skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
Hey just wanna say I was sick yesterday, so if I was a schmuck I apologize. I think we actually agree on most of the things, and even as I was posting responses I was like, "... there's something hypocritical here but I can't quite see it." So again, my apologies.
I think it's instructive to sit down with a woman who trusts you and watch how they evaluate dating profiles. It was certainly eye-opening for me.

Your biggest competition is not the other men on the app. It's "do you make their life better than being alone?"
Uh sounds like you need therapy, not an AI personality makeover
Next they will try to force us to use our tax dollars to fund their legal fights.
https://archive.is/c6cn9

« The thing I noticed right away when Claude came out is how little lock-in ChatGPT had established. This was very different to my experience when I first ran a search on Google, sometime in the year 2000. After the first time I used Google, I literally never used another search engine again; it was just light years ahead of its competitors in terms of the quality of its results, and the clarity of its presentation.
This week I added a third chatbot to the mix: DeepSeek »

Follow up: https://x.com/TheStalwart/status/1884606421225848889
Internal, not external. (Sure, people are known to shuck the drive out of the reliability-killing enclosure)
If you read the law it says it’s only allowed if the rights holder doesn’t disallow it (in machine readable form) - I would argue robots.txt falls under machine readable
That shouldn't be the premise of a company that has "open" in its name as well?
What is being argued in the article that AI Companies could be doing illegally:

-Using AI to “foster or advance deception.”

-Falsely advertising “the accuracy, quality, or utility of AI systems.”

-Create or sell an AI system or product that has “an adverse or disproportionate impact on members of a protected class, or create, reinforce, or perpetuate discrimination or segregation of members of a protected class.“
From what I see, the majority of HDDs on Amazon are now used devices.

Which isn't necessarily bad... HDDs have a much longer lifespan than SSDs. I expect my used HDDs to last at least 5years in my RAID5 setup.
There's one per quarter. Last one: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=42122740
They really lost their minds. They're all scared and worried because companies in other countries can also access the same data they stole from the Internet.
I’m using it through Kagi which doesn’t use Deepseek’s official API [1]. That limitation from the docs seems to be everywhere.

In practice I don’t think anyone can economically host the whole model plus the kv cache for the entire context size of 128k (and I’m skeptical of Deepseek’s claims now anyway).

Edit: a Kagi team member just said on Discord that they’ll be increasing max tokens next release

[1] https://help.kagi.com/kagi/ai/llms-privacy.html
behind the internet bubble was the modern internet.
Am I the only one that had the immediate thought of "this seems intentional" when they read that they're offering the credit for a newer pixel?
Otherwise known as a race to the bottom
You are underselling or not understanding the breakthrough. They trained 600B model on 15T tokens for <$6/m. Regardless of the provenance of the tokens, this in itself is impressive.

Not to mention post-training. Their novel GRPO technique used for preference optimization / alignment is also much more efficient than PPO.
Because you haven't heard of the proprietary software that wasn't ever sold internationally because of these bans.

Of course Joe Sixpack can throw their code up anywhere, but Joe Corporation gets wrecked if they try to sell it.

https://developer.apple.com/documentation/security/complying...

For example, this is enforced by Apple Store.
Add PS1 too. The US government banned sale of PlayStation to China because the PLA would apparently have access to cutting edge chips for their missiles
Because they completed the initial design in 2001, and broke ground in 2007. The superconductors became available in the early 2010s.
I did not have in my cards: PRC open sourcing most powerful LLM by stealing data set from "OpenAI"
As someone that is very Pro-America and Pro-Democracy, the iron here is just...
so sweet.
They have been out-grifted by DeepSeek and OpenAI is not happy about someone out-shining them on that.

The best part is "their IP" was humanity's scraped content and they are angry that DeepSeek did their job for them and gave it away for free.
1 billion MAU? What's the source on that? Very difficult to believe.
Zerodium and similar 0day sweatshops pays a lot for these 0days. Bug bounty programs directly thru the companies have been documented to screw over researchers.
ha, the story is filled with ironies.

OpenAIs $200 closed-ai uppended by hedge-funds free side-project

Quant geeks outcompete overpaid silicon valley devs
etc.

Basically, hubris gets its comeuppance which is a david vs goliath biblical archetype which is why this drama grips all of us.
There are R1 providers on openrouter with bigger input/output token limitations than what DeepSeek's API access currently offers.

For instance Fireworks offers R1 with 164K/164K. They are far more expensive than DeepSeek though
How you dare take what I've rightfully stolen!
the cat is of the bag, there is no point in trying to fight it at this point if data is accessible. models will be built on top of models and will become cheaper to train. in fact, u can fight these battles now only bc they are big companies and training is expensive. if training/inference improves and becomes more at the edge in the hands of users, nobody will stop anyone else from consuming whatever data they want (raw data, other models, whatever) into their own models just like we consume whatever data we hav access to and build our own mental models. all you can do is simply not share your data.
>So, there are several untrue things here.

Several things you disagree with or would like to reinterpret. All are perfectly accurate and factual.

> Fact that AST is deSPAC has nothing to do with this. AST has gone out of that phase stellarly.

Look at the work of fiction that is their original DA deck. Every. Single. Milestone. delayed. They went from $40 ATH during SPACmania to $2 last year. Also they've diluted with ATM offerings, which is of huge consequence to those buying in at NAV or higher.

> Definitely both architectures have pros and cons, but for the fixed-earth cells the bent-pipe is way more optimal then constant switching of the cell position which Starlink has.

Yes. One will be supported in NTN 3GPP and one supposedly circumvents the limitation of current 3GPP through undisclosed technological means. Guess which one is the incumbent with a track-record of delivering constellations into LEO, and which one is the startup claiming everything and delivering nothing commercially available or independently verifiable to date?

> Rakuten didn't hit them with the fine, but they exercised a contractual right to get 10 million dollar back if they don't deliver something.

Yes. In common parlance that's referred to as a fine for non-delivery.

>It is interesting that company without research team has so many patents on this technology and partners with Google, AT&T, Verizon, Vodafone, Rakuten, American Tower and that none of them is seeing how hoax they are. Maybe they will come here and get actually enlightened.

Wouldn't be the first time any and all of the above have thrown millions at snake-oil and pipe-dreams. Given what they've actually committed to in terms of cash you can draw your own conclusions.

Abel has had to absolutely tank the share price on multiple occasions - the at-the-market sale in Q4'24 of $400m was particularly telling given not a single one of their strategic partners were willing to step up and bridge them over the bare $440m runway they had to get them through 2025. After the CFO was interpreted as promising no dilution in 2024.

>https://x.com/CatSE___ApeX___/status/1884304059110470050

A swedish farmer/enthusiast on twitter? Not a source.
If you want to solve the problem I look too much at my phone then choosing differently is an appropriate solution. If you want to solve the problem people in general look too much at their phone then telling them to "just do better" is an inappropriate solution.
While societal structures and corporate practices shape behavior, you're right, individuals still retain agency. But progress lies in fostering environments that support healthy choices while encouraging self-reflection and responsibility. Dismissing either side of the equation undermines effective problem-solving. ie, food deserts are real
They could pivot to being a wrapper around DeepSeek. That would also save a lot of R&D costs.
Sadly long-covid research is very underfunded. Doing a few thousand DNA tests is not that expensive.
> My employer has a ban on using AI on IP until this is properly resolved, because we actually care about it leaking.

Yet I can almost guarantee you that someone has put something they shouldn't through ChatGPT, because they either feel like it's a dumb rule, that should not apply to them, or they where in a hurry and what are the odds of them getting caught.
> they'll likely demand that the big future discoveries remain closed-sourced

Depends on whether they want these tools to be adopted in the wider world. Rightly or wrongly there is a lot of suspicion in the West and an open source approach builds trust.
SAltman, Salty.
No one can predict how progress is going to happen
No - data mining copyrighted material and republishing copyrighted material under your own name are two very different things
Do you have a use case for your opinion?

Use the ultra smart AI to convince you that I’m right. :)
like someone said above. demand is infinite. imagine a world where the local AI/Engineer tech is a ubiquitous as the uber driver. don't think it will necessarily create smaller paychecks. hard to say. But I see demand skyrocketing for customized software that can be provided at 1/10 of today's costs.

We are far away from that though. As an enterprise software/data engineer, AI has been great in answering questions and generating tactical code for me. Hours have turned into minutes. It even motivated me to work on side projects because they take less time.
You will be fine. Embrace the change. Its good for you. Will lead to personal growth.
Infection isn't the only concern.

Severity of disease course is a consideration.
I'll try and spin it a different way -- What if the US and China had been unfairly taking advantage of their lax rules to bring innovation to the damage of their (and other countries') citizens, much like China has been unfairly exploiting its own lower standards of living and personal freedom to gain advantage in terms of manufacturing power against the US and Europe?
Probabilistic Increment
> Whether you send a session ID in a cookie or a JWT makes no difference for the app's general behavior

It does make a difference. The cookie is sent by the browser to the server, the JWT is sent in the Authorization: header by the JavaScript code executed by the browser.

Using an opaque JWT token wrapped in cookie is OK. Using a JWT token in the Authorization: header is not OK.
A tip, Miami guy to Miami guy - the best devs eschew PHP like the plague. The remaining PHPers are desperate work-a-day sorts who will not be bringing the latest hotness to your project. Hire an Elixir or Haskell expert and you're gonna get a much more well-traveled coder.
In both cases, legality depends entirely on repercussions, i.e. if there's someone to enforce the ban. I suspect that in the "illegal numbers" case there might be.
Because the person who realized it doesn't matter isn't in a position to eliminate it.
I think so; I joined Reddit when it was in tech news as people left Digg after the big redesign. I'm not sure when the exodus started. I left Fark over the hd-dvd mess.
> Open source just means you have access to the source code. Which you do.

No, they also fail even that test. Neither Meta nor DeepSeek have released the source code of their training pipeline or anything like that. There's very little literal "source code" in any of these releases at all.

What you can get from them is the model weights, which for the purpose of this discussion, is very similar to compiler binary executable output you cannot easily reverse, which is what open source seeks to address. In the case of Meta, this comes with additional usage limitations on how you may put them to use.

As a sibling comment said, this is basically "freeware" (with asterisks) but has nothing to do with open source, either according to RMS or OSI.

> This is a debate that started, like, twenty years ago

For the record, I do appreciate the distinction. This isn't meant as an argument from authority at all, but I've been an active open source (and free software) developer for close to those 20 years, am on the board of one of the larger FOSS orgs, and most households have a few copies of FOSS code I've written running. It's also why I care! :-)
OpenAI is going after a company that open sourced their model, by distilling from their non-open AI?

OpenAI talks a lot about the principles of being Open, while still keeping their models closed and not fostering the open source community or sharing their research. Now when a company distills their models using perfectly allowed methods on the public internet, OpenAI wants to shut them down too?

High time OpenAI changes their name to ClosedAI
> after a quick look at the SMART stats, everything appeared normal. Later, though, the reader did a more thorough Field Accessible Reliability Metrics (FARM) test and discovered [that it wasn't]

I had a look at how to run these FARM tests, and it seems I want smartctl 7.4 (which is too new for Debian stable but available in backports).
Ahh so the difference is in a definition of supply.

You say drilling more oil is something different than building more efficient cars.

I would say in both cases supply of oil increased so there is no real difference.
I think most likely all sorts of data and models need to have a decentralized LLM data archive via torrents etc.

It’s not limited to the models themselves but also OpenAI will probably work towards shutting down access to training data sets also.

imho it’s probably an emergency all hand on deck problem.
> While all of this is true, that DeepSeek wouldn't be here were it not for the research that preceded it (notably Llama), and ChatGPT which they're modeled after...

If the allegation is true (we don't know yet), then what you've written perfectly proves the point everyone is making. ChatGPT wouldn't be here if it weren't for all the research and work that preceded it in terms of tons of scrapable content being available on the Internet, and it's not like OpenAI invented transformers either.

Nobody is accusing DeepSeek of hacking into OpenAI's systems and stealing their content. OpenAI is just saying they scraped them in an "unauthorized" manner. The hypocrisy is laughably striking, but sadly nobody has any shame anymore in this world it seems. Play me the world's tiniest violin for OpenAI.
> large portions of america are anti-intellectual

Large portions of the world are anti-intellectual, at the same time intellectuals are often much worse than the average person and frequently do deserve scorn as a class of people in society.
Sourcegraph Introduces AI Agents
Yes, and what does preceding research do? Get followed by more research building on it.
Fortunately, OpenAI doesn't need to make money because they are a nonprofit dedicated to the safe and transparent advancement of AI for all of humanity
Thank you so much, this is super valuable feedback and actually very easy to add. We will add this soon!
Hmm - if only macpro's had memory that could be upgraded like in the olden days.
The R1 paper used o1-mini and o1-1217 in their comparisons, so I imagine they needed to use lots of OpenAI compute in December and January to evaluate their benchmarks in the same way as the rest of their pipeline. They show that distilling to smaller models works wonders, but you need the thought traces, which o1 does not provide. My best guess is that these types of news are just noise.

[edit: the above comment was based on sensetionalist reporting in the original link and not the current FT article. I still think there is a lot of noise in these news this last week, but it may well be that openai has valid evidence of wrongdoing; I would guess that any such wrongdoing would apply directly to V3 rather than R1-zero, because o1 does not provide traces and generating synthetic thinking data with 4o may be counterproductive.]
It amuses me how everyone always thinks someone else has the "bullshit job."
He's just repeating a lot of disinformation that has been released about deepseek in the last few days. People who took the time to test DeepSeek models know that the results have the same or better quality for coding tasks.
I found the argument that it’s impossible to test SQL (and some other hard statements in this article) a bit too absolute.

Testing SQL is not impossible – SQL unit testing is a thing – identify a unit of SQL, such as a query, function, or stored procedure - mock the necessary inputs and any state that is modified and check the result of the unit just as you would in any unit testing framework (e.g. arrange, act, assert). Perhaps it’s a little difficult, or different to wrap our heads around (and many do not take the time to see how this can work) but it’s not impossible.

Also, as others have already pointed out, depending on the implementation of the SQL engine itself, different engines can have very different behaviors, some of which make composable SQL possible already today (e.g. table valued functions, CTEs that are inlined, stored procedures, etc).

And for what it’s worth, if you look at a lot of the data processing engines we use today (such as Apache Spark), they really solve the problem of being able to compose and modularize code and SQL together, through data frames or things like language integrated query, integrations of languages that compile down to code that can run and be orchestrated on common execution engines, and so forth.
> Valuations are based on future profits.

Which are estimated, in significant part, by the chance of a competitor arising.

If the barriers of entry are much lower than originally thought, the potential profit margin plummets.
> configure Dovecot and Postfix

'Creating a new inbox' was an exaggeration on my part. What I have is a catchall on my fastmail account. But when I talk about creating creating inboxes it seems to make it easier for normal people to understand what I'm doing and the benefits it brings.

> we are also assuming that they have to be unguessable

That would be nice, but I don't have a nice way of doing it. I've tried to use something like rot13 to make it less obvious, but it is a pain to manage it. It would be nice it existed a cypher that was pretty easy to do in my head, but I never found anything like this.

> you have github@? maybe I should target linkedin@, too, then!

Yes, this is a problem. For a targeted attack this may become a weakpoint in my defense. But this is a calculated risk I'm willing to accept for now.
Scraping data is different from scraping outputs from a model.
This Deep Whining® technique used by OpenAI is not very effective.
this is like when my manager once yelled at me for not writing in corp speak enough
Read my second paragraph.
> Google has acknowledged the mess and offered compensation: a free battery replacement, $50 cash, or $100 credit toward a new Pixel.
Yeah they're setting this up to ban it. Crazy that they think this kind of approach will work in any way. Banning H100s didn't work, and actually pushed them to innovate. Now someone has found a more efficient way to train a model and they decide the best way forward is for the US not to benefit from access to it? This is clear evidence of collusion between OpenAI and the US Government to disadvantage competitors. Beyond that, it will never work. If they need to be reminded of just how little power they have to control the distribution of open source models, I think we would all be happy to enlighten them.
> it was indeed edgy and weird and loaded and cool

that's simply what you feel when you are 18, no matter what the actual year
Don't forget all the research that came before OpenAI and ChatGPT...
I don't think the memo mentions training data sources; it's about usage and impact.
how did the joke go: other disciplines need funding, math just needs to chalk.(?)
Capitalism doesn’t care about rights or how much you get paid — the only relevant metric is how much money you make so this was inevitable in capitalist America.
You have free will to do what you want to do.

You do not have the ability to stop being you, the person who wants the things that you want. Even if you want to change yourself - and maybe succeed! - that desire for change is still part of being you. If you didn’t want it, you would have been someone else.
> If you're accesing, say, an Iranian site, SpaceX will obviously see that

Why? Your DNS requests should be encrypted.
That’s a given.

Another counter argument is that’s Nvidia will sell less high margin advanced GPUs that require expensive networking equipment.

Problem with that argument is that every competitor gets the benefit of higher efficiency and the baseline will reset back to 0.
Traditional recommendation systems struggle with long-term user modeling and scalability. EmbSum leverages LLM-driven summarization to precompute rich user and content embeddings, outperforming models like UNBERT and MINER with fewer parameters. With poly-attention and offline processing, it sets new benchmarks in accuracy and efficiency. Is this the future of content-based recommendations?
Show HN: I built a landing page builder so you can capture leads in minutes
It’s funny, the Chinese are here innovating on AI, batteries, and fusion, and here in the United States we’ve pivoted to shitcoins and universal tariffs.

At least we have the CyberTruck to highlight American greatness
> It's "do you make their life better than being alone?"

This is a really lovely sentiment and I wish more people approached it like this. I've never set up a dating profile and I don't plan to. But hiding stuff like fish pictures seems a bit over the top, surely if fishing is one of your passions you'd want to end up with someone who at least doesn't judge you for it.

Also keep in mind this approach of making sure your dating profile is "optimised" only works until a large enough %age of men's profiles are "optimised" - then its back to square 1 to figure out how to optimise it further to put yourself at the front of the queue again. We've seen what the SEO arms race has done to search engines, do we really want to do the same thing for dating?
4. have a system for tracking every single dataset you have lying around including ones that might just be for experiments and in a different format and purge people who have requested to be forgotten or be fined 10s of thousands of dollars

5. frequent new legal interpretations that become the basis of enforcement and then you have to rearchitect the whole way you were handling data

always good to impose onerous rules on R&D when you are critically losing the R&D and capital race
Make commercial hosting illegal, and make the hardware to run it locally cost $6000+
X partners with Visa to enable money transfers on the platform
Protecting their citizens
OK, this is "sex in the city" bloggery, but it does contain some very good & important points which HN readers should attend to. Specifically to my mind: the importance of CHANCE and NOT-KNOWING to the value of experience, and happiness. To simplify: Romance necessitates CHANCE. A chance encounter, something improbable, strange, etc is the basis for the myth that sustains the romantic idea. Dating apps are inherently anti-romantic. Relatedly, many experiences are valuable ONLY because they are unpredictable. Adventure necessitates NOT KNOWING what is coming. Smartphones kill the spirit of adventure.