MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by salawat | 2026-03-09 17:21:05+00:00
Nah, nah, nah. Let me help you there. You don't have the big picture because you either haven't asked, or it hasn't been shared with you. If you ask, and you still don't have it, it's being intentionally hidden, or the person doesn't know/can't articulate the connection. One of these is a problem for the org. The other is potentially structurally beneficial for the org, but a massive problem for you. Feel free to guess which is which. I leave it as an exercise to the student.
by AlotOfReading | 2026-03-09 17:21:06+00:00
The distinction being made is the difference between intellectual knowledge and experience, not originality.

Imagine a interviewing a particularly diligent new grad. They've memorized every textbook and best practices book they can find. Will that alone make them a senior+ developer, or do they need a few years learning all the ways reality is more complicated than the curriculum?

LLMs aren't even to that level yet.
by ynac | 2026-03-09 17:21:07+00:00
We had a science teacher in 7th grade whose teaching style was all overhead notes. She'd give us time to copy them into our spiral bounds or 3-rings and when we were all done, she'd swap for the next slide.

She didn't lecture but she did tell stories about her farm, hunting, and occasionally some science. We could ask questions and tell stories if we finished copying the notes before everyone else was done. So, one of the takeaways from her class was getting very efficient and neat with my writing. I tried to write in a clean all caps and eventually learned which strokes were best for speed and spacing. I still use that hand-font and I always think of her sitting on the wall radiator laughing through some story of trying to fix a bad situation.
by close04 | 2026-03-09 17:21:30+00:00
I did this to FreeNow (the Uber competitor). No cat though. When they changed their “late fee” that I pay to the driver they if I’m late but nobody pays me if they’re late, and made it implicitly accepted, I emailed them my conditions and said that continuing to provide me a service is implicitly accepting them.

I still have the account. Do you think it worked? I’ll need to test that in court.
by johnofthesea | 2026-03-09 17:21:31+00:00
> AI is eroding copyright, so there may no longer be a need for the GPL. GNU should stop and rethink its stance, chuck away the GPL as the main tool to fight evil software corporations and embrace LLM as the main weapon.

Is this LLM thing freely available or is it owned and controlled by these companies? Are we going to rent the tools to fight "evil software corporations"?
by harperlee | 2026-03-09 17:21:35+00:00
A fundamental thing that this misses, I think, is that the reinforcement learning approaches of AlphaGo do generate that sensation of lack-of-narrative, everything together at the same time alien thinking, whereas using an LLM as hypothesized would have a clear tree-like approach with an overarching thesis, so the approach would be more traditional / human like.
by heavyset_go | 2026-03-09 17:21:45+00:00
Threads are cheap, you can do N work simultaneously with N threads in one process, without serialization, IPC or process creation overhead.

With multiprocessing, processes are expensive and work hogs each process. You must serialize data twice for IPC, that's expensive and time consuming.

You shouldn't have to break out multiple processes, for example, to do some simple pure-Python math in parallel. It doesn't make sense to use multiple processes for something like that because the actual work you want to do will be overwhelmed by the IPC overhead.

There are also limitations, only some data can be sent to and from multiple processes. Not all of your objects can be serialized for IPC.
by tgsovlerkhgsel | 2026-03-09 17:21:58+00:00
No, it was an undocumented one-off using a random cheap devboard from Aliexpress (i.e. not some specifically optimized circuit!), built (IIRC) using the Arduino IDE - aside from spending the time to find and configure the low power mode properly, this was done in the dumbest, most naive way possible, and still worked.
by rpcope1 | 2026-03-09 17:22:41+00:00
> observability tooling for Python evolving

As much as I dislike Java the language, this is somewhere where the difference between CPython and JVM languages (and probably BEAM too) is hugely stark. Want to know if garbage collection or memory allocation is a problem in your long running Python program? I hope you're ready to be disappointed and need to roll a lot of stuff yourself. On the JVM the tooling for all kinds of observability is immensely better. I'm not hopeful that the gap is really going to close.
by wolf4earth | 2026-03-09 17:22:59+00:00
The point of the argument is that meaning emerges in conversation. A session between human and AI is a conversation.

Current AI storage paradigms offer lateral memory across the time axis. What exists around me?

A bit branch is longitudinal memory across the time axis. What exists behind me?

Persist type checked decision trees within it. Your git history just became a tamper-proof, reproducible O(1) decision tree. Execution becomes a tree walk.

It works. And it's not production ready yet.
by pembrook | 2026-03-09 17:23:23+00:00
Being coal free is a good enough goal in itself, getting off fossil fuels completely in the short term was always a stupid, irrational and religious idea.

If the world transitioned everything currently on coal to Nat gas, along with population decline that's happening, it solves the worst effects of climate change for the rest our lives (Nat gas provides the same power as coal at half the emissions, so 2X less Co2 and 10X less on many air pollutants).

And in the next 100 years if we haven't made fossil fuels irrelevant with cheap modular fission OR made fusion viable OR made space solar viable, then something horrible has happened and Co2 emissions will be the least of our worries.
by markdoubleyou | 2026-03-09 17:23:45+00:00
Agreed, roommates were huge for me before I started a family. I have a strong tendency to become a hermit, and having another human in the vicinity is just enough healthy social pressure to snap me out of it. Forces me to wash the dishes and do normal human things.

Also very important for me: I always have some decent clothes hanging in my closet that are washed, prepped and ready to go for various situations. Not having something nice to wear for a last-minute social event is a massive source of friction, but if I can easily throw on some clothes that I feel good about then it really dials up my enthusiasm.
by myth_drannon | 2026-03-09 17:24:34+00:00
In 1990, 20% of cars were not electric. No wind/solar power too. Those models are totally useless.

I'm more worried about AI electricity consumption than oil prices doubling.
There is too much upside for this war. Once the ayatollahs are gone, Iranian oil will flow to the free markets and unfortunately, oil prices will crash (making electric vehicles not an attractive option).
by cuuupid | 2026-03-09 17:24:46+00:00
While this suit has a weak basis, what you’re saying is not at all how government contracting and procurement works.

> The government has near-absolute discretion over whom it contracts with,

Not at all the case, procurement is dictated by a maze of Congressional acts and the FAR.

> and no company has a constitutional right to be a federal vendor.

Not constitutional but federal law actually dictates they do. Many companies actually have _more_ of a right to contracts than primes.

> Courts treat military technology decisions as core Commander-in-Chief functions subject to minimal judicial review,

Not at all the case there have been many disputes and it’s not uncommon to see a protest filed against procurement decisions in even innocuous cases. Many companies (eg Palantir) have sued the government on procurement and won.

> and the political question doctrine may bar second-guessing what the Secretary deems a security risk.

Sure, lowercase security risk, but uppercase Supply Chain Risk designation is an actual action subject to administrative procedure. There are many laws (eg Administrative Procedure Act) that allow judges to overturn this. The current basis of their suit is largely ideological but if they instead argued the designation was arbitrary the APA could very possibly be used to overturn it.
by philsnow | 2026-03-09 17:25:02+00:00
> The main downside of this was memory usage. You would have to load all of your code and libraries N types and in-process caches would become less effective.

You can load modules and then fork child processes. Children will share memory with each other (if they need to modify any shared memory, they get copy-on-write pages allocated by the kernel) and you'll save quite a lot on memory.
by thomastjeffery | 2026-03-09 17:25:05+00:00
While I personally agree with you, Richard Stallman (the creator of the GPL) does not. He has always advocated in favor of strong copyright protection, because the foundation of the GPL is the monopoly power granted by copyright. The problem that the GPL is intended to solve is proprietary software.

Generative models (AI) are not really eroding copyright. They are calling its bluff. The very notion of intellectual property depends on a property line: some arbitrary boundary where the property begins and ends. Generative models blur that line, making it impractical to distinguish which property belongs to whom.

Ironically, these models are made by giant monopolistic corporations whose wealth is quite literally a market valuation (stock price) of their copyrights! If generative models ever become good enough to reimplement CUDA, what value will NVIDIA have left?

The reality is that generative models are nowhere near good enough to actually call the bluff. Copyright is still the winning hand, and that is likely to continue, particularly while IP holders are the primary authors of law.

---

This whole situation is missing the forest for the trees. Intellectual Property is bullshit. A system predicated on monopoly power can only result in consolidated wealth driving the consolidation of power; which is precisely what has happened. The words "starving artist" ring every bit as familiar today as any time in history. Copyright has utterly failed the very goals it was explicitly written with.

It isn't the GPL that needs changing. So long as a system of copyright rules the land, copyleft is the best way to participate. What we really need is a cohesive political movement against monopoly power; one that isn't conveniently ignorant of copyright as its most significant source.
by alberto-m | 2026-03-09 17:25:17+00:00
> When property costs 1 million+ (the case in Berlin/Munich), financially it really doesn't matter whether I net 6500 EUR month working 50+ hours for FAANG or 4500 EUR working 35 hour weeks for a German corporate

Financially in the first case you can afford a mortgage on said property (barely, with some help from parents/partner, maybe aiming for something slightly out of the very city centre), in the second case you cannot. Also, 4500 net for a 35-hr week is something you will not easily find in a German corporate: at that level, levels.fyi only lists non-German multinationals. Unless you become a contractor, or rise really high on the corporate ladder.

But I agree on the rest of your comment, and I have also left Germany because of the massive amount of money that the government feels entitled to take from the pockets of the so-called “top earners” (i.e. anybody making the equivalent of 70'000 $) while giving back barely anything in terms of services.
by ordu | 2026-03-09 17:25:34+00:00
> LLM's - to date - seem to require massive capital expenditures to have the highest quality ones, which is a monumental shift in power towards mega corporations and away from the world of open source

Yeah, a bit of a conundrum. But I don't think that fighting for copyright now can bring any benefits for FOSS. GNU should bring Stallman back and see whether he can come with any new ideas and a new strategy. Alternatively they could try without Stallman. But the point is: they should stop and think again. Maybe they will find a way forward, maybe they won't but it means that either they could continue their fight for a freedom meaningfully, or they could just stop fighting and find some other things to do. Both options are better then fighting for copyright.

> There's also an ethical/moral question that these things have been trained on millions of hours of people's volunteer work and the benefits of that are going to accrue to the mega corporations.

I want a clarify this statement a bit. The thing with LLM relying on work of others are not against GPU philosophy as I understand it: algorithms have to be free. Nothing wrong with training LLMs on them or on programs implementing them. Nothing wrong with using these LLMs to write new (free) programs. What is wrong are corporations reaping all the benefits now and locking down new algorithms later.

I think it is important, because copyright is deemed to be an ethical thing by many (I think for most people it is just a deduction: abiding the law is ethical, therefore copyright is ethical), but not for GNU.
by askrzypczak | 2026-03-09 17:26:03+00:00
The IRT angle is interesting — most adaptive learning tools just do basic spaced repetition, but using Item Response Theory to estimate ability level in real-time is a much more honest approach to "personalized." The JSXGraph integration for gradable math graphs is a nice touch too, that's a hard problem. Quick question: how do you handle subjects where the "right answer" is more ambiguous? Does the LLM grading struggle with open-ended questions outside of math?
by tgsovlerkhgsel | 2026-03-09 17:26:08+00:00
There definitely are lower-powered options; I mostly meant that as an example that as an hobbyist, an ESP32 - possibly even on a standard dev board! - could easily be good enough for your use case.

I never did a formal study to see how much of that power use was standby vs. power-on usage, how much of the standby usage was the ESP32 vs. the board/voltage regulators/pulldowns, how much of the power on usage was radio vs. e.g. all the crypto (we're doing asymmetric crypto for the TLS handshakes on batteries here, that isn't going to be cheap!) etc.

I just slapped it together and found it good enough to not care further.
by signal11 | 2026-03-09 17:26:36+00:00
Liquid Glass is Apple’s Windows Vista. They had a ton of fun with Vista in their “switch” ads, if the Windows team were in better shape they could have a field day just screenshotting Tahoe on Social Media. Lucky they’re distracted with their own challenges.

Liquid Glass does have some good points, but it feels like someone turned in C- level work.
by kpw94 | 2026-03-09 17:26:38+00:00
It seems the definition of "learning" for humans creates some conflict - yes true learning means it has to be non-ephemeral, in which case you're right. But simianwords' meaning of learning is more ok with the ephemeral nature of it.

For a human: cramming class material so that you know the concepts & tools to apply for the exam. Forget all about it after getting wasted the Friday night after the exam. Sure this was not true learning, but it was certainly sufficient to achieve the task at hand. It is a sort of ephemeral learning.

For a LLM: learning via context a few milli-seconds before applying the concept, forget all about it after the answer is given. Even more ephemeral, but also sufficient to achieve the task at hand.

The lack of persistence of the learned concepts means of course the LLM will never obtain world class PhD level, since the nature of true learning is you compound more learning on top of prior learnings.

But despite that limitation, as simianwords' and many other have noticed: the ephemeral learning is already effective and yields to useful results.

New iterations of models (and fine tuning) do push the LLM persistent boundary of knowledge a bit further, but the extra on-the-fly learning that is bound by exploitable context size do count as "learning"
by Ma8ee | 2026-03-09 17:26:42+00:00
> can we actually do anything about it that is not just letting go of a comfortable life

Yes, no doubt! And actually doing something about it will impact our lives much less than trying to continue as usual. If we would have started 30 years ago, the transitions would have been smooth, but now it is going to be harsher. The problem is that doing something about it will affect the profits of some very big and influential corporations, and they are doing everything they can to sow FUD.
by simquat | 2026-03-09 17:26:53+00:00
I'm working on Breadboard[0], a modern HyperCard for web apps.

We recently added an AI integration, starting with a UI agent. We're experimenting with a BYOK approach so anyone can try the assistant in the playground[1] without signing in while keeping it sustainable for us. Currently the AI integration connect to Gemini.

A logic agent is in progress, it's a bit trickier because it needs to work with Breadboard's visual-stacked-instructions language based on Hyperscript.

We're also releasing documentation.

[0] https://breadboards.io

[1] https://app.breadboards.io/playgrounds/hello – to access the AI assistant click on the Duck on the dock, you can try with a free api key from Google AI Studio[2] –

[2] https://aistudio.google.com/api-keys
by kazinator | 2026-03-09 17:26:57+00:00
You can't put a copyright and MIT license on something you generated with AI. It is derived from the work of many unknown, uncredited authors.

Think about it; the license says that copies of the work must be reproduced with the copyright notice and licensing clauses intact. Why would anyone obey that, knowing it came from AI?

Countless instances of such licenses were ignored in the training data.
by dathinab | 2026-03-09 17:27:04+00:00
> flipping it over.

i.e. mirroring it

> use it to achieve a very different goal."

"very different goal" isn't the same as "fundamentally destroying copyright"

the very different goal include to protect public code to stay public, be properly attributed, prevent companies from just "sizing" , motivate other to make their code public too etc.

and even if his goals where not like that, it wouldn't make a difference as this is what many people try to archive with using such licenses

this kind of AI usage is very much not in line with this goals,

and in general way cheaper to do software cloning isn't sufficient to fix many of the issues the FOSS movement tried to fix, especially not when looking at the current ecosystem most people are interacting with (i.e. Phones)

---

("sizing"): As in the typical MS embrace, extend and extinguish strategy of first embracing the code then giving it proprietary but available extensions/changes/bug fixes/security patches to then make them no longer available if you don't pay them/play by their rules.

---

Through in the end using AI as a "fancy complicated" photocopier for code is as much removing copyright as using a photocopier for code would. It doesn't matter if you use the photocopier blind folded and never looked at the thing you copied.
Show HN: ROLV – 20x faster MoE FFN inference on Llama 4 Maverick vs. cuBLAS
by heggenhougen | 2026-03-09 17:27:09+00:00
I benchmarked ROLV against dense cuBLAS on the actual Llama 4 Maverick MoE expert FFN layer (up_proj, 16384×5120, bfloat16) pulled directly from HuggingFace (model-00001-of-00084.safetensors).
Numbers (Batch=512, 1000 iters, NVIDIA B200):
Tokens/s: 369K (cuBLAS) → 7.66M (ROLV) — 20.7x faster
TFLOPS (effective): 62 → 1,285 — 20.7x
Time to First Token: 64.8ms → 0.37ms — 177x faster
Energy: 232J → 43J — 81.5% savings
ROLV exploits structured sparsity in MoE expert weights to skip large blocks of computation entirely, while producing canonically equivalent output (hash-verified). The TFLOPS figure is "effective" — computed as if doing the full dense multiply — so the 1285 TFLOPS isn't violating hardware peak; it's reflecting how much work was avoided.
The TTFT speedup (177x) is especially relevant for interactive inference: MoE models spend a huge fraction of first-token latency in these expert projections, and collapsing that from 65ms to 0.4ms per layer changes what's possible for real-time applications.
Verified with norm hashes at both ends (baseline and ROLV output) and a canonical check. Weights are real, not synthetic.
Setup: PyTorch 2.8.0+cu128, CUDA 12.8, Python 3.12, NVIDIA B200.
by skybrian | 2026-03-09 17:27:10+00:00
Broadly speaking, the “freedom of users” is often protected by competition from competing alternatives. The GNU command line tools were replacements for system utilities. Linux was was a replacement for other Unix kernels. People chose to install them instead of proprietary alternatives. Was it due to ideology or lower cost or more features? All of the above. Different users have different motivations.

Copyleft could be seen as an attempt to give Free Software an edge in this competition for users, to counter the increased resources that proprietary systems can often draw on. I think success has been mixed. Sure, Linux won on the server. Open source won for libraries downloaded by language-specific package managers. But there’s a long tail of GPL apps that are not really all that appealing, compared to all the proprietary apps available from app stores.

But if reimplementing software is easy, there’s just going to be a lot more competition from both proprietary and open source software. Software that you can download for free that has better features and is more user-friendly is going to have an advantage.

With coding agents, it’s likely that you’ll be able to modify apps to your own needs more easily, too. Perhaps plugin systems and an AI that can write plugins for you will become the norm?
by dostick | 2026-03-09 17:27:29+00:00
So many replies about doing the religion group thing, and op saying “great psychiatrist put me on bunch of antidepressants”, obviously this is U.S. centric. And optimistic in this way. I don’t see anyone not from U.S. replying and maybe it’s irrelevant, but think about it - maybe this is the end and you just counting the days until the end and nothing is coming, you will not meet anybody.
by AnonymousPlanet | 2026-03-09 17:27:37+00:00
That is a very popular opinion and I've held it too for a very long time. Until I read an issue [1] of The Economist in 2020 and did some digging afterwards.

Turns out, the real moat of any successful car industry so far wasn't brand recognition, lobbyists, tariffs, or the pleasing sound of a shutting car door. It's the combustion engine itself. Or rather the industry you're embedded in that provides the metallurgy and chemistry to reliably produce high quality engine blocks and seals. Because your engine needs to withstand high pressures and temperatures that go from below freezing all the way up to way over 2000K. And you also need the know how and experience to build all of that together.

None if that can be exfiltrated as a zip file or wished into existence by party officials.

The EV sidesteps all of that in one go. Now it's all down to who has the best batteries and who can do high quality assembly real cheap. Both points go to China.

Why? The same reason: The surrounding industry. It's what you get from doing (even simple) electronics for decades, cultivating a competitive industry for assembly and high quality battery cells.

The only hope for the incumbents was hydrogen instead of batteries because this again is engineering and seals.

The alternative would have been to become really good at batteries themselves. However, Europe's best chance to get there, Bosch, decided in 2018 not to go that way [2].

Once you let all of that sink in, you realise the inevitability of the current situation.

And they knew. All this time they knew. The rest was song and dance for politicians and shareholders.

[1] https://www.economist.com/technology-quarterly/2020/01/02/ch...

[2] https://www.reuters.com/article/business/bosch-shuns-battery...