It depends on the hardware, backend and options. I've recently tried running some local AIs (Qwen3.5 9B for the numbers here) on an older AMD 8GB VRAM GPU (so vulkan) and found that:

llama.cpp is about 10% faster than LM studio with the same options.

LM studio is 3x faster than ollama with the same options (~13t/s vs ~38t/s), but messes up tool calls.

Ollama ended up slowest on the 9B, Queen3.5 35B and some random other 8B model.

Note that this isn't some rigorous study or performance benchmarking. I just found ollama unnaceptably slow and wanted to try out the other options.

Sometimes the impression I get from commenters on HN is that they would sell their own grandmother for money.

Much less than just not considering morals/ethics, it's seen as a weakness here.

Well, I wasn't that worried for the astronauts before, but now that I know they're running windows, I'm not so sure.

I can't believe as developers we were worried about AI training on licensed code. It turns out it didn't matter at all. You can just point an LLM at some source code and you're off scot-free.

Almost all apps are just CRUD. The code is not that interesting. The valuable IP is the product.

In what way? Does it matter that there's an Adobe logo on the top if I can just point an LLM at some leaked code and get PictureStore?

There are a lot of comments here saying something to the effect of "spaceflight is inherently unsafe" or "you can't always guarantee safety." I find this rather concerning.

Surely there is a difference between "our engineers did the best they could and the mission has a X% chance of failure" and "management overrode the engineers so they can get a launch in before the program is shuttered."

There is no evidence that "management overrode the engineers".

Have you bothered to ask the gambler if they want to risk it?

No offense to the astronauts of course, but asking people that have dreamed of this opportunity their whole life doesn't actually tell you all that much about the actual safety of the mission as a whole.

The giant advantage regular games have is that I've yet to smash my hand into a wall playing them.

I think that the relatively low living space area for most of the world is a huge strain on VR adoption.

I think that will change when VR is like Striking Vipers.

If you're not sure what something is saying, how can you be sure that the AI had picked the correct interpretation?

By asking it to cite its sources. Whenever I use AI, I have it pull direct quotes from the text to justify its interpretation. Sometimes it's spot on, sometimes it's wrong. But skimming a paper to fact-check a few specific quotes is still vastly faster than reading a dense paper completely blind.

Right question to ask, however, good readers/professionals do have some sense for this and ability to dig further as needed. On the other hand, books and articles are often over-detailed, with the key stuff buried in the lede or even remaining tacit.

For me, LLMs have often pointed me to answers or given food for thought that even subject matter experts could not. I do not take those answers at face value, but the net result is still better than the search remaining open-ended.

Critical thinking.

In good faith, how do you tell yourself have good critical thinking?

I believe you're talking to an LLM, just look at the comment history

Well how do you know anything in that case? You could be dreaming right now sound asleep, or you could be locked inside a mental institution but living in a complete delusion. You might have been in a coma for the past 7 years and AI was just something you dreamed up.

> Zuck and tech as a whole pivoted to drop safety investments the moment this government came to power.

I think the question to ask here is, if both Meta and the current administration don't care about child safety, why is the age verification stuff going so smoothly? Is helping them do this really the right move?

Well it’s not going smoothly. People on HN are talking about it now, but they are really talking about privacy.

For the rest of the world this has been brewing for more than a decade.

Australia was the actually the one to tip the first domino. This is just a US state verdict on willful harm by a firm. Its not even about age verification.

For meta, shifting regulatory burdens to OS / app stores, reduces regulatory burden.

For governments, part of it is actually trying to come to grips with an impossible safety imperative and another part of it is happy to gain more control and power.

The power grab needs to be curtailed, and the people actually trying to help kids need better technical solutions.

Why are you asking lawmaker questions of people on HN? What kind of answer are you expecting?

Just because I don't know how to write a law that can prevent it doesn't mean that I can't recognize an actual issue when I see it.

Because people like you then go and vote for politicians without actually understanding what they are proposing.

It's all Trump style "believe me I know how to fix it" and you will vote for the person that pushes your buttons regardless of whether they have a plausible solution or not.

So only lawyers should be allowed to vote, otherwise we are subjected to ad hominem attacks?

It very much seems like you think you could do better. Not being a lawyer does not make someone part of an uninformed populace.

So everyone should go to law school?