MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by barrell | 2025-12-02 19:50:28+00:00
If I cannot tolerate a failure rate, I do not use LLMs (or and ML models).

But in that case the larger the better. If mistral medium can run on your M2 Ultra then it should be up to the task. Should eek out ministral and be just shy of the biggest frontier models.

But I wouldn’t even trust GPT-5 or Claude Opus or Gemini 3 Pro to get close to a zero percent success rate, and for a task such as this I would not expect mistral medium to outperform the big boys
by gpt5 | 2025-12-02 19:51:07+00:00
This is an area where hacker news shows its weakness. We have:

1. A chart showing a very low increase (1-2 percent)

2. Nothing to control scores rising in every school in America in the last school year (due to reduction of COVID effects).

3. Scores not moving immediately after the ban, but only after the start of a new school year, which means a new cohort of students muddying the data.

Yet the data fits people's biases here (regardless whether it's right or wrong), so the celebrate it and add anecdotes and explanations why it's true.
by neom | 2025-12-02 19:51:21+00:00
I hadn't seen this, thanks for sharing. So basically the reward of the model was to reward the user, and the user used the model to "reward" itself (the user).

Being generous, they poorly implemented/understood how the reward mechanisms abstract and instantiated out to the user such that they become a compounding loop, my understanding was it became particularly true in very long lived conversations.

This makes me want a transparency requirement on how the reward mechanisms in the model I am using at any given moment are considered by whoever built it, so I, the user can consider them also, maybe there is some nuance in "building a safe model" vs "building a model the user can understand the risks around"? Interesting stuff! As always, thanks for publishing very digestible information Simon.
by lossolo | 2025-12-02 19:51:26+00:00
What problems have LLMs (so models like ChatGPT, Claude, Gemini, etc, not specific purpose algorithms like MCTS tuned by humans for certain tasks like AlphaGo or AlphaFold) solved that thousands of humans worked decades on and didn't solve (so as OP said, novel)? Can you name 1-3 of them?
by _DeadFred_ | 2025-12-02 19:51:27+00:00
In the USA cowboys were homeless guys. You know that right? Like they had no home, slept outside. Many were pretty big layabouts. Yet they are pretty big part of our foundation myth and we don't say 'man they just should have died'.

Can I go be a cowboy? Can I just go sleep outside? maybe work a few minimal paying cattle run jobs a year? No? If society won't allow me to just exist outside, then society has an obligation to make sure I have a place to lay my head.
by Javin007 | 2025-12-02 19:51:45+00:00
There's a lot more details here I didn't include for the sake of brevity.

The reason I haven't messed with it in 2 years is because the personal project I'm working on (an indie MMO) was put on the back burner. However, my "real job" has asked me to set up some VM dev boxes that we could remote into. They were the ones that wanted Azure, which lead me down the road of trying to set up some boxes on my old account.

When I couldn't, the autist in me wasn't able to just shrug and move on, so I spent the better part of the day trying to "get it to work" when I don't explicitly NEED it for this particular project.
by mrinterweb | 2025-12-02 19:51:56+00:00
I don't like being this guy, but I think Deepseek 3.2 stole all the thunder yesterday. Notice that these comparisons are to Deepseek 3.1. Deepseek 3.2 is a big step up over 3.1, if benchmarks are to be believed. Just unfortunate timing of release. https://api-docs.deepseek.com/news/news251201
by quesera | 2025-12-02 19:52:04+00:00
That's a trap.

We know that Caesar lived. We probably also know that Jesus lived. They are both real people (probably) and also icons.

Zeus did not live, as we understand him, but the notional Zeus is derived from earlier prototypes and it's even possible that there was a real human behind proto-Zeus as there is behind notional Jesus. There is more documentation behind Caesar, of course, but the full truth of "Caesar" the icon is equally unknowable.

All of these characters have extensive mythologies about the details, intentions, and meanings of their lives.

Many of those details are unverifiable-but-critical parts of their stories, and the purposes those stories serve. Even the verifiable points of truth have mythologies around their meaning.

This may devolve into a question of what is knowable and what is unknowable. Facts are very very important, but they are not the most powerful force in society.

If you want to argue that you are a scholar of the early Roman Empire, and you know everything there is to know about Caesar, that's fine -- but the scholarship changes, and all you are saying is that you can recite the most-accepted-today interpretation of sparse facts. Interesting, but not authoritative.

They say that history is written by the victors. Caesar was a victor until he was not. They do not say that history is truth.
by sifar | 2025-12-02 19:52:04+00:00
What I have come to realize is that, at a societal level, no amount of rational discourse will counter the fear/emotional response. If it were, the world wouldnt' be in the state it is today.

Only time, reality shock or meeting a proportionate external force are the antidote. And even these can be stretched via the constant propaganda drip.

There is a great Charles Mackay quote applicable here: "Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one."
by reissbaker | 2025-12-02 19:52:14+00:00
This is the major reason China has been investing in open-source LLMs: because the U.S. publicly announced its plans to restrict AI access into tiers, and certain countries — of course including China — were at the lowest tier of access. [1]

If the U.S. doesn't control the weights, though, it can't restrict China from accessing the models...

1: https://thefuturemedia.eu/new-u-s-rules-aim-to-govern-ais-gl...
by kenhwang | 2025-12-02 19:52:22+00:00
Yes, both can pull in open source libraries and I can't imagine either dropping that ability. Though they do seem to have different eagerness and competency on Node compatibility and Bun seems better on that front.

From a long term design philosophy prospective, Bun seems to want to have a sufficiently large core and standard library where you won't need to pull in much from the outside. Code written for Node will run on Bun, but code using Bun specific features won't run on Node. It's the "embrace, extend, ..." approach.

Deno seems much more focused on tooling instead of expanding core JS, and seems to draws the line at integrations. The philosophy seems to be more along the lines of having the tools be better about security when pulling in libraries instead of replacing the need for libraries. Deno also has it's own standard library, but it's just a library and that library can run on Node.
by derriz | 2025-12-02 19:52:35+00:00
> A function that doesn't take an Io argument but wants to call another function that requires an Io argument can't.

Why? Can’t you just create an instance of an Io of whatever flavor you prefer and use that? Or keep one around for use repeatedly?

The whole “hide a global event loop behind language syntax” is an example of a leaky abstraction which is also restrictive. The approach here is explicit and doesn’t bind functions to hidden global state.
by jstummbillig | 2025-12-02 19:52:38+00:00
I don't know what to do with this take.

We need an order of magnitude more clean productivity in the world so that everyone can live a life that is at least as good as what fairly normal people in the west currently enjoy.

Anyone who think this can be fixed with current Musk money is simply not getting it: If we liquidated all of that, that would buy a dinner for everyone in the world (and then, of course, that would be it, because the companies that he owns would stop functioning).

We are simply, obviously, not good enough at producing stuff in a sustainable way (or: at all) and we owe it to every human being alive to take every chance to make this happen QUICKLY, because we are paying with extremely shitty humans years, and they are not ours.

Bring on the AI, and let's make it work for everyone – and, believe me, if this is not to be to the benefit of roughly everyone, I am ready to fuck shit up. But if the past is any indication, we are okay at improving the lives of everyone when productivity increases. I don't know why this time would be any different.

If the way to make good lives for all 8 billions of us must lead to more Musks because, apparently, we are too dumb to do collectivization in any sensible way, I really don't care.
by KK7NIL | 2025-12-02 19:52:38+00:00
> And from the employees’ perspective, as an investor, I’d see them being on an early founding team as a risk going forward.

Every employee is a flight risk if you don't pay them a competitive salary; that's just FUD from VC bros who are getting their playbook (sell the company to the highest bidder and let early employees get screwed) used against them.
by mbreese | 2025-12-02 19:53:02+00:00
I believe there is a difference between what people say publicly and what they are actually committed to doing on the ground. When all is said and done, I'll be more interested to know what was actually spent.

For example, XYZ AI company may say they are going to spend $1T for AI data centers over the next 5 years.

In actuality, I suspect it is likely that they have committed to something like $5-10B in shovel-ready projects with stretch goals for the rest. And the remaining spend would be heavily conditioned -- is power available? are chips available? is the public support present? financing? etc...

Not to mention, it's a much bigger moat if you can claim you're going to spend $1T. Who else will want to compete with you when you're spending $1T. After the dust has settled and you've managed to be one of the 2-3 dominant AI players, who is going to care that you "only" spent $100B instead of $1T. Look -- you were very capital efficient!

So, do I see it as possible that XYZ AI company could spend $1T, sure. Is it likely? No.
by cmiles8 | 2025-12-02 19:53:11+00:00
Well AWS says Anthropic uses it but Anthropic isn’t exactly jumping up and down telling everyone how awesome it is, which tells you everything you need to know.

If Anthropic walked out on stage today and said how amazing it was and how they’re using it the announcement would have a lot more weight. Instead… crickets from Anthropic in the keynote
by thenaturalist | 2025-12-02 19:53:47+00:00
> ... but Nvidia’s latest 10-Q offers clues.

> The filing states plainly that “there is no assurance that any investment will be completed on expected terms, if at all,” referring not only to the OpenAI arrangement but also to Nvidia’s planned $10 billion investment in Anthropic and its $5 billion commitment to Intel.

"We are definitely not Enron"...
by dylan604 | 2025-12-02 19:54:15+00:00
I have plenty of hobbies that I can't wait until 5 so I can get back to them. I actually get mad when I realize I'm thinking about work outside of work hours. My hobbies all lean toward the creative side making things by hand, but even that sometimes entails using a computer. Just because it involves using a computer does not mean it's work related. For work, I code and build workflows. For hobbies, I dabble at making graphic design that is just a notch or two better than amateur. I've even coded a few hobby projects to build electronic stuff for my photography adventures.

I really feel like you personally might have a problem separating work/life if you're this emotional about it. If you really think that software peeps are the only ones that have this issue, it comes across as you not being able to see the forest through the trees, you might be too scoped in, or any other similar saying you want to use. You're definitely painting with a very broad brush, and it's not coming across well as you're now painting me into something I most certainly am not.
by BugsJustFindMe | 2025-12-02 19:54:21+00:00
> If you have to keep the initial requirement for your software, then SQLite is completely out of equation.

No it isn't? You can run a thin sqlite wrapping process on another server just fine. Ultimately all any DB service is, PostgreSQL included, is a request handler and a storage handler. SQLite is just a storage handler, but you can easily put it behind a request handler too.

Putting access to sqlite behind a serial request queue used to be the standard way of implementing multi-threaded writes. That's only spitting distance away from also putting it behind TCP.
by thomashabets2 | 2025-12-02 19:54:27+00:00
Since basically all the comments are about how both the author and many commenters are confused about what UDP and DGRAM sockets are, I have corrected the author's code to no longer miscommunicate what protocol is being used.

https://github.com/ThomasHabets/rust-ping-example-corrected

There is no UDP used anywhere in this example. ICMP is not UDP.

I'm not saying my fix is pretty (e.g. uses unwrap(), and ugly destination address parsing), but that's not the point.
by b44rd | 2025-12-02 19:54:52+00:00
First of all, thanks a ton for the feedback! I see I probably need to make some improvements to the app, asap, like a simple tutorial.

If you want more images of a place when in swipe mode, you can tap the right side of the card. You can also tap the distance thingy in the top right corner to view it in Google Maps. And if you tap the heart/cross, you see the next place(s). When having made some selections, you end up with a list. Hopefully that makes the decision process easier for some - At least it does it for my part.

When knowing both of these things, for me, having used the app myself, I have found some amazing places to eat using it. But I see that it doesn´t provide value for all. You´re partially right about the vibe coding as well. Coded everything by hand a year ago, but finished it using AI, for sure. :D

Anyway, this probably isn´t for everybody, I think, but for people used to this pattern (tapping the card to see more pictures), I hope it brings more value than a picture of the outside of a place.

Really appreciate the feedback though, again thanks a ton. Will make some improvements based on this for sure.
by Zambyte | 2025-12-02 19:54:54+00:00
> One thing I am curious about is whether there is any plan for channels in Zig.

The Zig std.Io equivalent of Golang channels is std.Io.Queue[0]. You can do the equivalent of:

type T interface{} fooChan := make(chan T) barChan := make(chan T) select { case foo := <- fooChan: // handle foo case bar := <- barChan: // handle bar }

in Zig like:

const T = void; var foo_queue: std.Io.Queue(T) = undefined; var bar_queue: std.Io.Queue(T) = undefined; var get_foo = io.async(Io.Queue(T).getOne, .{ &foo_queue, io }); defer get_foo.cancel(io) catch {}; var get_bar = io.async(Io.Queue(T).getOne, .{ &bar_queue, io }); defer get_bar.cancel(io) catch {}; switch (try io.select(.{ .foo = &get_foo, .bar = &get_bar, })) { .foo => |foo| { // handle foo }, .bar => |bar| { // handle bar }, }

Obviously not quite as ergonomic, but the trade off of being able to use any IO runtime, and to do this style of concurrency without a runtime garbage collector is really interesting.

[0] https://ziglang.org/documentation/master/std/#std.Io.Queue.
by VirusNewbie | 2025-12-02 19:55:06+00:00
literally what does Apple or Google have over Boeing as a company to work at

Smarter coworkers.

Better engineering culture.

Better benefits.

More time off.

Bosses with engineering chops.

More flexible schedules.

Less likely to get laid off.

Perks like free food/massages/events.

Equity so as the company grows your pay increases automatically.

Large bonuses.

Are you actually serious you'd rather work at Boeing?
by troyvit | 2025-12-02 19:55:07+00:00
It's wayyyy to early in the game to say who is out-executing whom.

I mean why do you think those guys left Meta? It reminds me of a time ten years ago I was sitting on a flight with a guy who works for the natural gas industry. I was (cough still am) a pretty naive environmentalist, so I asked him what he thought of solar, wind, etc. and why should we be investing in natural gas when there are all these other options. His response was simple. Natural gas can serve as a bridge from hydrocarbons to true green energy sources. Leverage that dense energy to springboard the other sources in the mix and you build a path forward to carbon free energy.

I see Mistral's use of US VCs the same way. Those VCs are hedging their bets and maybe hoping to make a few bucks. A few of them are probably involved because they're buddies with the former Meta guys "back in the day." If Mistral executes on their plan of being a transparent b2b option with solid data protections then they used those VCs the way they deserve to be used and the VCs make a few bucks. If Europe ever catches up to the US in terms of data centers, would Mistral move off of Azure? I'd bet $5 that they would.
by hodgehog11 | 2025-12-02 19:55:14+00:00
No, I don't think they'll be okay. A long slow death perhaps, but I would be surprised if they can dig themselves out of this hole.

You can't beat Google on high-quality data for pretraining; at scale, that's what really matters most, both in theory and practice. Other companies like Anthropic and DeepSeek are keeping up by taking advantage of smarter RL approaches, but I just don't see anyone at OpenAI with the research credentials to do that kind of work as they all left in the last mass exodus. They have been too complacent and let much of their high-quality talent go to their competition.
by jameslk | 2025-12-02 19:55:17+00:00
> if powerful AI is coming regardless, Anthropic believes it's better to have safety-focused labs at the frontier than to cede that ground to developers less focused on safety (see our core views).

It used to be that only skilled men trained to wield a weapon such as a sword or longbow would be useful in combat.

Then the crossbow and firearms came along and made it so the masses could fight with little training.

Democracy spread, partly because an elite group could no longer repress commoners simply with superior, inaccessible weapons.
by zzo38computer | 2025-12-02 19:55:24+00:00
> I'm still confused how these ISO 2022 strings even work

There is C0, G0, C1, and G1 sets (C0 and C1 are control characters and G0 and G1 are graphic characters), and escape sequences are used to select the C or G set for bytes with or without the high bit set. Graphic string does not allow control characters and General string does allow control characters.

You probably do not need all control characters; your schema should probably restrict which control characters are allowed in each context (although the ASN.1 schema format does not seem to have any way to do this). This way, you will only handle the control characters which are appropriate for your use.

This is messy, although canonical form simplifies it by adding some restrictions (this is one of the reasons why DER is better than BER, in my opinion). TRON code is better and is much simpler than the working of ISO 2022. (Unicode has a different kind of mess; although decoding is simpler, actually handling the decoded characters in text is its own big mess for many reasons. Unicode is a stateful character set, even though the encoding is stateless; TRON code is the other way around (and with a significantly simpler stateful encoding than ISO 2022).)

> the ASN1 docs discourage using the UniversalString and GraphicString types

UniversalString is UTF-32BE and GraphicString is ISO 2022 without control characters. By knowing what they are, you should know in which circumstances they should be considered useful or not useful; I think that they should not be discouraged in general (although usually if you want Unicode, you would use UTF-8 rather than UTF-32, there are some circumstances where you might want to use UTF-32, such as if the data or program is already UTF-32 for other reasons).

(The data type which probably should be avoided is the UTC time type, which is not Y2K compliant.)

> All these different string types are intimidating if I just want unicode/ascii

If you only want ASCII, use the IA5 type (or Visible if you do not want control characters); if you only want Unicode, use the UTF-8 string type (or Universal if you want UTF-32 instead for some reason). ("IA5" is another name for ASCII that as far as I can tell hardly anyone other than ITU uses.)

However, Unicode is not a very good character set, and they should not force or expect you to use it.

As I had mentioned before, you do not need to use or implement all of the ASN.1 data types; only use the ones appropriate for your application (so, if you do not like most of the types, then don't use those types). I also made up some additional nonstandard ASN.1 types (called ASN.1X), which also might be useful for some applications; you are not required to use or implement these either.
by waffletower | 2025-12-02 19:55:37+00:00
That's an utterly hilarious straw man, a spin worthy of politics, and someone else would label, a tautological "cheat". Students "cheated" hundreds of years ago. Students "cheated" 25 years ago. They "cheat" now. You can make an argument that AI mechanizes "cheating" to such an extent that the impact is now catastrophic. I argue that the concern for "cheating", regardless of its scale, is far overblown and a fallacy to begin with. Graduation, or measurement of student ability, is a game, a simulation that does not test or foster cognitive development implicitly. Should universities become hermetic fortresses to buttress against these untold losses posed by AI? I think this is a deeply misguided approach. While I had been a professor myself for 8 years, and do somewhat value the ideal of The Liberal Arts Education, I think students are ultimately responsible for their own cognitive development. University students are primarily adults, not children and not prisoners. Credential provisions, and graduation (in the literal sense) of student populations, is an institutional practice to discard and evolve away from.
by jtokoph | 2025-12-02 19:55:38+00:00
One option is that the current Bun shareholders didn't see a profitable future and didn't even care if they were made even and a return of the remaining cash was adequate.

Another option is that this was an equity deal where Bun shareholders believe there is still a large multiple worth up potential upside in the current Anthropic valuation.

Plus many other scenarios.
by dylan604 | 2025-12-02 19:55:48+00:00
A long time ago, I had a co-worker that would stand next to the time clock with card in hand ready to "get those goose eggs" by swiping out exactly at 5:00. In the morning, he'd stand there waiting to swipe in at 8:29 until it said 8:30. In his words, "I give them what they give me, 40 hours".
by daheza | 2025-12-02 19:55:49+00:00
I'm getting AI generated product requirements that they haven't read themselves. It is so frustrating. Random requirements like "this service must have a response time of 5s or less" - "A retry mechanism must be present". We have a specific SLA already for response time and the designs don't have a retry mechanism built.

The bad product managers have become 10x worse because they just generate AI garbage to spray at the engineering team. We are now writing AI review process for our user stories to counter the AI generation of the product team. I'd much rather spend my time building things than having AI wars between teams.