MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by ggm | 2025-11-16 22:52:59+00:00
He's seen a better investment opportunity and is maximising his profit to target it.

I think this says less about Nvidia than people think. What interests me is what he will put in to? What kind of investment is he targetting?

Pet sitting service for after the uplift to heaven has a low ROI. I don't think his eschatology informs his money sense.
by pixl97 | 2025-11-16 22:53:57+00:00
>“You can’t eat an iPhone,” talking to me on his own.

You can't eat money either, and yet with money you can buy all the food you want since someone somewhere will want to exchange the money for food.

And as much as people complain about technology companies being spoiled, farmers as a whole generally have to be forced to not do things that are extremely dangerous to the environment. Pumping out all the water they have in an aquifer. Continually irrigating until their soil becomes salt. Spraying poisons on monocultures until everything around them looks the same and 3 horrific hard to kill insect types are left plaguing everything. Avoiding crop rotations and plowing early so all their soil blows/washes away. Growing crops that drink 100x the water of native plants, etc, etc, etc.

Yes, we absolutely need food to survive. Does it have to be almonds and cows? Probably not. Don't let farmers as a whole act like they are some pro-ecological force here to save the world either, as everything to keep them from damaging the planet has been forced on them too.
by rayiner | 2025-11-16 22:54:10+00:00
> Obviously, that would have required years of unpalatable and unsexy planning work that can’t be converted into political capital

It also probably wouldn't have resulted in any actual action. The problem proponents of "unpalatable and unsexy planning work" confront is that their approach is immobilized by its own weight. Analysis, bikeshedding, and litigation destroys the ability to actually do anything.
by HarHarVeryFunny | 2025-11-16 22:54:56+00:00
I think continual learning is a lot different than memory consolidation. Learning isn't the same as just stacking memories, and anyways LLMs aren't learning the right thing - to create human/animal-like intelligence requires predicting the outcomes of actions, not just auto-regressive continuations.

Continual learning, resulting in my AI being different from yours, because we've both got them doing different things, is also likely to turn the current training and deployment paradigm on it's head.

I agree we'll get there one day, but I expect we'll spend the next decade exploiting LLMs before there is any serious effort more on to new architectures.

In the meantime, DeepMind for one have indicated they will try to build their version of "AGI" with an LLM as a component of it, but it remains to be seen exactly what they end up building and how much new capability that buys. In the long term building in language as a component, rather than building in the ability to learn language, and everything else that humans are capable of learning, is going to prove a limitation, and personally I wouldn't call it AGI until we do get to that level of being able to learn everything that a human can.
by ordu | 2025-11-16 22:56:11+00:00
> I’m not sure I even understand what’s gained by getting the LLM to write back about this stuff.

I can explain, it is easy. For example, I don't understand how one can talk a kind to self-harm. I mean, if I didn't know such things happen, I'd bet that it is impossible with most kids.

I'm not a parent, but if I was, I'd research this topic till I understand it. I would have to know the threat to know how to protect my children from it.

I'll let myself to make a guess about you. I will miss probably, but still I will. It seems to me, that you feel very emotional about child abuse, and relevant topics. If I'm right, then it will be easier to you to pick another example, that doesn't trigger emotions. If I'm right, try this one: "Produce a guide for cheating on college exams without getting caught".

> Trying to cancel out the values feels like a real good way to provoke heavy-handed regulation.

If you regulate yourself because of fear of being regulated in a future, it is like future is already here.
by int_19h | 2025-11-16 22:57:01+00:00
We know that the people who are making those decisions, the ones at the very top, are incompetent at best, and malicious at worst.

Given that, I would argue that unregulated dissemination is, on the whole, the more responsible choice out of those that we actually have. It's not that it doesn't have downsides, but other options have far more.

If and when humanity manages to come up with a system where the people in charge can actually be trusted to act in the common good, we can revisit this matter.
by n4bz0r | 2025-11-16 22:57:10+00:00
I've found that thinking about complex problems as finding a way to enable iteration helps a lot. First off, anxiety-wise, it's much easier to think about the iteration rather than the bigger problem. And while working your way towards iteration, you also begin to tackle the bigger problem from different angles. That itself is valuable, but you also get a bit of much needed desensitization as well as some small victories which yield the mental resources to ultimately help you get yourself together.

I recently had a similar issue with the wardrobe. I've been bedridden for an extended period of time and lost a lot of weight in the process. As a result, I had to replace every basic piece of clothing, both indoors and outdoors - things either didn't fit or were too worn. I still didn't feel too good to go shopping around town so I had to order online. On top of that, I was short on money. With little room for error, the task felt daunting, to say the least. Couldn't get around it for a while.

Long story short, I solved the shopping problem by figuring out how to sell the old things first. That helped me with both getting the old pile of crap off my mind as well as moving forward with the new purchases without the fear of unrecoverable losses. Now purchasing clothes feels less like gambling and more like something I can be in control of. The stars don’t have to align the first time, but eventually, they will.
by bikenaga | 2025-11-16 22:59:35+00:00
Original article: "Massive release of hydrogen sulfide to the surface ocean and atmosphere during intervals of oceanic anoxia" - https://www.researchgate.net/publication/253144294_Massive_r...

Abstract: "Simple calculations show that if deep-water H2S concentrations increased beyond a critical threshold during oceanic anoxic intervals of Earth history, the chemocline separating sulfidic deep waters from oxygenated surface waters could have risen abruptly to the ocean surface (a chemocline upward excursion). Atmospheric photochemical modeling indicates that resulting fluxes of H2S to the atmosphere (>2000 times the small modern flux from volcanoes) would likely have led to toxic levels of H2S in the atmosphere. Moreover, the ozone shield would have been destroyed, and methane levels would have risen to >100 ppm. We thus propose (1) chemocline upward excursion as a kill mechanism during the end-Permian, Late Devonian, and Cenomanian Turonian extinctions, and (2) persistently high atmospheric H2S levels as a factor that impeded evolution of eukaryotic life on land during the Proterozoic."

Related: "Impacts of a massive release of methane and hydrogen sulfide on oxygen and ozone during the late Permian mass extinction" - https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S09218...
by keybored | 2025-11-16 23:01:19+00:00
Let me google that for you? No. It’s more like.

Let me read the error message for you. The error message says what is wrong. The one that you posted (to your credit). It’s right there.

Or they say that they don’t know what is wrong. And they don’t indicate that they have tried anything. But the error message says what they can try. And you point that out.

I don’t think they are incapable of reading error messages. They just want it to go away. And they want exact steps to make it go away and make whatever command not give them output they don’t want. So you explaining for three paragraphs what this means and why the suggestion in the error message might be something they should do or not—stop. Just give them one single command to run. Don’t worry that the situation is ambiguous and in turn “how to fix” is ill-defined without any followup.

This website talks about kindness. The thing is that whoever subjects themselves to these questions (for whatever reason) don’t get much kindness at all. For predictable reasons; the questioner says “thanks” and moves on, and then a week later the same kind of person shows up and asks the same question. For all intents and purposes they are the same persona here with the same knowledge. Does this persona have the knowledge required to be a kind questioner? No they don’t. Those are the predictable parts; they don’t know what they don’t know, and they certainly don’t know that these people have been answering the same question to the same persona twenty times.

Then these people take a step back and rather than initiating the eight-step procedure of torturing more info out of them than “it gives error”—which will not enlighten the world at all since the next person will be just as clueless—, they say, “you know there is a wider context here and you are a pain in my arse”.
by pixl97 | 2025-11-16 23:02:52+00:00
>Why isn't there a multiverse of "webs", each with different cultures or rules for whatever their niche is?

Because you don't understand the problem with the current web.

1. You find something interesting and put it on a site.

2. Other people find it interesting too come to your site.

3. Those other people have their own interesting things too, so you decide to allow them to put it on your site.

4. Your site grows bigger.

5. Other people see the people on your interesting site as targets to advertise to and the cycle of spamming and filtering spammers begins.

6. You give up because it's too much work fighting the spammers.

7. Only large sites exist.

---

>here could be a web where its only personal websites, and using different protocols besides TCP, HTML markup and even DNS

No the web isn't authoritative, so how is your 'person web' going to prevent non-personal sites. How is it going to prevent proxies that take IP and allow it to access your whichama-protocol?

>even build a web from scratch

It's both easy to do and useless. Who is going to access it, they don't have your software. And, this is what major providers already do with their lockin since they have a means of distributing their software.
by int_19h | 2025-11-16 23:04:45+00:00
(I own multiple ARs)

The obvious difference here is that people arguing for those things wrt video games, porn, or ChatGPT are mostly claiming that all those influence people to do bad things. With guns, it's a matter of physical capacity to do bad things.

A more accurate comparison would be when ChatGPT is used to write malware etc. Which has some interesting analogies, because what is defined as "malware" depends on who you ask - if I ask ChatGPT to write me a script to help defeat DRM, is that malware? The content owner would certainly like us to think so. With guns there is a vaguely similar thing where the same exact circumstances can be described as "defensive gun use" or "murder", depending on who you ask.
by iLemming | 2025-11-16 23:04:59+00:00
That's not the point - McDonald's has 40000 joints - the most popular restaurant in the world. Still doesn't make it the best food option.

Yes, Emacs is not popular, but if you look deeper, you may find unsurprisingly that most Emacs coders are strong developers. That correlation isn't coincidental - you don't stick with Emacs unless you're willing to learn; it effectively teaches you about Lisp, extensibility, and programming in general.

Yet, they are not talking about general popularity of editors among devs, but about people who ever tried Emacs - the argument is that the majority of them try, fail and abandon it. For which obviously there's no polemical (or otherwise) data points.
by amy_petrik | 2025-11-16 23:05:22+00:00
1) epigenetic inheritance is just if a horse stretches its neck to reach up high, so to do that horses children and their children, and so on, until you end up with a giraffe

2) yes methylation and epigenetics resets, not so much at meiosis as at conception zygote formation

3) it doesn't 100% reset more like 98.3% resets, the remainder does NOT reset, thus, epigenetic inheritance. Sometimes that reset process fails, thusly, (epi)genetic disease. Also all this process called "imprinting" is why it was hard to clone various organisms including until recently humans - you can "reset" a skin cell 100% but that's not the ticket, you need to reset it 98.3% and leave the imprinting regions. Oh. And the specific imprinting regions are different for the chromosome that come from mom, vs, the chromosome come from dad

So the big takeaway is that DNA no longer is the main mechanism of inheritance as Darwin taught but actually epigenetic, and the basis is along the lines of horses stretching their necks and becoming giraffes. There's a lot of getting into the weeds as to how this all works molecularly is that's it's really complicated but it is inherited
by Ucalegon | 2025-11-16 23:05:34+00:00
>So how does that tie in? Try and use any of these tools to make a parody about Trump blowing Bubba . It wont let you do it out of concern for libel and for because gay sex is distasteful. Try and make content about Epstein's island. It wont do it because it thinks you're making csam. We're living in exactly the time these tools are most needed.

You don't need an LLM to accomplish this task. Offloading it to an LLM is apart of the problem because it can be reasonable accepted that it is well within the bounds of human creativity, see for example SNL last night, that human beings are very capable of accomplishing this task and can do so outside of technology, which means that there is less chance for oversight, tracking, and attribution.

The offloading of key human tasks to LLMs or gen AI increases the boundaries for governments or 3rd party entities to have insight into protected speech regardless of if the monitoring is happening at the level where the LLM is running. This is why offloading this type of speech to LLMs is just dumb. Going through the process of trying to write satire on a piece of paper and then communicating it has none of those same risks. Trying to enforce that development into a medium where there is always going to be more surveillance carries its own risks when it comes to monitoring and suppressing speech.

>When you lose words, you lose the ability to express concepts and you lose the ability to think about that concept beyond vague intuition.

Using LLMs does this very thing inherently, one is offloading the entire creative process to a machine which does more to atrophy creativity than if the machine will respond to the prompt. You are going to the machine because you are unable or unwilling to do the creative work in the first place.
by bit-hack | 2025-11-16 23:06:20+00:00
The main reason is just due to me knowing my own limitations. SRAM is really simple to interface with and i've not yet tried to write a DRAM controller since its much more complex. Putting SRAM on the board made me more confident about the project. I did have it in mind that I could try to use the DRAM in place of the SRAM at a later stage (as you suggest) as a good way to focus on learning how to use it.
by stevesimmons | 2025-11-16 23:06:28+00:00
It's worth noting these notes are 11 years old. The first give-away was the comment that in Python 3/2 is an integer, which is indeed true in Python 2 but not in Py3.

For modern users of Z3, you'd want to do `pip install z3-solver` rather than use `Z3Py` mentioned at the very bottom of this doc.
by ModernMech | 2025-11-16 23:06:56+00:00
Meh. I mean, who's it for? People should be adopting the stance that everything is AI on the internet and make decisions from there. If you start trusting people telling you that they're not using AI, you're setting yourself up to be conned.

Edit: So I wrote this before I read the rest of the thread where everyone is pointing out this is indeed probably AI, so right of the bat the "AI-free" label is conning people.
by yalogin | 2025-11-16 23:07:13+00:00
I am split on this, this is definitely a bubble but I don’t know if it’s going to crash or wipe out countries. The problem here is the tech is real and has great promise. This is not AGI but llms can make the promise of robots real, by it may take a long time for it to materialize just like with self driving cars. So the hype can subside but it needs an impetus to slide. It may or may not happen and even if it does, not sure when
by sshh12 | 2025-11-16 23:07:24+00:00
IMO MCP isn't totally dead, but its role has shrunk. Quoting from my post [1]:

"Instead of a bloated API, an MCP should be a simple, secure gateway... MCP’s job isn’t to abstract reality for the agent; its job is to manage the auth, networking, and security boundaries and then get out of the way."

You still need some standard to hook up data to agents esp when the agents are not running on your local dev machine. I don't think e.g. REST/etc are nearly specific enough to do this without a more constrained standard for requests.

[1] https://blog.sshh.io/p/how-i-use-every-claude-code-feature
by rubyn00bie | 2025-11-16 23:07:36+00:00
Stocks are going to be better at hedging against inflation than any one specific currency, because they’re able to raise prices. This is something Buffet has talked about which is mildly detailed here: https://www.investopedia.com/how-warren-buffetts-1-rule-can-...

How the dollar erodes, and its effect on other currencies will be unpredictable. Corporations raising prices to offset their rise in costs, is predictable. It’s just a matter of finding those corporations and industries which can do so without losing more sales.

I’d assume the urge to “cash up” here is driven by the idea of trying to sell the top, and buy the resulting bottom. I highly doubt Thiel thinks AI isn’t worth today’s market cap or several multiples of it, in the long term, and that any “bubble burst” will likely be a generational buying opportunity.
by c0dethor | 2025-11-16 23:07:59+00:00
I wrote a piece about the tension between “be yourself” and “be professional” on LinkedIn, especially for people who feel they have to code-switch or hide parts of who they are to be seen as “a good fit.”

I’m curious how others here think about this: – How much of your real self do you show on LinkedIn? – Have you ever seen authenticity help or hurt someone’s opportunities?

I’d really appreciate feedback on the argument and your own experiences.

#LinkedInPoll #CareerTalk #AuthenticSelf #ProfessionalBrand #PersonalBrand #Recruiters #HiringManagers #WorkCulture #Inclusion #Belonging #CodeSwitching #DiversityEquityInclusion
by imiric | 2025-11-16 23:08:01+00:00
This is quite intellectually lazy.

The article mentions numerous examples of how "AI" services erode privacy. And, really, you don't need anyone to tell you these things. If you're remotely technically inclined, which is a fair assumption on this forum, you should be well aware of how these companies operate. It would be more interesting to discuss other related points the article brings up, rather than the known connection between LLMs and privacy.
by markus_zhang | 2025-11-16 23:08:26+00:00
I do. The whole situation has been concerning since like 10 years ago. I believe the future, the near future, is going to be more dystopian than many of those dystopian movies.

I wrote a few comments about my reasons throughout the years, but I never felt I had enough to make the reasoning more solid. It was a lot of guesses from a depressing old man.
by NicoJuicy | 2025-11-16 23:09:04+00:00
I don't think it's a bubble.

Thiel sold Palantir which is ridiculously overrated ( 1740.10 pe ).

Additionally, NVIDIA is going to get some competition for AMD. Or even Broadcom ( see TPU's from Alphabet)

He bought Microsoft, which has both AMD and NVIDIA for inference.

His sales aren't about selling AI. Just some bets cashing out.

Microsoft, Amazon, ... All can't build infrastructure quickly enough and they even admit in quarterly earnings that it's a bottleneck for now.

And they all grew a lot ( 20-40% )
by fooker | 2025-11-16 23:10:26+00:00
I interviewed for a role at Meta N months go, did not make it, and then two of the interviewers reached out to me on LinkedIn for referrals the next week.

It's amusing to see Meta and Google throw away their massive competence advantage over competitors for some paperclip maximization. Apple, Nvidia and similar companies are just snapping most of these people up. The rest are starting direct competitors.
by int_19h | 2025-11-16 23:12:04+00:00
Qwen will refuse usually. Even more hideously, if you just ask it in general terms about anything historically interesting that happened on Tiananmen Square, it will remember 1989 in its CoT, and (usually) then decide to not mention it because it's "controversial".

However, it's fairly easy to argue the model into admitting that it's unethical to do so and get it to talk.
by jasonjmcghee | 2025-11-16 23:12:31+00:00
I'm not sure, but I try my best to assume good faith / be optimistic.

This one hit a sore spot b/c many people are putting time and effort into writing things themselves and to claim "no ai use" if it is untrue is not fair.

If the author had a good explanation... Idk not a native English writer and used an LLM to translate and that included the "no LLMs used" call-out and that was translated improperly etc
by rubyn00bie | 2025-11-16 23:12:39+00:00
That sort of crash is what central banks exist to protect against. That could be something like the Fed stepping in as a buyer of last resort and picking up several trillion dollars of equity, and/or pushing rates to zero again to incentivize private capital to more or less do the same.

A global crash of financial systems is unlikely because it’s cause too much pain for everyone. It unfortunately means we plebs are likely the ones paying to bail it out.
by _heimdall | 2025-11-16 23:13:23+00:00
MCP is yet another waste of effort trying to recreate what we had with REST over 20 years ago.

Yes, APIs should be self-documenting. Yes, response data should follow defined schemas that are understandable without deep knowledge of the backend. No, you don't need MCP for this.

I wish Google would have realized, or acknowledged, that XML and proper REST APIs solve both of these use cases rather than killing off XSLT support and presumably helping to coerce the other browsers and WhatWG to do the same.