<rss version="2.0" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"><channel><title>Hacker News: davrosthedalek</title><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/user?id=davrosthedalek</link><description>Hacker News RSS</description><docs>https://hnrss.org/</docs><generator>hnrss v2.1.1</generator><lastBuildDate>Sun, 18 Oct 2026 09:42:10 +0000</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="https://hnrss.org/user?id=davrosthedalek" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"></atom:link><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by davrosthedalek in "BB(10) > Graham's Number"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Exactly, never the same state. And still doesn't halt. That's the point. You cannot detect all non-halting programs by detecting if they go into the same state again. They can, but don't have to.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Sat, 17 Oct 2026 17:04:29 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50132856</link><dc:creator>davrosthedalek</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50132856</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50132856</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by davrosthedalek in "BB(10) > Graham's Number"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>I am not sure I follow? But maybe I misunderstood your quote. It seems any given TM (And for a fixed N, there are only finite many), there are only the two option: it halts, or it doesn't halt. There is no third option?
Of course, the question whether you can proof that it doesn't halt, in ZF or ZFC, is a different question. (You can always proof that it halts if you know that it halts. You run it until it halts)</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 15 Oct 2026 14:34:53 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50104292</link><dc:creator>davrosthedalek</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50104292</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50104292</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by davrosthedalek in "BB(10) > Graham's Number"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Yes, doesn't change the fact that you do not have to hit such a state to have a non-halting program. I already gave an example: a program that continuously writes to the tape will not stop, and since the tape is always different, will not trigger your loop detection.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 15 Oct 2026 11:20:49 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50102104</link><dc:creator>davrosthedalek</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50102104</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50102104</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by davrosthedalek in "BB(10) > Graham's Number"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>What other option is there?</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 14 Oct 2026 02:36:51 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50081697</link><dc:creator>davrosthedalek</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50081697</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50081697</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by davrosthedalek in "BB(10) > Graham's Number"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>First, TMs don't have a stack. Second, still no recurrent state needed.<p>Extending a state with additional variables doesn't make a unique state less unique anyway, so "total state" is always more or same unique as "just tape".</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 14 Oct 2026 02:35:28 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50081688</link><dc:creator>davrosthedalek</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50081688</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50081688</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by davrosthedalek in "Janas: Run LLMs larger than RAM by streaming experts from SSD"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Correct, but that's comparable to streaming from CPU memory to GPU memory, which seems to work OK for MOE models. Then again, if model sizes are so large that you need SSDs, maybe not so much.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2026 19:14:18 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50077053</link><dc:creator>davrosthedalek</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50077053</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50077053</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by davrosthedalek in "BB(10) > Graham's Number"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>There is no requirement to have a recurring state when not halting. Indeed, the most trivial machine "write 1 and move right", will never have the same tape state.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2026 18:31:06 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50076381</link><dc:creator>davrosthedalek</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50076381</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50076381</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by davrosthedalek in "Intel D270 GPU AI Accelerator–Up to 480 GB LPDDR5X"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Because they want the hype to make the stock go up.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 13 Oct 2026 02:14:04 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50065753</link><dc:creator>davrosthedalek</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50065753</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=50065753</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by davrosthedalek in "Jeff – Jev-compatible 0.8B decision models, trained at home, ~30 ms"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Exactly. And that labeled data could be collected by just recording what they feed jev and what the decision is.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 29 Sep 2026 15:27:06 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49894969</link><dc:creator>davrosthedalek</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49894969</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49894969</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by davrosthedalek in "Show HN: Panda, the world's first personal AI computer"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Really needs some details on what hardware is in there / what models it can run.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Mon, 28 Sep 2026 02:10:34 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49872760</link><dc:creator>davrosthedalek</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49872760</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49872760</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by davrosthedalek in "Claude Opus 5.5"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Well, I guess it's "fast paced".</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 22 Sep 2026 17:06:13 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49804550</link><dc:creator>davrosthedalek</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49804550</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49804550</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by davrosthedalek in "Samsung is expected to more than double output of its HBM4 and HBM4E DRAM"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>The price is that you essentially glue CPU and GPU together, which limits total compute, from a size and thermal perspective.<p>This is really not a limit because of unified memory -- in principle, PCIe GPUs could read/write main memory without the CPU. But it's a limit for /fast/ unified memory, because fast means close.<p>So unified memory is great as long as the integrated GPU is strong enough. Then it has two advantages: 
a) probably faster transfer CPU<->GPU (but that's an implementation choice for the non-unified case
b) If you either need a lot of memory for the CPU or the GPU, but not for both at the same time, you pay for memory only once.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Sun, 20 Sep 2026 19:48:17 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49779364</link><dc:creator>davrosthedalek</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49779364</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49779364</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by davrosthedalek in "Qwen 3.8 27B available on Cerebras at 1500 tokens/s"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>regarding my brain, my mother might disagree on the laundry part.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 03 Sep 2026 20:12:11 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49556162</link><dc:creator>davrosthedalek</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49556162</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49556162</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by davrosthedalek in "Nvidia agrees to acquire Hugging Face for $13B"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>And I would say it's actually a more secure future demand channel than the hyperscalers. Openai and co can build their own chips, so they won't buy from NVidia. But they probably won't sell them to somebody else, so everyone who wants to run their own install (and can, not the least because of HF), will buy Nvidia.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Thu, 27 Aug 2026 17:22:14 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49468150</link><dc:creator>davrosthedalek</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49468150</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49468150</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by davrosthedalek in "OpenAI: GPT 5.6 Sol price reduction (until at least Nov 21)"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Because it breaks the TOS.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 25 Aug 2026 00:23:07 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49427616</link><dc:creator>davrosthedalek</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49427616</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49427616</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by davrosthedalek in "Our position on open-weights models"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Because of regulation, not because they are intrinsically hard to get.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 28 Jul 2026 04:50:21 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49079494</link><dc:creator>davrosthedalek</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49079494</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49079494</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by davrosthedalek in "Our position on open-weights models"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>It is actually an interesting conundrum.<p>Is a non-well-aligned frontier level AI a problem? I think it is likely that it is, or at least has a high likelihood to be in the future. Two scenarios for this: Misused by some bad guys. Or the terminator scenario. Both not great.<p>So what do we do about it?<p>1) We can accept it, and hope that the good guys AI can defend.<p>2) We can try to limit the access to it (AI proliferation?)<p>3) We stop the development of it<p>4) We can accept the risk and do nothing.<p>None are particular good options. Really reminds me of nuclear proliferation, on so many levels. For that, we kinda do all three:<p>1) Nuclear triad / iron dome / early warning systems<p>2) Nuclear anti-proliferation treaties.<p>3) Dead Physicists<p>Ok, so assuming all of this is true, open weights are a problem. Don't get me wrong, I love open science, open source etc. It's great to have access to capable open models. 
But: Even if release open weights are well aligned and have a safety layer built in, it is likely not to difficult to abliterate that part of it.<p>If this is really where it is going, then even closed weight model providers will see a lot more requirements for protection of the weights.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Tue, 28 Jul 2026 02:32:15 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49078548</link><dc:creator>davrosthedalek</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49078548</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49078548</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by davrosthedalek in "OpenAI and Hugging Face address security incident during model evaluation"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>Well, I think it's fair to assume that
a) They didn't upload everything before they realized it would work.
b) They want to mention this as an advantage for future analyses
c) Even if you assume that the attack exfiltrated everything until proved otherwise, you shouldn't just disseminate all the private information, because maybe the attack didn't.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2026 12:21:32 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49005596</link><dc:creator>davrosthedalek</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49005596</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49005596</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by davrosthedalek in "OpenAI and Hugging Face address security incident during model evaluation"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>To be fair, there are really three threats:<p>a) People do bad stuff because LLM told them a wrong thing. Example: AI told me I should treat my heart attack by putting a fork in the outlet.  Maybe similar to seeking medical advice on reddit?<p>b) People use LLM to do bad stuff. Example: People use LLMs to find 0 days. Get cooking recipes for poison. Write better phishing letters. This has parallels to the gun legislation question.<p>c) LLMs do bad stuff on their own, beyond what the people that use it intended. The case at hand might be an example of this. Maybe similar to having an animal as a pet. We will see if it's more like a house cat, lion, or black plague.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2026 11:42:37 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49005171</link><dc:creator>davrosthedalek</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49005171</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49005171</guid></item><item><title><![CDATA[New comment by davrosthedalek in "OpenAI and Hugging Face address security incident during model evaluation"]]></title><description><![CDATA[
<p>If there is an electrical connection between these downstream boxes and the inference servers beyond the power connection, it does stretch the definition of air gap.</p>
]]></description><pubDate>Wed, 22 Jul 2026 11:17:52 +0000</pubDate><link>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49004942</link><dc:creator>davrosthedalek</dc:creator><comments>https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49004942</comments><guid isPermaLink="false">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=49004942</guid></item></channel></rss>