skysight-inc/HackerNews huggingface dataset:
> Last week I did the amount of work that would’ve taken me give or take a month. A significant part of it was writing an API client for a system I needed to use. Pretty run of the mill stuff. Doing this ‘by hand’ just takes time. Go look at the docs, type out your data structures, wire things up for the new call, write tests. With “the robot” once the framework was largely in place, you just paste API docs for the endpoint you need, and it’s done in a minute. With tests and everything.

That just points to an inefficiency. Could be tackled in other ways than involving an LLM to produce essentially what's being done elsewhere every day over and over again. A framework automating and hiding all this would be just as effective. Perhaps even cleaner than all that duplication that the LLM created for you.

In other words, that month of busywork that you just saved is inherently unnecessary to do. But progress is not linear in the number of lines of code that you produce. If you think hard about a good architecture and design, coming up with that after 2 weeks of hard thinking, that could be 90% of the work. The remaining 10% are writing all that down. That could take 3 more months, and it taking more than 10% of the time points to the existing inefficiency in tooling / framework / ... But making that more efficient isn't necessarily achieved the best by using an LLM and writing it all out. There are still huge redundancies, which is what made the LLM possible. Once you boil these down in some common frameworks or tools, the LLM will also just produce the same few lines that you'd need to produce to get those 10% done in then just 10% of the total time.
someone on here bought me a used MacBook. so yeah going to try freelancing that. I'll still do Uber (it's helped my mental health l but I don't want to rely on it and I want to save wear and tear on car so maybe just Saturdays...
They answered your question in the OP:

> To generate convincing human-like content, we used Workers AI with an open source model to create unique HTML pages on diverse topics. Rather than creating this content on-demand (which could impact performance), we implemented a pre-generation pipeline that sanitizes the content to prevent any XSS vulnerabilities, and stores it in R2 for faster retrieval. We found that generating a diverse set of topics first, then creating content for each topic, produced more varied and convincing results. It is important to us that we don’t generate inaccurate content that contributes to the spread of misinformation on the Internet, so the content we generate is real and related to scientific facts, just not relevant or proprietary to the site being crawled.

Personally, I wish they would have generated deliberately inaccurate content. It would be a further disincentive to do unauthorized crawling. Just as long as the inaccuracies don't intersect with typical "misinformation on the Internet" inaccuracies, I think it'd be totally fine and ethical (e.g. Queen Elizabeth II was the 34th president of the United States, the TV show Saved by the Bell aired for 14 seasons with the original cast, making it the longest running live action teen drama in Canada).
The backdoor build script specifically checked for things indicating that it's being built for debian, and if not, not inserting the backdoor; so it only ever was non-reproducible in situations where reproducibility wasn't expected. Not hard to make sure a backdoor with control over the build environment doesn't raise suspicions in non-targeted places.
where do you find the old ladies to rent from?
Consistent enough for it to be an issue.

And not only indies, when taking voice actors into consideration.

https://www.ign.com/articles/horizon-actor-ashly-burch-says-...

Or some well known studios,

https://www.ign.com/articles/activision-finally-admits-it-us...
This is a purely factual article and is very careful not to make recommendations on current or future policy. This website will almost certainly disappear once they realize it's still up.
Something of a labyrinth for AI crawlers, if you will.
For 300 searches a month.

Google is making it based on theoretically unlimited searches for everyone. No caps in the number of searches.

You have to to the $10 USD a month tier with Kagi to have the same expectation met, which is unlimited searches
The author has rediscovered English Metric Units: https://startbigthinksmall.wordpress.com/2010/01/04/points-i...
This is a bit silly. It is equivalent to saying "most food will come from tractors, not land." There is some truth to this, but you really can't have one without the other. The whole system is interconnected.

The problem with all these jabs at R&D and science is not recognizing that R&D and science produce the very foundations that lead to the ability to do production in the first place. I'm certainly not saying we should dump all our money into R&D, but I do find it weird that others talk as if the ground you stand on doesn't matter. You literally cannot stand without it. The truth is that you need both. I suspect why we shy away from R&D is for 2 big reasons.

First, it has a lot of failure. The hardest thing about doing research is being able to stick with it when 90% of what you do doesn't work. It's fucking hard. But of course it is. If it was easy it would have already been done. So returns on the work can take a lot of time and the visibility of the failure is emotionally draining to those without enough resilience.

Second, we do not accurately capture nor ascribe the value nor of research. People who create ground breaking scientific revolutions that create the capacity for trillion dollar markets never end up with 1% of the result of their work. You don't see Tim Berners-Lee being a billionaire, nor Linus Torvald. You didn't see it in Einstein and cases like Turing are quite common through history. Certainly this is an alignment issue as we as a society should be encouraging such pursuits as their benefits vastly outweigh anything that has been done by Apple or Google. Not to diminish their achievements, they have both done fantastic and incredible things, but do they not sit on the foundations created by Turing, Burners-Lee, Hopper, and others. Or look even today, the work done by LeCun, Sutskever, Karpathy, Fei-Fei Li, Hinton, and yes, even Schmidhuber has created more than a few dozen multi-billion dollar enterprises. Yet as far as I am aware, not a single one of them is a billionaire. I do not believe (I could be TOTALLY wrong) their combined net worth is a billion. Even if it was, that would be a far cry from what many of the mogul we see today. Do we really think Zuckerberg has created more value than these people? Certainly this is entirely dependent upon your definition of value and I think most of use could agree that it would be incredibly naive to believe this exclusively means the money in their pockets. If you really do believe that, I will say that you're part of a problem. Money is a proxy, sometimes we need to stop and think "a proxy for what?"
I was very involved in the crypto scene, and really the only real utility was monero for buying the funny chemicals.
it's got PHP and tooling and Arch Linux it's just what I'm comfortable with but I've got a MacBook (someone gifted me one from this thread) so yeah I'll definitely be using that for freelancing soon.
And if you point it out on HN you get downvoted by "red pilled shape rotators" these days.
Not a single Bachofen citation, interesting.
Or they just sent the same mailer to anyone with a female name popular in the last 40 years.

After all, at any given time, like 11% of women are either pregnant, will soon become or have recently been pregnant.
The Careless People Won
I've been messing with this for a few days now so I'm not going to claim to be any sort of expert but as someone who has been coding for more than 20 years I do appreciate the set it and forget it nature of being able to throw q developer or whatever at a relatively simple problem that I'm curious about and let it crank away for half an hour while i'm working on something else. I've tried it on a couple of reasonably small and well defined problems, mainly focusing on python, and it works surprisingly well. It'll run the scripts and fix errors and can suggest prompt improvements. I've also tried it in a large codebase with much less success, so YMMV.

Also it is important to be able to review the code because it could be the case that it looks mostly correct but has some subtle errors in it that can mislead you. For example I was trying a couple of different ways of computing some indices that have a bunch of variables and one way had a mask that made no sense involved. "Vibe coding" without being able to check the work of an LLM is almost certain to go poorly, IOW.
Yes, you can quote the values and embed them directly, but what if you want to do something like this?

shell('echo "Hello, {user}"')

You would have to do something like:

arg_for_echo = f"Hello, {user}"
shell(f"echo {shlex.quote(arg_for_echo)}")

The main drawback of quoting values like that is that you can't embed them inside an argument in the shell. The environment variable "trick" I used avoids this problem.

Using quotes to sanitize arguments like that is how google/zx (library for writing shell/JS hybrid scripts) handles arguments: https://google.github.io/zx/quotes
Nor does OpenBSD for that matter.
Right now, yes. But early in 23andMe's history (I got it done at the very beginning) they were pretty much the only game in town. They were the first to make such a service widely accessible to the public, and they helped establish the market in which better alternatives would eventually emerge.

I don't tell anyone now to use 23andMe specifically, but the warnings and risks being discussed here apply to existing customers, to people who have already done it, and I am just speaking as one of those people.
Exec-path-from-shell: Make Emacs use the $PATH set in your shell
> Cursor has some sort of "concise mode" (archived) that they'll turn on when there is high load where the model will still be rated at the normal price but behaves in a useless manner. This mode will omit details, drop important findings, and corrupt the output that is being produced.

This is a real problem that I have experienced on and off. It's getting to the point where everyone on my team is actively looking for alternatives. Generally, I've found Cursor works correctly after business hours. But, it's increasingly giving absolutely useless responses during business hours.

-----

That being said, I agree with many of the author's observations. However, for me, it's not really a breaker. It's not much different than working with an intern or junior engineer. If you ask them to do too much all at once, they come up with bad solutions. Plus, they have a tendency to make "dumb" decisions.

For me, I've found solutions for nearly all of the listed issue. Much of it comes down to being diligent during code review (like you should). For example, the Typescript issue, I come back later to have it fix it.

Specs are the one that still baffles me. It's absolutely terrible at writing proper specs. In particular, it falls into a really bad cycle whenever there are errors. I don't have a solution for this one.
looks cool! Any thoughts on Anki interoperability (e.g., get a shared deck from ankiweb and convert to GoCard's format)?
Sure, but you could achieve the same thing by requiring that the build artifacts are generated by a Github Actions runner.
Could it be that model just uses latent space for thinking while generating almost garbage? Interesting to check if adding repeating something at the end of prompt helps. I.e. model uses it for 'thinking'.
Connections to foreign computers are not subjected to regulation currently.
I hate these people that try to argue we don't need R&D. It's extremely short sighted and equivalent to pretending that the ground you stand on is worthless. Without the ground, you literally have nothing to stand on... Talk about pulling yourself up by your bootstraps...
"Companies will choose to settle if they think there is a good possibility to lose if it goes to trial"

Companies will settle if the costs of going to trail outweigh the benefits like I said in my original comment. To clarify, the cost benefit analysis includes more than just money as things like reputation and precedent are important too. The reason for settling is sometimes because they think there is a good possibility to lose if it goes to trail (meaning low potential benefit) but not always and this is not even the most common reason to settle. In the article being cited facebook is agreeing "to stop targeting ads at UK woman after legal fight". This is an individual settlement and not a group settlement. Targeting ads at a single user has very low benefits for Facebook (tens to hundreds of dollars) which will not even pay for a single hour of a lawyer's time. It would be absurd for Facebook to counter sue Ms. O'Carrol and counter suits in general are quite rare.

To provide some approximate numbers:

- ~90% of cases settle
- ~1% of cases involve a counter suit
- Facebook legal cost for in house counsel appears to be in the range of $250 per hour equivalent
- Facebook average annual revenue per user in Europe is about $25

The full story here is that Ms. O'Carrol is a legal activist focused on Tech Surveillance (https://www.foxglove.org.uk/who-we-are/people/tanya-ocarroll...) and Facebook came up with a strategy to undermine her legal standing at minimal cost to themselves (if Facebook is not tracking O'Carrol personally for the purposes of serving ads then O'Carrol personally has no standing to sue). This is in effect a win for big tech but being spun by a PR machine as a win for data privacy.
Revisiting semi-supervised learning in the era of foundation models
I'm seeing scientific software being reinvented as kind of a scattered shitshow compared to when it was all drawn up in house using very few computer languages most of the time originally.

OTOH, if you're going to invent something every day anyway, it's really not that bad to reinvent the same thing more than once, even in the same year ;)

Can be more variety than watching the same movie more than once, plus you might even get more out of it the second time either way.

Now what hits me is when you don't even know if your goal is possible but it would be good if it was, and it seems maybe within reach more than other impossible things, it takes a lot of efforts like this before any pay off. You eventually get the feeling of what to pursue, and when to wind down if a fruitless pursuit is the kind that cannot be brought to bear.

Now with things like the wheel, you know it's possible to begin with, and quite popular already too, so that's a different starting point when you know it's a proven quantity of some kind, you're not taking the same kind of risks.

Then you have to consider if you eventually do make something difficult possible, chances are it's barely possible and kind of touchy. But at least then you know it's possible, that can be one of the best milestones right there. Probably still need to keep on inventing so you can make it even more possible, though.

I think it's most satisfying to have a mix of reinventions along with an ongoing effort on things that haven't been fully invented yet.
More like it being a store, not a house, inside being a complex maze of obnoxious ads, inhabited by performance artists who distract you so pickpockets can rob you - and because locals figured out blind people are immune to this, they started paying them to buy stuff for them, and now you retrofit the maze to have confusing tactile markings, as to direct blind people back out of the store.

The AI paranoia is getting out of hand. Worrying about bots spamming you is one thing, but discriminating on crawlers specifically because they're from AI companies - and conveniently omitting the difference between a bot that's crawling (and should obey robots.txt) vs. a bot that's acting as user agent (and should not care about robots.txt) - isn't just poisoning communication; it's setting the commons on fire.

See also: The Dog in the Manger.
That would be nice. I've always wondered why it's so hard to harvest excess solar power as hydrogen gas by electrolysis, from what I understand the process is pretty inefficient. That would also be a good area for research.
Threat of violence is not violence.

A policeman standing on a public square threatening to incarcerate anybody who is violent results in no violence actually happening at that square. Take away that regulation (in form of the policeman) and watch the actual violence start.
BSD systems ship a kernel and user space, which simplifies a lot of things. Linux is more flexible but it comes at a cost. Adding new security features can also be challenging for other reasons. Anyway, Landlock is one of these new security primitives, and it is gaining new features over time.

The Landlock interface must not change the underlying semantic of what is allowed or denied, otherwise it could break apps build for an older or a newer kernel. However, these apps should still use all the available security features. This is challenging.

Landlock provides a way to define fine-grained security policies. I would not say the kernel interface is complex (rather flexible), but what really matter are the user space library interfaces and how they can safely abstract complexity.
I have to say I am extremely sick of this term.
> One where you can write a bash script which changes network configuration and launches multiple programs installed from the app store

ROTFL.

https://unixwizardry.com/wp-content/uploads/2018/04/UNIX-liv...
When I worked in psychiatry, I was taught that emotion isn't learned, but behavior is.

I don't know if I buy that. I think that many of our emotions are driven by our expectations, and expectations are definitely learned.

Hand a wealthy person an imperfect fruit, and they'll react with anger.

Hand the same fruit to a hungry person, and you'll get gratitude.
Thanks for pointing that out. As I reflect on it, I think anger is maybe just really confusing to me. I'm pretty hardwired to believe that if something went wrong, either it's my fault or there's some explanation for the other person's behavior. Anger causes some dissonance. I might burn a lot of cycles having a mental argument over the possible justification for what happened, and then of course I calm down eventually. I suppose that when I've been quite confident in injustice of a situation before I've calmed down, I've moved to thinking of revenge.
Steve Eisman (short holder against cdos) said the following in 2008:

>> We live in an era of fraud in America. Not just in banking, but in government, education, religion, food, even baseball... What bothers me ins't that fraud is not nice. Or that fraud is mean. For fifteen thousand years, fraud and short sighted thinking have never, ever worked. Not once. Eventually you get caught, things go south. When the hell did we forget all that? I thought we were better than this, I really did.

He was right and it got even worse, there should have been no bailout. It set a dangerous precedent that is still haunting us, effectively granting those responsible impunity.
I suppose I lightly disagree with that. Revenge, to me, holds a significant connotation of "spite." I.e. making someone feel bad/hurt because they made you feel bad/hurt. It's about the hurt, as much as (or more than) correcting the situation.

But words are sloppy, I totally get what you're saying too (:
Black-market food sales are not crazy. Once or twice a year you'll hear about a truck heist. A full truck of food is worth on the order of tens or even hundreds of thousands of dollars, depending on the haul, and is worth the risk even sold in bulk at a steep discount. Restaurants will be more than happy to look the other way to improve margins for a week.

I can't imagine eggs are dense enough or resistant to spoilage enough to try and smuggle through a border crossing but maybe they know something we don't.
Could you elaborate on the “serial bus” bit?
that looks really cool, but unfortunately without any obvious examples or even a link to documentation, I'm closing the tab and likely forgetting it exists... I would assume many others would feel the same way.
This is not about "LLM coding agents".

It's about those agents being (mis)used in the very specific blind faith approach of "vibe coding", not least due to the hype merchants and grifters picking up the phrase and running with it shorn of the original cautionary notes about it being useful for bringing a bit of fun back into non-serious coding.

Criticizing the idea (and conflating it with the wider field of LLM coding agents) without understanding that original context is not really any better.

Vibe-coding <> LLM coding agents, which - when used properly - are brilliant for use in serious code and are here to stay.
I'm also not clear why GPA/SAT/ACT are the singular measure of fairness of admissions at, of all schools.. NYU, which is emphatically NOT a STEM school.

17% of kids graduate with Visual & Performing Arts degrees at NYU.
What relevance do test scores have for their admissions vs a portfolio of their work/performances?

Math, Engineering and CS are under 20% of enrollees.
Yeah, let's cut through the hype. First, the expense accounts were never unlimited, even in the good old days. The editors gave a tight budget and you had to justify any request for more.

Now, onto this stretch. I'm sure that not all 400k are paying. There are usually so many deals and games to dial up and down the numbers.
If you're specifically talking about the people that know eggs are illegal to import, sure.

But going across the border to shop is very common in general.
.NET case was mostly a rewrite, many components were rewritten from scratch (sooner or later). Roslyn was a compiler-rewrite to make C# self-hosted with, what I understand, intention to make it OSS from the beginning. .NET (then Core) started with RyuJIT. AFAIK RyuJIT also mainly exists for .NET only, where-as .NET Framework uses older, different compiler codebase.

But yes, there were additional licensing assurances provided so as to not create problems for Novell/Mono - it was always treated positively.
Yes? That's why we have agricultural biosecurity import controls - to protect local agriculture from pests and diseases.

I'm not sure where you're going with this, though I will say that it is also a major threat to the chicken meat industry.
The market where I live is far larger than it was 15-20 years ago. So both have grown, the outsourcing didn't kill local as predicted.
Why’s he write like if I tried to mimick anti-oedipus
The ultimate technology... is the technology of common well-being.

And perhaps populations that we now call "primitive" had a much greater sense of well-being than we do.

We should go slower, not accelerate.

We should enjoy what we have, not build new cravings out of thin air, just for the sake of consumption and GDP growth
I'm currently 2x to 10x as productive with Cursor. The larger the project, the lower my multiplier.

However, on small tasks and bug fixes, it often fixes the bug before I've even root caused it. It's amazing when I can focus on throwing it information about the bug then have it think in the background while I continue researching. In a surprising number of simpler cases, it one-shots the fix and eliminates any need to root cause (this is a bit easier when it's a feature you understand intimately).
Up to you, but there's actually a formal logging pathway[1] in MCP that has the potential to put this message somewhere that either of the two consumers[2] of your service could see it https://github.com/hyperdrive-eng/mcp-nodejs-debugger/blob/v...

1: https://spec.modelcontextprotocol.io/specification/2024-11-0...

2: the person, and (while I don't have evidence of it) I also can't think why the LLM couldn't see the message, either
Suicide

https://archive.is/9tfYj

I dunno why NYTs couldn't just put the cause of death in the title. I guess to get the click.