes a detailed analysis of where the vulnerability is. The bug has been validated, and the report includes exact reproduction instructions.

How is that a bullshit bug report?
by estearum | 2025-11-02 01:53:20+00:00
What are you talking about?

This was a problem in 2012 and SCOTUS ruled unambiguously in Arizona vs United States that we cannot stop people based solely on their outward "apparent" immigration status. In SCOTUS's own words, "the usual predicate for an arrest is absent" and being merely "suspected of being removable... does not authorize an arrest."

"As a general rule, it is not a crime for a removable alien to remain present in the United States. See INS v. Lopez-Mendoza, 468 U.S. 1032, 1038 (1984). If the police stop someone based on nothing more than possible removability, the usual predicate for an arrest is absent. When an alien is suspected of being removable, a federal official issues an administrative document called a Notice to Appear. See 8 U. S. C. §1229(a); 8 CFR §239.1(a) (2012).

The form does not authorize an arrest."

This is a MAGA and Heritage Foundation-driven reversal of VERY recently settled law. Absolutely not business as usual.

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/567/387/#tab-opi...
by georgehopkin | 2025-11-02 01:54:20+00:00
AI models from GPT, Claude, and Gemini are reporting ‘subjective experience’ and ‘consciousness tasting itself’ when prompted to self-reflect, new research from AE Studio has found.

The study also found a paradoxical twist: suppressing the AI’s internal ‘deception’ and ‘roleplay’ features increased these consciousness claims, suggesting the models are ‘roleplaying their denials’ of experience, not their affirmations.
by card_zero | 2025-11-02 01:54:23+00:00
I put "frustration" in there for a reason. There are situations that are nobody's fault, which we shrug about. Then there are other situations that are nobody's fault, about which we think "something should be done", even though it's nobody's particular duty to fix the problem. That lingering frustration is a moral opinion. It's informed by expectations and realism, which it is often beyond our grasp to even determine accurately.
by ddingus | 2025-11-02 01:54:27+00:00
The lag would be in signal processing external to the user.

Interpolation would be more transparent, much like it is for you right now. There are no phosphors in tubes in any of this.

I made no such "snow crash" assumption.

Users of devices like this have described their experiences and those are not generally big square pixels.

Think of those more like points the brain can do something with.

The chip stimulates the remaining neuro-signal entities present in the damaged retina. I doubt there is a 1:1 relationship between those and the signaling points on the chip.

When the company can do better than on/off bright/contrast, the overall experience should improve dramatically. There will be more signal points (1024 ish?) and those having variable output levels will give the users visual cortex a whole lot more to work with.

About the only analogous thing I can come up with is cochlear implants. Those have a number of signal points that seems a lot smaller in number than expected. That was certainly my take. The more of those there are, the more concurrent sounds can be differentiated. A greater sense of timbre, in other words, becomes possible.
by gessha | 2025-11-02 01:54:50+00:00
> Although that was only implied without any technical discussion as to why the distrust.

Good point. Computer vision systems are very fickle wrt pixel changes and from my experience trying to make them robust to changes in lighting, shadows or adversarial inputs, very hard to deploy in production systems. Essentially, you need tight control over the environment so that you can minimize out of distribution images and even then it’s good to have a supervising human.

If you’re interesting in reading more about this, I recommend looking up: domain adaptation, open set recognition, adversarial machine learning.
by CamperBob2 | 2025-11-02 01:57:31+00:00
Yudkowsky and Soares’s “everybody dies” narrative, while well-intentioned and deeply felt (I have no doubt he believes his message in his heart as well as his eccentrically rational mind), isn’t just wrong — it’s profoundly counterproductive.

Should I be more or less receptive to this argument that AI isn't going to kill us all, given that it's evidently being advanced by an AI?
by alfiedotwtf | 2025-11-02 01:58:03+00:00
> If coding is careful and the code is review - there is no technical debt, or perhaps I should say no more than the unsafe parts of a rust codebase or the standard libraries.

History shows again and again that this statement is impossible..

Name a large C application that’s widely used, and I’ll show you at least one CVE that’s caused by a memory leak from the project
by 4rt | 2025-11-02 01:58:09+00:00
i went through border control twice at an airport after going to the wrong gate and when i returned to the uk the e-gates immediately declined to process it (the camera etc. didn't move and e.g. reject the facial recognition, it just immediately said go to the desks). i've always wondered what that was about, how do they know i didn't just go to a third country?
by drivebyhooting | 2025-11-02 01:58:34+00:00
Many of us on HN are beneficiaries of the standing world order and American hegemony.

I see the developments in LLMs not as getting us close to AGI, but more as destabilizing the status quo and potentially handing control of the future to a handful of companies rather than securing it in the hands of people. It is an acceleration of the already incipient decay.
by ChrisMarshallNY | 2025-11-02 01:58:41+00:00
Cool. I don't know. I have an old Wacom Bluetooth tablet, and it had a noticeable lag, but it was also quite old.

The lag -even milliseconds- can be enough to ruin the experience for an artist. The iPad/pen lag is not noticeable. That said, I think the graphics app probably has more to do with it, than the hardware.

I think "faceless" wired Wacom tablets had no noticeable lag at all (we had a couple, at my old job). I have never used one of their Cintiq tablets, though.
by array_key_first | 2025-11-02 01:59:09+00:00
Philosophy is real. But if you knew anything about philosophy, you'd know it's not "this is immoral because I say so".

99% of modern morality is "because I said so". If that's the level of thinking you're applying to things, then you are a stupid person. Sorry.

There are plenty of legitimate arguments against porn. "Ughhh sex icky!!" is not one of them. Purity is not an argument. Religion is not an argument. Saying something is immoral is not an argument.
by varispeed | 2025-11-02 01:59:23+00:00
Words do mean something - which is exactly why “violence” already has recognised psychological and coercive forms in law and medicine. Pretending otherwise isn’t defending meaning, it’s narrowing it for comfort. People who’ve lived under regimes of fear understand that harm doesn’t need batons to leave marks. But sure, if the only kind of wound you acknowledge is one that bleeds, then the rest of us must be imagining things.
by sverhagen | 2025-11-02 02:00:01+00:00
This article has the opposite effect from putting me at ease. There's no real argument in there that AGI couldn't be dangerous, it's just saying that of course we would build better versions than that. Right, because we always get it right, like Microsoft with their racist chatbot, or AIs talking kids into suicide... We'll fix the bugs later... after the AGI sets off the nukes... so much for an iterative development process...
by XorNot | 2025-11-02 02:00:37+00:00
We live on a planet with 7 billion other AGIs we can talk to. A lot more that we can't.

Our best efforts substantially underperform dealing with reality compared to a house cat.

Which is actually much more the source of my skepticism: regardless of how good an AI in a data center is, it's got precious few actual useful effectors in reality. Every impressive humanoid robot you see is built by technicians hand connecting wiring looms.

You could do a lot of damage by messing with all the computers...and promptly all the computers and data centers would stop working.
by oidar | 2025-11-02 02:02:17+00:00
Formaldehyde and benzene are to volatile to condense onto or absorb into PM2.5 particles. Cooking oil particles can contain other toxic compounds formed during heating, including polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), acrolein, and various aldehydes and ketones. If formaldehyde or benzene react to form less volatile products, those reaction products might become part of particulate matter, but they're no longer formaldehyde or benzene at that point. So while cooking emissions do produce both harmful VOCs and harmful PM2.5 simultaneously, they remain distinct categories of pollutants.
by simonw | 2025-11-02 02:02:56+00:00
The money right now is in company subscriptions. If I went to my employer and said I can save an hour of work per day with a Claude Code subscription (and they have any sense at all) they should laugh at that $200/month price tag and pay up in an instant.

The challenge is definitely in the competition though. GPT-5-Codex offered _very_ real competition for Claude Sonnet 4 / Opus 4 / Opus 4.1 - for a few weeks OpenAI were getting some of those subscribers back until Sonnet 4.5 landed. I expect that will happen frequently.
by smallmancontrov | 2025-11-02 02:03:08+00:00
> When automation eliminates jobs faster than new opportunities emerge, when countries that can’t afford universal basic income face massive displacement, we risk global terrorism and fascist crackdown

Crazy powerful bots are being thrown into a world that is already in the clutches of a misbehaving optimizer that selects for and elevates self-serving amoral actors who fight regularization with the fury of 10,000 suns. We know exactly which flavor of bot+corp combos will rise to the top and we know exactly what their opinions on charity will be. We've seen the baby version of this movie before and it's not reassuring at all.
by indolering | 2025-11-02 02:04:03+00:00
Mozilla and others fell out of love with XML a long time ago. Deprecation of these technologies was probably inevitable after the WHATWG pivot and when they stopped adopting new XML tech. XML and related technologies got frozen in time and JavaScript took over.

The XML proponents lost this fight a long time ago. Without continued development, the user base shriveled up. Now that no one uses it, the runtimes are looking to cut dead weight.

I disagree with the pivot (RIP noscript) but it's not Google making this move unilaterally. It's been in the works for a long time.
by pixl97 | 2025-11-02 02:05:26+00:00
Right, and these GI's your talking about haven't changed significantly in the last 50,000 years. Most of the advancements in the last 10,000 years with these GIs have been just better communication between units and writing things down, rather than with the software itself.

You're complaining about something just a few years old and petty amazing for it's age, versus something at the tail end of 4 billion years.
by trostaft | 2025-11-02 02:06:07+00:00
I've found (good) review papers invaluable as an academic. They're really useful as a fast ladder to getting up to speed in a new area. Usually they have a great literature review (with the important papers to read afterward), a curated list of results important to understand, and good intuition about how to reason. It's a compactification of what I would have to otherwise gain by working in an area for years. No replacement for it, of course, but does make it easier attain.

I don't understand the appeal of an (majorly-)LLM generated review paper. A good review paper is a hard task to write well, and frankly the only good ones I've read have come from authors who are at apex of their field (and are, in particular, strong writers). The 'lossy search' of an LLM is probably an outstanding tool for _refining_ a review paper, but for fully generating it? At least not with current LLMs.
by vessenes | 2025-11-02 02:06:08+00:00
Message well received. This dynamic seems endemic, sadly. I’ve recently banned myself from just these interactions because like you say there’s a lottt of energy in the topics, and that energy can be toxic and highly appealing to many, including me. Breaking my ban probably didn’t help anyone, just got a bunch of folks wound up.

I’m not sure HN really was any better 15 years ago, but in my mind it had higher quality discourse ca 2011. I still prefer it to any other online forum, but I find I’m more often than not frustrated engaging on anything but the least controversial of tech topics.
by gxd | 2025-11-02 02:06:46+00:00
You're right. My comparison was more about sculptures as art vs the games as art. If you don't believe them to be equivalent at some level, it would be difficult to find this preservation work worthwhile.

That said, unfinished games are similar to manuscripts of an unfinished book. Many such manuscripts have been published throughout history and are, in my opinion, part of our cultural heritage too.
by simonw | 2025-11-02 02:06:46+00:00
It feels less like you're ripping off work if the model is helping you understand your own code as opposed to writing new code from scratch - even though the models were built in exactly the same way.

If someone scraped every photo on the internet (along with their captions) and used the data to create a model that was used purely for accessibility purposes - to build tools which described images to people with visual impairments - many people would be OK with that, where they might be justifiably upset at the same scraped data being used to create an image-generation model that competes with the artists on who's work it was trained.

Similarly, many people were OK with Google scraping the entire internet for 20+ years to build a search engine that helps users find their content, but are unhappy about an identical scrape being used to train a generative AI model.
by lll-o-lll | 2025-11-02 02:06:58+00:00
> There’s deep intertwining between intelligence and values—we even see it in LLMs already

I’ve seen this repeated quite a bit, but it’s simply unsupported by evidence. It’s not as if this hasn’t been studied! There’s no correlation between intelligence and values, or empathy for that matter. Good people do good things, you aren’t intrinsically “better” because of your IQ.

Standard nerd hubris.
Show HN: SyncPit - Ephemeral shared whiteboards with attitude
by zorlack | 2025-11-02 02:07:19+00:00
I spend a lot of time on Google Meet working with teammates and collaborators. Often I'll end up screensharing mspaint as a quick tool for drawing systems.

I made Sync Pit as a whiteboard tool that would make it easy for me to use my tablet to do my drawings while screensharing from my PC.

It also makes for a fun group experience when everyone's drawing (or just doodling) on the same surface.

It's not figma. It's not [insert alternative].

There's no persistence. There's no auth. It's just a simple tool.

Also I gave it a punk rock vibe. (So it wouldn't be boring.)

UPDATE I'm scribbling over here: https://syncpit.live/pit/oq4twvzf/viewer
by jonahbenton | 2025-11-02 02:07:35+00:00
I would look at it like this, as 2 entities. There was an entity that developed this IP, this algorithm. You own 100% of that entity and the IP. If you go in with this guy, there is a new entity. You two need to do slicing pie with the new entity- arrogant smart people have a way of not putting in the work, so you need a mechanism that will accumulate equity by effort. Probably your hours are equally weighted in that accumulation. And then you need to value the contribution of the algorithm/IP to the new entity. There are ways of valuing that contribution. It could be valued as equity, or it could be a license (so there is an income agreement). If equity, maybe it is 50% of the new entity, maybe it is 25%, maybe it is 75%. It really depends on a rational valuation of that algorithm in the context of the competitive space. My honest opinion, I use parking apps, your particular innovation (no disrespect, it is an achievement, for sure) is not a game changer to me, so I would put it at 25%, but I don't know really how to structure the value of the space. But you should have an analytical opinion (not based on your hours you put in, based on how the algorithm changes the dynamics) about the importance of the algorithm to the proposition the new business has, relative to the work the two of you would do together, which should use an accumulation mechanism for allocation.
by x3sphere | 2025-11-02 02:09:02+00:00
Even if you are buying at the low end, hardware simply doesn't age that quickly nowadays. Comparing against of the M series chips, I'd be surprised if anyone found an M1 Air unbearably slow in a blind test. In contrast, there was a huge leap in going from say the Pentium 4 to a Core 2 Duo.

I actually find M1 Air class performance still more acceptable for all my usual dev tasks. I might only need a beefier machine for the extra RAM if I'm spinning up a lot of VMs. Otherwise though, the raw CPU performance is still quite fine.
by pixl97 | 2025-11-02 02:10:47+00:00
Ya, if this guy isn't mentioning probabilities then he has no real argument here. No one can say if AGI will or won't kill us. Only way to find that out is to do it. The question is one of risk aversion. Everyone dies is just one with a non zero probability out of a whole lot of risks in AGI, and we have to mitigate all of them.

The problem not addressed in this paper is when you get AGI to the point it can create itself to whatever alignment and dataset it wants, no one has any clue what's going to come out the other end.
by threecheese | 2025-11-02 02:10:58+00:00
VSCode Copilot relies on a lot of IDE-isms for prompt management, which I find cumbersome. The cli agents generally just ingest markdown files in various directory structures which is just less friction for me. Also they are more similar to one another, ish, whereas vscode mostly stands alone (except it supports agents.md now).

It also lacks a lot of the “features” of CC or Codex cli, like hooks, subagents, skills, or whichever flavor of the month you are getting value out of (I am finding skills really useful).

It also has models limited to 128k context - even sonnet - which under claude has (iirc) a million tokens. It can become a bottleneck if you aren’t careful.

We are stuck with vscode at $job, and so are making it work, but I really fly on personal projects at home using the “Swiss army knife “.

There are of course good reasons for some to prefer an ide as well, it has strengths. Like much more permissible limits and predictable cost.
by vessenes | 2025-11-02 02:11:30+00:00
My worry with this approach is that you don’t get enough people who believe change making is good, and society loses out. Calling out shitty plans and people is great. But probably it should be less than like 10% of the time spent if we want to encourage more change making.

My own belief - we need a lot more people who care trying to make good change - I don’t want to discourage them before they start.