skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> In life there is no cheating

This really rubs me the wrong way because it reflects the shallow, borderline sociopathic stance of nowadays entrepreneurship.

Obedience to rules and honest attitudes is more than just an annoyance in your way to get rich, its the foundation of cooperation -- our civilization.
What, what? Harmonicas are tunable? TIL...
DeepSeek gives Europe's tech firms a chance to catch up
>In life there is no cheating. You're just optimizing for the wrong thing. AI made your homework? Guess what, the homework is a proxy for your talent, and it didn't make your talent.

No, the homework is a proxy for measuring what the homework provider is interested to evaluate (hopefully). Talent is a vague word, and what we can consider talent worth nurturing might be consider worthless from some other perspective.

For example, most schools will happily give you many nation myths to learn and evaluate how much of it you can restitute on demand. They will far less likely ask you to provide you some critics of these myths, to search who created them, with which intentions and which actual effects on people at large scale from different perspective and metrics available out there.
Quantum mechanics is Markov chains in imaginary time.
If an AI can do your test better than a human in 2025 it reflects not much better on your test than if a pocket calculator could do your test better than a human in 1970.

That did happen and the result from the test creators was the same back then: "we're not the problem, the machines are the problem. ban them!"

In the long run it turned out that if you could cheat with a calculator though, it was just a bad test....

I think there is an unwillingness to admit that there is a skill issue here with the test creators and that if they got better at their job they wouldnt need to ban candidates from using AI.

It's surprising to hear this from anthropic though.
It would be nice to take care to allow the use of GNU gettext() or any other convenient translation tool.

Recap: _("foo %s") macroexpands to gettext("foo %s"), then "foo %s" is extracted to a lexicon of strings by an external tool, which can be translated and compiled into .po files, which are loaded at runtime so gettext() can use a translated string based on $LC_MESSAGES. (And there is also _N(..) for correct plural handling.)

To do this with f-strings, _(f"foo {name()}") (which is a bit ugly...) needs to translate to make_formatted_string(_("foo {}"), name()) -- note that the _(...) needs to be called before calling make_formatted_string, to be able to return a translated string.

I would wish for a proposal for f-strings to consider translating strings, because we live in a world with many languages. And maybe cite gettext as a convenient method, and think about what could be done. Or point to a better tool. Or state: 'in that case, f-strings cannot be used'.
macOS 15.3 again allows SuperDuper to create bootable macOS backups
> careful, responsible use is undetectable

I think that's wishful thinking. You're underestimating how much people can tell about other people with the smallest amount of information. Humans are highly attuned to social interactions and synthetic responses are more obvious that you think.
You perfectly encapsulated my view on this. I'm utterly bewildered with people who take the opposing position that AI is essentially a complete replacement for the human mind and you'd be stupid not to fully embrace it as your thought process.
The EU is great at creating regulations to strangle young technologies in their crib. The "AI Act" has noble-sounding goals, but the bureaucrats who created this have no idea what it means or what effects it will have.

What I haven't been able to discover, is exactly who is behind the AI Act. It would be very informative to know which lobbyists and organizations are pushing for it.
Being an asshat is not gender-specific. I disowned my mom for the same things. And the horrible mental gymnastics to justify her behavior are part of the abuse.

Also, as she was my mom and raised me, i subconsciously interpolated from her onto society and ended up thinking there are general issues with society. And i recognize that aspect of myself in your writing.
Isn't that a non-generic 'reasoning-model' instead of something that is reminiscent of the large language model based AIs we use today?

The question is, is it possible to make reasoning models generic and can they be combined with large language models effectively.
> If you integrate with Strava and the user revokes the link, you have to delete all the data that came from Strava or you risk losing access to the API.

That seems fair - the user has withdrawn their permission for processing their data or invoked "right to be forgotten", no?
> To be fair Canada and most of the EU haven't come close to fulfillment our NATO requirements since, well, ever.

Which requirements are those?

I'm aware of an agreed 2% GDP target for 2024, which we've reached. Are there other requirements we haven't reached?
But they asked how likely it is. My guess is it's a pretty small fraction of problems where you need to get unstuck.
That is really interesting!

I think we also underestimate how much we value uniqueness, and therefore appreciate and admire people who can be confident despite conventionally undesirable differences. The confidence passes both a fitness test, and a test of unique value, by demonstrating that a handicap for most people, doesn’t impede them in anyway way. Those people also make us more comfortable about our own differences or insecurities.
Homework problems are normally geared to the text book that is being used for the class. They might take you through the same steps, developing the knowledge in the same order.

Using another source is probably going to mess you up.
> Feels like only a matter of time before these crawlers are blocked from large swathes of the internet.

How would you know its a crawler?
You're slightly confusing dialects with countries (there can be ones not tied to a single country), but more importantly, this places no hard limit on design, you can have icon variations for dialects as well.

(and yes, language switching menus you can't understand are dumb, especially for more complicated cases where names don't even look similar, but unfortunately common)
> Grasping the big picture, communicating effectively and possessing domain knowledge will be key

But isn't this all the things AI promises to solve for you?
Probably the accuracy.
Putting candidate at ease is definitely important.

Another reason:

If you're only say one of four interviewers, and you're maybe not the last interviewer, you really want the candidate to come out of your interview feeling like they did well or at least ok enough, so that they don't get tilted for the next interview. Because even if they did really poorly in your interview, maybe it's a fluke and they won't fail the rest of the loop.

Which is then a really difficult skill as an interviewer - how do you make sure someone thinks they do well even if they do very poorly? Ain't easy if there's any technical guts in the interview.

I sure as shit didn't get any good at that until I'd conducted like 100+ interviews, but maybe I'm just a slow learner haha
"What do you mean gullible and snake oil, nonono, I can totally hear the difference since I spend 2k on this audiophile fuse and the 11k CAT 5 cable. It's made of Rhodium and insulated with Dodo-feathers."
The point he's making is, we still have to learn to use tools no? There still had to he some knowledge there or else you're just sat sifting through all the crap the AI spits out endlessly for the rest of your life. The op wrote his comment like it's a complete replacement rather than an enhancement.
Kudos to Anthropic. The industry has way too many workers rationalizing cheating with AI right now.

Also, I think that the people who are saying it doesn't matter if they use AI to write their job application might not realize that:

1. Sometimes, application questions actually do have a point.

2. Some people can read a lot into what you say, and how you say it.
This is a straightforward position and it's the one I hold but I had to reply to thank you for stating it so succinctly.
Tool use can make you lazy if you're not careful.
You can enforce people to not use AI by making the intrview in the office.
> While we encourage people to use AI systems during their role to help them work faster and more effectively, please do not use AI assistants during the application process. We want to understand your personal interest in Anthropic without mediation through an AI system, and we also want to evaluate your non-AI-assisted communication skills. Please indicate 'Yes' if you have read and agree.

Full quote here; seems like most of the comments here are leaving out the first part.
Yea I totally agree. During one of my interviews, the interviewers asked me to write "snake game" in react. I had spent the last week studying their open source project and learning how things were structured, and then the two part interview consisted of parsing json and outputting it as markdown, and writing snake game. They're weren't a game ship, so it really didn't make any sense that they would've asked about that... It was really lame
It's a bad question. What is actually being tested here is whether the candidate can reel off an 'acceptable' motivation. Whether it is their motivation or not. This is asking questions that incentivize disingenuous answers (boo) and then reacting with pikachu shock when the obvious outcome happens.
Probably. The original industrial revolutions were happening in nations that quickly became wealthy, and the US was doing pretty well with high wages vs. Asia for most of its industrial period. Higher wages in theory should be linked to higher productivity and output per worker in the US due to deep skillsets - otherwise where do the high wages come from? But something might have broken that link.

The issue looks from afar like a double-whammy of (1) pushing capital investment offshore to China resulting in most of the productive capital formation happening in Asia and (2) banning a lot of industrial activity in the US for environmental reasons. A lot of what the Chinese did to get ahead was literally illegal in most Western countries - some of it was labour laws mind. Even today there I question whether something like Shenzhen would be legal in the US. If Shenzhen was magically transplanted to the US, what would happen when the lawyers move in?
No offense but why don't you memorize the songs by singing them instead? I memorized hundreds of songs just by being a dad and singing to my kids every evening. Of all the things you'd want to remember, song lyrics look to me to be the easiest by far.
> No, not everyone can really use AI to deliver something that works

"That works" is doing a lot of heavy lifting here, and really depends more on the technical skills of the person. Because, shocker, AI doesn't magically make you good and isn't good itself.

Anyone can prompt an AI for answers, it takes skill and knowledge to use those answers in something that works. By prompting AI for simple questions you don't train your skill/knowledge to answer the question yourself. Put simply, using AI makes you worse at your job - precisely when you need to be better.
Here's some numbers from insiders with relative meaning.

https://blog.plan99.net/fake-science-part-i-7e9764571422

‘It is simply no longer possible to believe much of the clinical research that is published, or to rely on the judgement of trusted physicians or authoritative medical guidelines. I take no pleasure in this conclusion, which I reached slowly and reluctantly over my two decades as an editor of the New England Journal of Medicine.’ — Marcia Angell

0.04% of papers are retracted. At least 1.9% of papers have duplicate images “suggestive of deliberate manipulation”. About 2.5% of scientists admit to fraud, and they estimate that 10% of other scientists have committed fraud.

“The case against science is straightforward: much of the scientific literature, perhaps half, may simply be untrue.” — Richard Horton, editor of the Lancet

The statcheck program showed that “half of all published psychology papers…contained at least one p-value that was inconsistent with its test”.

The GRIM program showed that of the papers it could verify, around half contained averages that weren’t possible given the sample sizes, and more than 20% contained multiple such inconsistencies.

The fact that half of all papers had incorrect data in them is concerning, especially because it seems to match Richard Horton’s intuitive guess at how much science is simply untrue. And the GRIM paper revealed a deeper problem: more than half of the scientists refused to provide the raw data for further checking, even though they had agreed to share it as a condition for being published.

After some bloggers exposed an industrial research-faking operation that had generated at least 600 papers about experiments that never happened, a Chinese doctor reached out to beg for mercy: “Hello teacher, yesterday you disclosed that there were some doctors having fraudulent pictures in their papers. This has raised attention. As one of these doctors, I kindly ask you to please leave us alone as soon as possible … Without papers, you don’t get promotion; without a promotion, you can hardly feed your family … You expose us but there are thousands of other people doing the same.“
BRB, going to jail because I accepted a PR bugfix to my "AI" project from an e-mail domain that was actually someone in China.

Look, there's no love lost between me and the PRC, I used to live in Hong Kong... but this here is a bad-faith bill from a bad legislator, Josh Hawley. Among other things, I remember he was encouraging the January 6th attackers before scampering away in a panic when they actually smashed into the building.

Meta-comment: Please, don't link to Twitter unless the first chunk is everything people need to see. All others are locked away unless you register.
I have found that if you tighten the parameters a bit, you can still get all the benefit of what this question is asking for. For example, teach me the rules of a sport, board game etc. You still get to see if they can present a coherent explanation of something relatively complex, but you can avoid these potentially dangerous topics.
You could similarly consider driving a car as "a tool that helps me get to X quicker". Now tell me cars don't make you lazy.
Can Tariffs Work [video]?
This is the best way to go.

I would love to go through mock interviews for myself with this approach just to have some interview-specific experience.

>> So far, everyone that elected to use GPT did much worse. They did not know what to ask, how to ask, and did not "collaborate" with the AI.

Thanks for sharing your experience! Makes sense actually.
It is if the way to learn is doing it without a tool. Imagine using a robot to lift weights if you want to grow your own muscle mass. "Robot is a tool"
Good points, thank you. I wonder what the requirements and expectations towards newly graduated devs will be like once (or if at all) the industry stabilizes with these new tools. Will they just be expected to stick spaghetti to the wall faster than before, or will the surplus of quantity (of code) lead to an improved appreciation for quality and basics
Actually, Wayside would have been a nice name for the software that became Waydroid.
> I feel like take home tests are meaningless and I always have. Even more so now with LLMs

This has been discussed many times already here. You need to set an "LLM trap" (like an SSH honey trap) by asking the candidate to explain the code they wrote. Also, you can wait until the code review to ask them how they would unit test the code. Most cheaters will fall apart in the first 60 seconds. It is such an obvious tell. And if they used an LLM, but they can very well explain the code, well, then, they will be a good programmer on your team, where an LLM is simply one more tool in their arsenal.

I am starting to think that we need two types of technical interview questions: Old school (no LLMs allowed) vs new school (LLMs strongly encouraged). Someone under 25 (30?) is probably already making great use of LLMs to teach themselves new things about programming. This reminds me of when young people (late 2000s/early 2010s) began to move away from "O'Reilly-class" (heh, like a naval destroyer class) 500 page printed technical books to reading technical blogs. At first, I was suspicious -- essentially, I was gatekeeping on the blog writers. Over time, I came to appreciate that technical learning was changing. I see the same with LLMs. And don't worry about the shitty programmers who try to skate by only using LLMs. Their true colours will show very quickly.

Can I ask a dumb question? What are some drawbacks of using a hash map? Honestly, I am nearly neck-bearded at this point, and I would be surprised by this question in an interview. Mostly, people ask how do they work (impl details, etc.) and what are some benefits over using linear (non-binary) search in an array.
I'm not sure what's involved in the second of those options, but I think the first, if it means creating a shell script of some sort, is why people like systemd. It's config-driven, not script-driven.

Now I'd be up for a better config format, or perhaps other implementations that use the systemd config format, but I think config is a pretty good idea.
Logseq does it already and is well-established. Probably other solutions like Obsidian can do the same. It's a tough market to be in.
You can definitely pass their interview without solving everything.
> not everyone can really use AI to deliver something that works.

That's not the assumption. The assumption is that if you prove you have a firm grip on delivering things that work without using AI, then you can also do it with AI.

And that it's easier to test you when you're working by yourself.
It’s an idiotic bill but it will never make it to a vote. There would be disastrous economic consequences. China doesn’t even have a similar law for American open source models.
> What if I decide to teach you something about the Quran and you don't hire me?

Simple, don't pick subjects, such as religion, sexuality, etc. It's not that deep.
Yes, thanks, I've configured that for kids and other loved ones. But I can't pick up anything else, even sales people from India manage to use a number that appears local (in The Netherlands for me), so I might miss a call from the kid's school.
Or, you can choose to not live in fear.
Tools can be crutches — useful but ultimately inhibitory to developing advanced skill.
The big problem is not science per se but capitalist pharma. Science eventually self corrects but capitalism creates a huge inertia driven by the fact people do not want to lose money and do everything possible to push things as much as they can. So much investments went into the amyloid hypothesis.

The story of $SAVA is paradigmatic. Every neuroscientist knew that stuff was based 100% on fraudulent results but they nevertheless managed to capitalise billions.
I think one problem here is that a lot of codebases have their own smart pointers and unfortunately the only currency type is the unsafe one :(
Freedoms-for-Who, Revisited Briefly
An open source, multiplatform disc drive emulator capable of supporting full RAW disc dumps. Subchannel data, error data, anything. Kryoflux-like full sectors dump.

Possibly accompanied by an hw (likely an ESP32 SoC) optical disc emulator, in order to replace any aging drive inside music samplers, multimedia devices or game consoles. (Yes, I know there are multiple ad-hoc devices available, but i'd love a shared developed solution so to avoid having to reinvent the wheel for every single device).

Also, an FPGA core capable of reproducing a 2003-circa x86 gaming pc: a ~500mhz P3 equivalent CPU, a voodoo 3 or equivalent core plus an nvidia tnt2-like GPU and a Soundblaster Live Soundcard (again, this is also inspired by having similar configs aging and not working anymore).

I'd probably need 3 or 4 lifetimes to achieve anything like this, though.
Hitler came to power after winning a majority of votes too.
AI could make "self-healing" roads a reality
Not lazy per se, but you stop thinking and start relying on AI to think for you.

And you must use that brain muscles otherwise your skills became to degrade fast, like really fast.

As long as you ask llm What - or high level How - you should be good.

As soon as you ask for (more than trivial) code or solutions - you start losing your skill and value as a developer.
>> Certainly, there is no precedent in US history for an authoritarian, law-flouting executive takeover centering illegal purges of the executive branch as a whole (and a particular focus on illegally purging federal law enforcement and internal government accountability officials), racial scapegoating, and massive "deportation" efforts that rapidly encompassing setting up massive concentration camps, almost all done by executive fiat, with the tacit support of a Congressional majority that is ideologically aligned with both the policies of the executive and the decision to execute them without regard to existing law rather than through legislation.

Description of facts

> The hyperbole is a bit much for me.

Your assessment.

Then you respond to every calling out as "I'm neutral"

I can only laugh at this point.
I'm being careful not to explicitly out myself to maintain some level of anonymity here :D but safety-critical, that should help narrow it down!
There isn't a whole lot of tech stuff happening in Bath so I'll try and remember to keep an eye out to see if you go through with that!
Why would a big-non-tech company not have the same desire to avoid lawsuits?

And yet this interviewing problem seems to only affect tech companies.
The EU has a serious problem with hidden lobbying, but instead of propagating conspiracy theories maybe better read the details of the law. It's fairly balanced and transparent.

Artificial Intelligence – Questions and Answers:
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/presscorner/detail/en/qanda_...

The regulation: https://www.europarl.europa.eu/topics/en/article/20230601STO...

https://www.deloitte.com/content/dam/assets-zone2/nl/en/docs...
> Another is sadness at the loss of prominence in the company, since I have to re-orient myself on this new team, where two experts are already prominent as leaders

Nobody gives a fuck about you OP. It's all in your head. Also you work for a company. It's a legal entity which gives zero fucks to anything except its own stock price.

> I'm not willing to leave the company because its stock 6x'ed last year.

This is all the metrics that matter. Everything else is stories that you invented to have some purpose in life.
This post is some unintentional satire how IBM operates (nobody invents anything in IBM anymore).

The opening question is a copy of what was done before (probably by someone who doenst work at IBM anymore) and all the new stuff is stolen from outsiders.
The strong language used aside, indeed, we should be cautious of our own potential biases when screening or otherwise.

I am imagining an AI saying my CV is AI-generated, when in reality, I do not even use Auto-correct or Auto-suggest when I (type)write! :-)