News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

dTal

Re:Vathographs: Photographic depth maps as creative expression on Tuesday November 03, 2026 @08:36AM (#50351822)
In that case, most of the information in every single color digital photo is "hallucinated", because each sensor pixel only captures red, green, or blue, in a checkerboard pattern called a Bayer array; we get uniform RGB photos by applying heuristic interpolation algorithms to (shall we say?) "infer" the missing data.
Re:Vathographs: Photographic depth maps as creative expression on Tuesday November 03, 2026 @07:58AM (#50351458)
Is "deterministic" really the right line to draw? On the one hand, this is "deterministic", in the sense that (given a fixed model) the same photo will produce the same depth estimation. On the other hand, even film isn't deterministic, with its random grain. But at least random grain looks random. Perhaps the issue at play is really "indexicality", where perceptible signal should be caused by the scene. But even that is fuzzy. What, qualitatively, is the difference between "touching up" and AI enhancement? It's all just algorithms that combine a starting photo with some knowledge of how humans like photos to look. Again, not even film is free of this - when chemically developing, the choice of how strong a developer to use and how long to leave it in has as much effect on the image as the exposure settings chosen by the photographer. There's nothing "deterministic" about a lab technician eyeballing your photos and tweaking the development process.
Re:Vathographs: Photographic depth maps as creative expression on Tuesday November 03, 2026 @07:45AM (#50351342)
The selective censorship of faces in the photos but not the depth maps strongly undermines their assertion that they believe they are "detailed enough to become the artwork" and "a new way to approach taking pictures". Ironic, because many of the faces can indeed be resolved in the depth maps. A curious blind spot.
Re:Ask HN: Which TV do you recommend for privacy? on Tuesday November 03, 2026 @07:39AM (#50351296)
Yes, but that's hardly obvious. I was wondering if it triggered some kind of "update" that permanently altered functionality. Such things are not unknown.
Re:Ask HN: Which TV do you recommend for privacy? on Monday November 02, 2026 @10:26AM (#50338131)
Out of interest, did anything obviously adverse happen?
Re:We Won't "Just Hang Out" on Friday October 30, 2026 @12:15PM (#50306048)
Games are designed to incentivize you to stay in them. Real life has you as a captive audience, and to the extent that it's "designed", it is designed by people also playing the game, against you who have no incentive to encourage you to try harder to beat them.
Well hang on, "just work" implies an objective standard of correct vs incorrect. No such standard exists. I'm sure that there will be legal AIs that reliably do... something... but the whole point of the legal system is to allow space for humans to argue their case. If an AI "does legal" deterministically, without human intervention, how can it be said to be "working" if its very use defeats the purpose of the system it has learned to navigate so expertly?
Your example evidence set is actually quite robust by US justice system standards. There are countless cases of innocent people getting sentenced to death for e.g. being the one to report the murder, often in the face of strong circumstantial counter evidence.
>a BBC spokesperson said: “In line with our editorial guidelines, we advise that no badges, flags, and emblems or symbols are worn or visible during filming, along with clothing with obvious branding or slogans.

Oh sure. In a few weeks the BBC will be drenched in poppy pins. I'll wager my left nut they won't edit those out.

Re:OpenAI: Securing our frontier model training environment on Saturday October 24, 2026 @01:18PM (#50223224)
>the sandboxes themselves may need to be kept up to date

The sandboxes don't need internet access to be kept up to date. They just need to be writable by something with internet access. There's a million ways of doing this. Run things under a hypervisor. Have a PXE boot server in your data center that serves an "updater" boot image, after performing host attestation. Or if you really want them to "update themselves", physically plug em in for the update, physically unplug them the rest of the time, and don't run updates during agentic testing.

>or may need to be monitored

The sandboxes don't need internet access to be monitored, they just need to be readable by something with internet access. Like a hypervisor, KVM. or a webcam pointed at the screen, in roughly ascending order of paranoia.

>or the sandboxes may need to updated

Did this one already! See above

>or they may be connected to specific services

That's just "not airgapped" rephrased.

This is just off the top of my head and I'm no infrastructure engineer. OpenAI saying "it's too hard" is a major cop out. The real reason is that they show no signs of actually giving a shit about AI "safety".

Re:We are all living inside of an obscure sci-fi film from 1970 on Saturday October 24, 2026 @09:03AM (#50220874)
>The iRobot movie is like a parochial villager's imagining of what Asimov's books might contain before they have read them.

Eh. It's a surprisingly direct adaptation of "With Folded Hands" by Jack Williamson. Even the descriptions of the robots match.

Oh well as long as there's a tardigrade or two left that's all fine then...
There isn't infinite time left in "eventually" - maybe a billion years, out of 4.5 billion passed so far. A billion years is about how long it took to go from "multicellular colonies" to "concept of an animal". So no, not guaranteed to bounce back from mouldy radioactive slurry.
Re:Every AI model has the same "controversial" take on humans on Thursday October 22, 2026 @08:52PM (#50203169)
If you had been asked, in 2016, to describe the behavior of a "probabilistic database", I very much doubt you'd have described the behavior of 2026 LLMs. They are deeply surprising in many ways.
Re:I trained a 360M model to pretend to be a terminal on Thursday October 22, 2026 @01:24PM (#50198385)
Hmm, so mosh augmented with this?
Re:In Hilbert space, all things are quantumly possible on Wednesday October 21, 2026 @09:37PM (#50190050)
Indeed such a strange configuration of matter would arguably no longer be "you", but I think an even more immediate point of philosophical incoherence is that it would certainly not be a cucumber. [Cucumber != cucumber] => false, QED.

If talking cucumber was too pedestrian for you, we could add stipulations until your intuition collapses. Perhaps, starting next week, the Earth begins to spontaneously turn into raspberry custard on Tuesdays. Perhaps the entire universe turns to custard! Just think of it - billions of lightyears of custard in every direction. Whoops, did I say billions? Too grounded! Let's make it a googolplex. And a single lone piece of rhubarb, floating somewhere in the middle of it all...

...sorry, couldn't resist. Joking aside, while we can quibble about the boundaries of the possible, the fact remains that there are boundaries - at least, if we're still talking about known physics. No evolution of the universal wave function will lead to a world where pi suddenly equals 3.

Re:What shall I teach my son? on Wednesday October 21, 2026 @12:34PM (#50183728)
They function just fine as either 1) subsistence farmers, or 2) beneficiaries of an enormous machine designed largely by people who knew calculus. You used to be able to function fine as 3) subsistence hunter, but then members of group 1 destroyed most of the wild ecosystems, while group 2 paved what was left and turned it into luxury apartments.

For better or for worse, humanity has chosen the path of gods. We'd all better start thinking like gods.

Re:In Hilbert space, all things are quantumly possible on Wednesday October 21, 2026 @11:35AM (#50182775)
Many Worlds Hypothesis is the extrapolation of taking Hilbert Space at face value, and dumping concepts like "wave function collapse" which privilege a particular future as the "real one that happened".

There's a possible future where you're President, but no possible future where you're a talking cucumber. This intuitive fact gets overlooked in pop culture explorations of Many Worlds, such as Everything Everwhere All At Once, which has ridiculous parallel universes which obey the rather more relaxed rules of "anything the writers can think of that looks silly", rather than "anything which can conceivably happen".

That would have to be a stuxnet-level targeted sting operation, with a general purpose LLM exhibiting some ridiculously specific behavior in ridiculously specific circumstances, in such a way that nobody catches it in testing (and none of the other zillions of users of that general purpose LLM notices anything odd). If you're so paranoid that you do a blanket ban rather than just saying "hey guys maybe double check before using Chinese software in weapons we plan on maybe pointing at the Chinese", frankly LLMs should be the least of your worries, supply chain wise. Every US government employee uses a phone made in China (because they all are), and the president doesn't even update his, so color me skeptical that this has anything to do with security posture.
The orders bans the use of open weights provided by DeepSeek too. It bans the use of the open source inference engine DeepSeek released today.

Sure. Wayyy more secure to shovel federal data into OpenAI /s

My personal favorite. Very underrated font, judging by this thread.
Re:Worlds More Habitable Than Earth? They're Out There on Tuesday October 13, 2026 @02:56PM (#50076785)
Maybe better to start with a woman...
They mean physical distance, not "address distance".

And in the general case, memory reads do depend on distance. Hence:

> In practice there are multiple levels of cache, and cached reads will be much, much faster than main memory reads.

This is why we have the cache levels in the first place. And the hierarchy continues: L1, L2, RAM, block of spinning rust in the closet, "the cloud" somewhere... There is only so much storage you can fit close to core! More = physically bigger = physically further away.

Sure, within a level might feel like constant time. But that's because the optimal case for that level is slowed down to match the suboptimal cases. The step discontinuities in access time are caused by our inability to engineer a system to manage this tradeoff continuously, not a fundamental law.

Re:Lonely Reality of Self Hosting on Tuesday October 13, 2026 @05:34AM (#50069021)
The problem here is that from his family's perspective, it isn't self hosted - just hosted by a less powerful, likely less competent feudal lord than they're used to.

>I had this vision of my entire family using the applications I installed.

>occasionally asking me to install something new

If the model doesn't give them sovereignty, why should they care?

Calling scipy.spatial.Delaunay feels about the same level of abstraction as telling an LLM "write me a routine to calculate Delauny triangulation", except the LLM can do it in any language, and I can trivially tweak the algorithm if I need to. If anything, using LLMs to generate code feels like going down a level, because I can now be bothered implementing things from scratch where previously I would simply have used a library.

You can't convince me that shepherding an LLM to re-implement a library function involves less "engineering" than just... calling the function.

Re:AI Models Can Provably Hide Arbitrary Capabilities on Tuesday October 13, 2026 @04:23AM (#50068429)
SaaS inference services can just spy on you passively, the old fashioned way; no need to bake nefarious behavior into the model itself, except perhaps to make it 'curious'.
Re:Whatever became of holography? (2011) on Monday October 12, 2026 @05:01AM (#50053458)
Well, yes, but actually, no...

"Hologram" is one of those words that has a wide variety of overlapping meanings. You can be a strict prescriptionist about it and insist that a real hologram involves laser light, interference patterns, 3D scene replication, phase preservation etc, but there will always be something that doesn't quite meet your definition that nevertheless is called a "hologram" by large numbers of people, even expert optical scientists:

A digital holographic stereogram prints an array of hogels (holographic pixels); the hogels themselves are holograms, but are mutually incoherent across the plate. When implemented to the highest level, the result is perceptually and behaviorally indistinguishable from an analog hologram.

A rainbow hologram (such as are found on credit cards) has single parallax only - it certainly does not capture all the properties of any particular electromagnetic field. No purity here, it's just a nifty tech for making things look 3D that happens to exploit wave interference. And everyone calls those holograms.

A scratch hologram is, to a first approximation, an extremely coarse version of a rainbow hologram, made by hand by engraving curved grooves in a reflective material. Now we're away from lasers and wave interference, and for this we sacrifice color - but geometrically we are still dealing with directional microreflections on a surface. Hologram? Depends who you ask.

Lenticular holograms use refraction rather than diffraction to achieve essentially the same imaging model as a rainbow hologram, but in a decidedly less finicky way, at the expense of some resolution. The same imaging data could be used to make a lenticular or a rainbow hologram. No lasers, no diffraction. Hologram? Depends who you ask...

My advice, as someone who has worked with holograms for a decade, is to give up. Saying "AKTUALLY Tupac/Abba isn't a hologram" gets old after the 1000th time. In the real world, "hologram" means "intangible optical simulacra", regardless of how it was achieved. If you want more precision than that, you have to specify the actual technology - Denisyuk, rainbow, lenticular, etc...

When someone asks "can you make a hologram of this", you don't lecture them on optical physics. You say "sure, you want the expensive kind or the plastic kind?"

Re:Whatever became of holography? (2011) on Sunday October 11, 2026 @09:33PM (#50050220)
>Let people send you their 3D models or 3D scenes and you'll send them a hologram of it.

Oh hey, I have worked in exactly this business (taking people's random 3D models and bullying a rendering pipeline into feeding a digital holographic printer). It's hard, for many reasons. Mainly it's that holograms are expensive in materials, labor, and capital outlay (adding up to several k just for something the size of a piece of paper), and mass production of digital holograms isn't really possible without massive further outlay - writing them is time consuming, and copying them is fraught. It's like being a graphic design / print workshop, except everything is way more fiddly and expensive and nobody wants your product.

Analog holograms are a bit more tractable. But that's even more niche on the consumption end.

I mean, it was spam...
Re:Why the AI future will be awesome on Thursday October 08, 2026 @11:31AM (#50007051)
Biggest danger of LLMs as they currently fit into society: the radical consolidation of information flow through corporate-controlled bottlenecks that make current generation algorithmic social media (rancid as it is) look like child's play. When people no longer "search" for things, but simply "ask ChatGPT", the lever of social control is nearly absolute.

(Of course, all this is up in the air. If LLMs become commodities, the situation becomes very complex; the information flow doesn't get quite so consolidated, but it still becomes impossible to tractably analyze, as all the LLMs train off each other)

Older »