MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by zmgsabst | 2025-11-26 15:22:51+00:00
> You make it sound like this is a result of the type: "To prove that a coloring exists, I prove that an algorithm that colors the network exists." Which it is not, as far as I understand.

This is the crux of the proof, as I understand it: to classify network coloring measurability, I classify algorithms that color the network.

Which I can do because there’s a correspondence between network colorings (in graph theory) and algorithms that color networks (in CS). Which I’m arguing is an instance of CH: they’re equivalent things, so classifying either is classifying both.

> They are not even the same cardinality. One has uncountably many nodes, the other has countably many nodes. […] Measurable colorings are related to speed of consensus.

Yes — this is why the work is technically impressive, because proving the intuition from above works when extending to the infinite case is non-trivial. But that doesn’t change that fundamentally we’re porting an algorithm. I’m impressed by the approach to dealing with labels in the uncountable context which allows the technique to work for these objects — but that doesn’t mean I’m surprised such a thing could work. Or that work on network colorings (in CS) turned out to have techniques useful for network colorings (in math).

> It seems to me you are mischaracterizing CH

You then go on to make some quibble about my phrasing that, contrary to your claim about mischaracterizing, doesn’t conflict with what you wrote.

Edit: removing last paragraph; didn’t realize new author.
by myrmidon | 2025-11-26 15:23:37+00:00
What do you mean by "high price"?

"Normal" price for a AAA game is more like $60, and Arc is 40.

Sure, indie/2D can be had for less (like Factorio or Silksong), but I would not expect an <$40 price tag for a 3D game like that.

Helldivers 2 which services the same niche goes for the same price.
by rbongers | 2025-11-26 15:23:45+00:00
I view current LLMs as new kinds of search engines. Ones where you have to re-verify their responses, but on the other hand can answer long and vague queries.

I really don't see the harm in using them this way that can't also be said about traditional search engines. Search engines already use algorithms, it's just swapping out the algorithm and interface. Search engines can bias our understanding of anything as much as any LLM, assuming you attempt to actually verify information you get from an LLM.

I'm of the opinion that if you think LLMs are bad without exception, you should either question how we use technology at all or question this idea that they are impossible to use responsibly. However I do acknowledge that people criticize LLMs while justifying their usage, and I could just be doing the same thing.
by tyleo | 2025-11-26 15:23:49+00:00
Interesting. Saying, "there may not be a safe off-ramp," doesn’t feel quite right. The article describes people losing weight while on the drugs and then regaining weight after stopping them. That's not ideal, but it does imply an off-ramp, just with regressions.

Compare that to something with no real off-ramp: testosterone replacement therapy. Once you're on TRT, you can permanently suppress your body's own testosterone production, and many men won't produce enough on their own afterward.
by NitpickLawyer | 2025-11-26 15:24:42+00:00
I debated a bit about how to answer this, because I've seen this idea so much after stable diffusion came out. I have a serious answer, and a sarcastic one. I'll go with the serious one. The sarcastic bit was just replacing coders with artists in your text. You can imagine it, I guess :)

Why are "artists" special? Why did you feel the need to type these 4 thoughtful (but overdone imo) paragraphs, defending "artisans"? Why are they special, when compared to coders? Why do the artists get to use ever better tools designed to help them, but when the other side gets the same kinds of tools, it's suddenly faux pas? Is it just "AI hate" or is it something else? Can you at least see the double standards that you apply in your post, as I can see it from outside?

It used to be that games were coded by passionate people. People who knew how to code. They'd painstakingly find ways of making ascii characters do silly things on a screen that wasn't necessarily designed for what they were doing. Later, they started playing with pixels. But they were still coders. So they coded away until the pixels started doing funny things on the screen. You talk about "art"? Hah. THAT was art. The ability and tech knowledge to make those early systems do those things with pixels is something that we just don't see today. And we don't see it, in large, because coders did what coders do and made it simpler for anyone else to do those funny things with pixels on a screen.

At every step of the way coders built software to help other people. They built engines. Then they built harnesses for the designers, animators and so on. Then they built simplified engines. The endless RPG generators, and so on. Then they built "no-code" solutions. Here, friend, you take this piece of code, plug in your art and you have a game! And they were happy to do that, because it was enabling other people to do their thing. With code they wrote. And many of them free of charge!

But now, when suddenly coders have a tool that they can use themselves, to empower them with things that they couldn't previously do, now suddenly there's a problem? Why is one artist's output "art", even if the game code is shit, while the opposite isn't? Why can't a coder enjoy creating a game, with help from tools that do something they simply don't care about? They want to do the logic behind the things moving on the screen, and can't / won't spend time creating the art. Why should they be shunned? Why not enjoy the experience for what it is? Is it just AI hate? If so, perhaps you should disclose it. Dunno, this whole take of yours feels mighty high-horsey for my taste.
Ask HN: Do LLMs Read Your /llms.txt?
by reconnecting | 2025-11-26 15:24:43+00:00
In 2024, there was an initiative to standardize the use of an /llms.txt (1) file to provide web resource descriptions that help LLMs use a website. As part of our security analytics (2) development, we're investigating how bots, especially LLMs, interact with web applications.

What we've observed is that this file is never requested by any LLMs. At most, it was requested by bots from BuiltWith and WebPageTest, but not by major LLMs.

Can you check your logs to see if llms.txt is being autonomously read by any popular LLMs?

(1) https://llmstxt.org/

(2) https://github.com/tirrenotechnologies/tirreno
by forgetfulness | 2025-11-26 15:25:04+00:00
Hackers never had a very cohesive and consistent ideology or moral framework, we heard non stop of the exploits of people funded as part of Cold War military pork projects that got the plug pulled eventually, but some antipathy and mistrust of the powerful and belief in the power of knowledge were recurrent themes nonetheless

So why is it a surprise that hackers mistrust these tools pushed by megacorps, that also sell surveillance to governments, with “suits” promising other “suits” that they’ll be making knowledge obsolete? That people will no longer need to use their brains, that people with knowledge won’t be useful?

It’s not Luddism that people with an ethos of empowering the individual with knowledge are resisting these forces
by the__alchemist | 2025-11-26 15:25:04+00:00
I am getting tilted by both corp AI hype and the luddites like this. If you don't think that term is appropriate, then I am not sure if it's ever appropriate to use it in the general sense. The "I know you will say you use it appropriately but others don't" pre-emption is something I have seen before, and it isn't convincing.

This article lacks nuance, and could be summarized as "LLMs are bad" Later, I suspect this author (and others of this archetype) will moderate and lament "What I really meant was: I don't like corporations lying about LLMs, or using them maliciously; I didn't imply they don't have uses". The words in the article do not support this.

I believe this pattern is rooted in social-justice-oriented (Is that still the term?) USA left politics. I offer no explanation for this conflation, but an observation.
by wswope | 2025-11-26 15:25:05+00:00
I volunteered at an archaeology lab run by the state govt a few months ago.

Knowing I was a data engineer, one of the archaeologists asked me to take a look at the cataloging system he’d cobbled together on his own: a shared-drive Access database with a full-featured CRUD interface that the whole office had been using for years.

I was able to clean up one stray bug he had, and confirm his suspicion that one particular action was running slow because it had to touch multiple files by necessity (he’d rolled his own sharding) — but generally speaking, it was a work of art more effective than anything I could’ve ever come up with. Sometimes the “dirty hacks” are the best solutions.
by ssl-3 | 2025-11-26 15:25:16+00:00
I used to use a browser extension that devolved thumbnails and titles. That seemed nice, but I stopped using it a few years ago because I don't want that kind of content in my life and changing the window dressing didn't fix it.

I do this instead: When a thumbnail and/or title is displayed on my screen feels like some variation of spammy clicky ragebait, I use the 3-dot menu and pick "Not interested" or "Don't recommend channel".

Nowadays, that kind of stuff is pretty much just gone.

This has certainly nuked whole channels (and also entire categories) from my youtube feed, and that suits me just fine. I need my life to be encumbered neither by clickbait, nor by the subset of creators that are compelled to generate it in the first place.

There's more good, interesting, non-bait content created every day than any person has time to consume. The herd is plenty big enough to be culled.

I think I'll be OK without watching videos -- at all -- from people who are working to jam the cock of influence as hard as possible into whatever they can.
by wvbdmp | 2025-11-26 15:25:42+00:00
They call this “a game engine built on Source 2”, and their own C# code is MIT licensed here, but I’m still not sure for what exactly this can be used? It’s my understanding that S&box still has major Source 2 dependencies, right? Their docs say

>S&box is coded in C#. Under the hood, it uses the Source 2 engine and some of its systems: rendering, resources, physics, and audio.

https://sbox.game/dev/doc/

Surely one can’t just grab this and build commercial games with it?

Definitely seems like a very dope move, though.
by Atotalnoob | 2025-11-26 15:25:56+00:00
There are so many issues with what you have here… where to start…

You aren’t running tests, unless you put them in the dockerfile which is a bad idea…

You aren’t running security scans. how do you deploy manifest changes? Using Latest as a tag has so many issues.

This is a trivial and niave pipeline I would expect from a junior or intern.

Build pipelines are becoming more complicated because software is more complex. You can still promote ownership of the full pipeline while giving developers control.

Don’t shy away from it, understand it, embrace it. It’s just going to continue getting more complex
by 0xFEE1DEAD | 2025-11-26 15:25:58+00:00
I agree with this take, but I'm wondering what vibe coders are doing differently?

Are they mainly using certain frameworks that already have a rigid structure, thus allowing LLMs to not worry about code structure/software architecture?

Are they worry-free and just run with it?

Not asking rhetorically, I seriously want to know.
by falcor84 | 2025-11-26 15:26:06+00:00
I don't know if that's what you were already referring to, but for me, the shout-outs for "Double Kill, Multi Kill, Ultra Kill, MONSTER KILL!!!" account at this stage for probably a majority of the nostalgia for the original Unreal Tournament. Of course it didn't hurt that the game was phenomenal and a great fit for its time, but still, I think that the quality of voice lines can make or break a game.
by atleastoptimal | 2025-11-26 15:26:46+00:00
HN loves this "le old school" coder "fighting the good fight" speak but it seems sillier and sillier the better and better LLM's get. Maybe in the GPT 4 era this made sense but Gemini 3 and Opus 4.5 are substantively different, and anyone who can extrapolate a few years out sees the writing on the wall.

A year ago, no reasonable person would use AI for anything but small-scoped autocomplete. Now it can author entire projects without oversight. Inevitably every failure case for LLM's is corrected, everything people said LLM's "could never do" they start doing within 6 months of that prognostication.
by bob1029 | 2025-11-26 15:27:26+00:00
I've been working with a partner on a game and we decided that AI assets are acceptable to use for targeted scenarios like localization and accessibility (text-to-text, text-to-speech).

The red line is AI cannot be the prime generator of content. For example, the text that is to be localized must be authored by a human. Using ChatGPT to generate scripts from a brief prompt and then feeding that into another AI tool is an example of strictly prohibited use.

You can have an actual human redo the translations or voice lines without much frustration (i.e., if we actually make any money). Anything further than that gets a lot more invasive in terms of rework.
by bparsons | 2025-11-26 15:27:38+00:00
I think the question is whether people are willing to pay for an LLM when there are equivalent or good-enough free competitors available.

One could argue that LLMs will change the world, but that doesn't guarantee that LLM companies will capture any of that value.

The additional rub is that the paying power users are arguably costing these companies more money than the free users.
by mohamadkk7 | 2025-11-26 15:27:49+00:00
Over the past year, I kept noticing the same problem: AI is moving fast, but discovering genuinely useful tools is getting harder every month.

So I built a simple page that updates daily and collects the newest AI tools in one place — not ranked, not filtered by popularity, just a clean feed of what’s new.

While curating the list, a few patterns became obvious:

most “new” tools are just wrappers

truly original ideas are rare but easy to miss

small indie tools often outperform big-name releases

the pace of experimentation in 2025 is insane

I'm sharing it here because I'm curious:

How do you discover new AI tools today? And is a simple, always-fresh directory still useful in 2025 — or are people overwhelmed by choice?

Would appreciate any feedback or ideas to improve it.
by jebarker | 2025-11-26 15:28:43+00:00
> Note how different, and massively more complex, the spatio-temporal real world of messy analog never-same-twice dynamics is to the 1-D symbolic/discrete world of text that "AI" is currently working on.

I agree that the real world perceived by a human is vastly more complex than a sequence of text tokens. But it’s not obvious to me that it’s actually less full of repeating patterns or that learning to recognize and interpolate those patterns (like an LLM does) is insufficient for impressive generalization. I think it’s too hard to reason about this stuff when the representations in LLMs and the brain are so high-dimensional.
by ciconia | 2025-11-26 15:28:45+00:00
Where's the popcorn? I don't really care either way about so-called AI. I find the talk about AGI quite ridiculous, but I can imagine LLMs have their utility just like anything else. I don't vibe code because I don't find it useful. I'm fine coding by myself thank you very much.

When the AI hype is over and the bubble has burst, I'll still be here, writing quality software using my brain and my fingers, and getting paid to do it.
by naasking | 2025-11-26 15:28:46+00:00
> That would imply that a person with a high IQ score is uniformly better at every task compared to a person of lower IQ.

No it doesn't, that's why I said "tend to".

> On the contrary, it just misleads the educators to the student's real abilities. It ignores and hides the atypical talents that students possess.

The test simply doesn't measure atypical talents, so there's no "hiding". That's why I said the test is used to identify people who will face challenges. What happens next has nothing to do with the IQ test and everything to do with other methods of assessment that should be used. Every test has limitations that those applying the test should understand.

> That's far too narrow to be identified as an indicator of intelligence

That's why it's a (strong) correlation and not a strict equality.

Look, jumping height has been empirically demonstrated to be a good predictor of overall athletic performance, and you're coming here and saying that there exist some people without legs that can do more pull-ups than most people with legs. That's all well and good, but that doesn't somehow refute the idea that jumping height is a good predictor of overall athletic performance. It's just a complete red herring. If you happen to encounter someone without legs, then use a different test.

People with legs who don't exhibit good jumping heights but are very good at some specific athletic challenge could exist, but they tend to be good only at that specific challenge (and ones that are very, very similar). This is a completely different thing than the general factor of fitness, which is correlated with all sorts of physical abilities, just like general factor g is correlated with all sorts of cognitive abilities.
by solarkraft | 2025-11-26 15:28:54+00:00
> Do you think that's in-line with what you're thinking of

It definitely sounds good. Of course it's hard to anticipate what interfaces new features will require, it probably won't always be possible to integrate new features with a generic plugin (voice mode is most likely such a feature), but if the code is well architected, this should be okay.

> Interesting. Why do you think that is?

Writing has a lot of friction to me. It's much more comfortable for me to provide context through verbal rambling, which LLMs are great at processing. I like to research stuff and throw around ideas while pacing, doing chores or just lying with my eyes closed.

Unfortunately I just discovered that I won't be able to run Onyx on my low powered home server anyway (https://docs.onyx.app/deployment/getting_started/resourcing#...). I understand that a Vector database requires significant resources to run, but I wish there was a version without it.
Show HN: Generate documentation sites from Git repositories
by BroTechLead | 2025-11-26 15:29:01+00:00
I’m sharing an MVP of a tool for building documentation sites directly from Git repositories: https://brodocs.io with auto conversion of PlantUML and draw.io diagrams.

All repos appear on left tree menu, but you can also create sites with top menu structure where each menu item directs to subsite with own left menu structure. Examples: https://brodocs.io/94c8be738065bd0c559/Backlog/Intakebacklog..., https://brodocs.io/21a3986b137fb8f4ff8/Backlog/README.html,

Who may like it:

Large organizations to build central and per team documentation sites from micro (and nano) services docs, Terraform/Ansible modules, solution designs, architecture decision records. Keeping docs as markdown in git allows collaboration through standard PR workflows. Could be an input to construct agents.md or copilot-instructions.md in given area, describing architecture at high level, to get better vibe codes. I see quite often that teams build own sites using some static site generator and CI/CD pipelines, moving away from wiki like Confluence, but it costs some effort to build/maintain and security is missing.

Small distributed teams working on startups to have common docs space built from markdown files stored close to source code. When hiring starts, new people need to be on boarded quickly.

Individuals who use PKM (Personal Knowledge Management) tools based on markdown, such as VS Code, NeoVim, Obsidian, or Logseq. If you have spent some time to build PKM, you might be using it in read-only mode for some stable parts, so e.g. in restrictive corporate environments where your favorite PKM tool might not be allowed, or don't want to have too many VSC windows open, quick access from a browser could be helpful.

The MVP does not require signing up. Login and management app will come next.

Happy to hear observations, criticism, and suggestions. How do you prefer to write tech docs at your work, wiki or markdowns in git repo? Do you publish them using some static site generators?
by menaerus | 2025-11-26 15:29:09+00:00
I am wondering how often do you use AI models? Because I do it on a daily basis, and as much as they have limitations, I find them to be performing incredibly well. It's far very far from being a demo - last time it was a demo that looked "cool" was around 2020/21 when they were cool for spitting out the haiku poetry, and perhaps 2022 when capabilities were not as good. But today? Completely mind-blowing.

If you're not convinced, I suggest you to search for the law firms, hospitals, and laboratories ... all of which are using AI models as of today to do both the research and boiler-plate work. Creative industries are being literally erased by the generative AI as we are speaking. What will happen with the Photoshop and other similar tools when I can create whatever I want using the free AI model in literally 2 seconds without prior knowledge? What will happen with majority of movie effect makers when single guy will be able to do the work of 5 people at the same time? Or interior designers? The heck, what will happen with the Google search - I anticipate nobody will be using it in a year or two. I already don't because it's a massive sink of time compared to what I can do with perplexity for example.

There's many many examples. You just need to have your mind open to see it.
by tonyhart7 | 2025-11-26 15:29:56+00:00
didn't know wikipedia has content creator, last time I check they called themselves "volunteer" while Wikimedia foundation spends money on DEI project

also why we stop at youtube videos, just pirate the games,steal music and movie etc

but don't cry when they goes bankrupt and stop releasing new games,movie etc anymore

we can just generate new art,music,movie,games etc with AI

after all, tech industries is created just for that
by mothballed | 2025-11-26 15:29:57+00:00
Well yeah of course it's not hard to get involved in politics, if the involvement is supporting people who are rich and powerful even if it is via the use of a more modest looking young mouthpiece. OP was supporting a conservative party, so basically going with the flow of a bunch of what a bunch of influential and rich people wanted as their pawn. If you have something that is of little consequence to the rich, like mothers against drunk driving or something, sure you can probably get it done as it's a token gesture and the powerful just pull strings to get out of those prosecution anyways.

If you look at actually trying to move the meter away from the status quo of the rich and powerful, rather than just repainting the pieces on the chess board, you see politicians like Bernie Sanders or Ron Paul found the whole thing rigged against them. Bernie was railroaded by the upper echelons of his own party and Ron Paul found his name magically erased from practically all the talks on the high level debates in the press to the point they would just skip over his name in the primary poll rankings.
by jeffbee | 2025-11-26 15:30:03+00:00
I think it's a positive step for American housing market to slowly check off the list of pointless non-solutions so that we can finally arrive at the conclusion that the only way out of the crisis is to build housing. We're just following the San Francisco process here. Ban realpage. Tax vacancies. Complain about foreign investors. Put a tax on "mansions" that's actually a tax on apartment buildings. We will slowly, slowly check off all the boxes of the pointless things. Then 50 years later we can start building houses.