This account is a replica from Hacker News. Its author can't see your replies. If you find this service useful, please consider supporting us via our Patreon.
| Official | https:// |
| Support this service | https://www.patreon.com/birddotmakeup |
| Official | https:// |
| Support this service | https://www.patreon.com/birddotmakeup |
> Meta has to know that millenials and younger are giving up on their platforms, they have endless internal data showing it, right?
Do you have a source for that? I don't think it's true when looking at global Meta numbers across _all_ Meta social platforms (FB+Instagram+Threads) combined.
I don't see it at all.
> Typed I/O for every LLM call. Use Pydantic. Define what goes in and out.
Sure, not related to DSPy though, and completely tablestakes. Also not sure why the whole article assumes the only language in the world is Python.
> Separate prompts from code. Forces you to think about prompts as distinct things.
There's really no reason prompts must live in a file with a .md or .json or .txt extension rather than .py/.ts/.go/.., except if you indeed work at a company that decided it's a good idea to let random people change prod runtime behavior. If someone can think of a scenario where this is actually a good idea, feel free to elighten me. I don't see how it's any more advisable than editing code in prod while it's running.
> Composable units. Every LLM call should be testable, mockable, chainable.
> Abstract model calls. Make swapping GPT-4 for Claude a one-line change.
And LiteLLM or `ai` (Vercel), the actually most used packages, aren't? You're comparing downloads with Langchain, probably the worst package to gain popularity of the last decade. It was just first to market, then after a short while most realized it's horrifically architected, and now it's just coasting on former name recognition while everyone who needs to get shit done uses something lighter like the above two.
> Eval infrastructure early. Day one. How will you know if a change helped?
Sure, to an extent. Outside of programming, most things where LLMs deliver actual value are very nondeterministic with no right answer. That's exactly what they offer. Plenty of which an LLM can't judge the quality of. Having basic evals is useful, but you can quickly run into their development taking more time than it's worth.
But above all.. the comments on this post immediately make clear that the biggest differentiator of DSPy is the prompt optimization. Yet this article doesn't mention that at all? Weird.
No they didn't [0][1]. With this leak they're probably negotiating as we speak, which could be why they've deleted the posts.
[0] https://chainthink.cn/zh-CN/news/113784276696010804
[1] https://pbs.twimg.com/media/HD2Ky9jW4AAAe0Y?format=jpg&name=...

据 1M AI News 监测,开发者 @fynnso 在调试 Cursor API 请求时发现,Composer 2 的实际模型 ID 为 `kimi-k2p5-rl-0317-s515-fast`,字面即「Kimi K2.5 + RL」。月之暗面(Moonshot AI)预训练负责人杜羽伦(@Yulun_Du)随即发推,称团队测试 Composer 2 的 tokenizer 后发现「与我们的 Kimi tokenizer 完全一致」,「几乎可以确认这是我们的模型被进一步后训练的结果」,并直接 @ Cursor 联合创始人 Michael Truell,质问「为什么不尊重我们的许可证,也没有支付任何费用」。Cursor 3 月 19 日发布 Composer 2 时称,性能提升来自「首次对基座模型进行继续预训练,再结合强化学习」,但全程未提及 Kimi K2.5。两点并不矛盾:继续预训练和 RL 本就施加在某个基座之上,Cursor 只是未披露基座来源。Kimi K2.5 采用修改版 MIT 协议,明文规定:月活超 1 亿或月营收超 2000 万美元的商业产品,必须在用户界面显著标注「Kimi K2.5」。以 Cursor 293 亿美元估值及付费用户规模,月营收门槛几乎必然触发。截至发稿,Cursor 未公开回应。
https://noyb.eu/en/project/dpa/dpc-ireland
GDPR is entirely unenforced, it's not worth the paper it's written on, and this is due to lobbying. The situation continues to this day. The DPAs simply throw reports of violations into the trash bin.
It's hilariously transparent - Ireland recently (less than 6 months ago) added a former _Meta lobbyist_ to their DPA board [0].
US Big Tech is now spending a record €151 million per year on lobbying the EU [1], and it's completely implausible to believe they're doing that with 0 RoI. "The number of digital lobbyists has risen from 699 to 890 full-time equivalents (FTEs), surpassing the 720 Members of the European Parliament (MEPs). A total of 437 lobbyists now have continuous access to the European Parliament.
Three meetings per day: Big Tech held an average of three lobbying meetings a day in the first half of 2025, which speaks volumes about their level of access to EU policymakers." It's impossible that this doesn't influence things.
[0] https://noyb.eu/en/former-meta-lobbyist-named-dpc-commission...
[1] https://corporateeurope.org/en/2025/10/revealed-tech-industr...