782 karma · joined September 3, 2025
I think, reading just the human inputs would be enough to get what they were trying to do.
> it'll be at least 10x as long
I think that even human inputs + short summary of the first draft + short summary of the changes made for each subsequent iteration will be significantly shorter than the whole thing.
I mean, I doubt that the author just said "write me a short story" and that's it. So, there are still some intentions behind the text that the author put into the prompt.
Although, I agree that I'd rather read the prompt [0].
I find it mildly amusing that HN both loudly complains about bots scraping their websites AND is very interested in user privacy.
The conflicting part is that user privacy automatically means that you cede any control over how exactly does the user accesses your resource. Whether they use a web browser or an automated scraper. Any attempt to analyze requests to tie different requests made by the same actor together automatically means privacy violation.
I don't have a good answer to this dilemma yet, I just thought that this is a curious observation and wanted to share.
For example, what is this [0] or this [1].
The code is not obfuscated and seems well documented [2]. Maybe, I'll read it later or have an agent explain it to me.
[0] https://alexwang.ai/images/kea/head-fill.webp
P. S. The animated bird is truly magical!
You're right, haven't thought about those.
I don't know, maybe you're right. I, personally, am very uncomfortable (almost physically) if I know that someone is seeing my screen and I wouldn't be able to get any work done in such state. Maybe I'm just weird.
> "your work is really interesting and important, please tell me more"
This one is unrelated to physically being inside someone's house.
Not sure, if I follow. Are you saying that he has confidential papers just lying around his house? Or a computer (or other device) with confidential data without a strong password and an encrypted drive?
If any of this is true, I would say that this is actually a bigger problem, than the whole affair thing.
I'm just a humble software engineer and wouldn't let myself to handle any work related data so carelessly. Not sure, why a CEO of a huge multinational corporation would be held to lower standards.
1. It is already normalized outside of a tiny, but very vocal bubble that lives mostly on Bluesky (sometimes also on Reddit/HN/Mastodon).
2. I don't think that even the most staunch AI hater would object to using AI for security research as long as all the artifacts (code, docs) that were produced based on the research are human-written. "Yes, there is a bug in my program, but I refuse to fix it, because I know that you found it using AI" would be a pretty weird position. Not sure, how would you defend it.
Were those pictures with links generated using a publicly available tool that we could use, or were it custom (vibe)coded specifically to create this page?
And I think that Fishtest is actually what made Stockfish the strongest, because no other engine's performance ever was evaluated on such scale before.
Stockfish was the first to use hard data instead of vibes, when selecting algorithms and heuristics.
So, even if we add a rule that NNUE is not allowed, because it was trained on modern GPUs that, obviously, didn't exist back in 1996, hand-coded heuristics would also take a ton of compute to develop.
Bitter lesson strikes again, even when you don't expect it.
[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stockfish_(chess)#Fishtest
Generally, -vich suffix is used in masculine form and -vna suffix in feminine form.
You don't have to throw away the original Python codebase.
You can have:
1. An implementation in slow language (i. e. Python) that you maintain manually or semi-manually (with minimal AI assistance) and understand well.
2. A fast implementation that is fully generated and maintained by AI, using slow implementation (1) as a reference.
You can, for example, run two "adversarial" agents, one writes tests that compare output of (1) and (2) and tries to find a discrepancy, the other tries to fix (2) so that its output never differs from (1).
This way, you can be reasonably confident that (2) does exactly the same thing as (1), despite being a blackbox that you don't understand. While (1) remains a reference implementation that you understand well and can work with.
Secondly, why not make cars a part of the same system? Depending on the load the system could send a large bus, a small bus, a minibus/minivan or a small car.
Yes, travelling salesman problem is NP-hard, but approximate solutions are good enough. I think that nowadays it is very possible to dynamically find more optimal way to gather together passengers who travel in the same direction, than fixed routes provide.
Yes, I hate this usage of the term "AI" too.
Curiously, it is exactly the opposite in many video games. In video games water often protects you from the explosion. I wonder, where did this trope came from...
Narrator's voice: They will do it again.
I, actually, do enjoy the exercise itself. Although, it doesn't prevents me from procrastinating going to the gym and being in terrible shape.
According to Wikipedia, plague responds to antibiotics very well, since it is a bacteria, not a virus and it hasn't been widespread since the development of antibiotics, so it didn't develop any resistance to antibiotics.
If she knew that she broke a flask with plague (and, as I understand, she did know that), why don't start a course of antibiotics immediately, before any symptoms? Wouldn't she be totally fine it this case?
I suspect that someone's running a script that looks for public (-ish, Eugene has a Wikipedia page at least) figures without active social media presence and creates fake donation websites with AI-generated texts and pictures.
If my suspicion is correct, this is one of the most evil scams I can imagine.
This is a valid point.
> And in my experiments even Qwen 3.8 has a hard time to consistenly conform to a schema, requiring retries, JSON cleanup etc, so to have a model of similar quality (SemIf et al) that simply cannot deviate from the schema by construction could be very helpful.
Literally every inference framework supports constrained encoding. You can make the model choose only from allowed tokens and you can infer only the first diverging token.
It's baffling to me that no inference provider actually exposes this functionality, so you have to run the model yourself to do it.
> model and manifest bytes together pick the class
What?
How hard is it to write something like "your weight class is determined by the total size of the model and manifest" (if I understood it correctly).
Current version both sounds very AI-sloppy and is ambiguous.
The doc page [0] is even more painful to read.
Heh, you got me :) IPFS is one of those things that I love reading and about and thinking about using someday, but somehow never get around to it.
I'm still kinda sad that Pyston didn't happen
> but it has been dead for years partially because it hit many of these walls
Maybe this is one of the reasons. But I've also heard that Dropbox (which was making Pyston [0]), that used to heavily rely on Python, just decided that gradual migration to Go [1] is a more feasible approach than creating a faster Python implementation.
[0] https://dropbox.tech/infrastructure/introducing-pyston-an-up...
[1] "About a year ago, we decided to migrate our performance-critical backends from Python to Go to leverage better concurrency support and faster execution speed." - https://dropbox.tech/infrastructure/open-sourcing-our-go-lib...
An ML pipeline will probably rely on numpy to do all the heavy lifting.
A web backend will probably use something like psycopg, which is a wrapper around libpq (official postgres client lib, written in C).
etc
Of course, a "Japanese Minimal Poster" has a sakura and a stylized flag of Japan, duh
A human designer would probably think that "Japan -> sakura" and "Japan -> Japanese flag" are way too obvious, too banal, too stereotypical, and, most importantly too boring. And then they would probably sit for a while and try to think of something fresher and less clichéd.
But AI has absolutely no problem with going with the cheesiest, most overused trope.