MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by ednite | 2025-06-04 15:47:39+00:00
Not an expert here, just speaking from experience as a working dev. I don’t think AI is going to replace my job as a software developers anytime soon, but it’s definitely changing how we work (and in many cases, already has).

Personally, I use AI a lot. It’s great for boilerplate, getting unstuck, or even offering alternative solutions I wouldn’t have thought of. But where it still struggles sometimes is with the why behind the work. It doesn’t have that human curiosity, asking odd questions, pushing boundaries, or thinking creatively about tradeoffs.

What really makes me pause is when it gives back code that looks right, but I find myself thinking, “Wait… why did it do this?” Especially when security is involved. Even if I prompt with security as the top priority, I still need to carefully review the output.

One recent example that stuck with me: a friend of mine, an office manager with zero coding background, proudly showed off how he used AI to inject some VBA into his Excel report to do advanced filtering. My first reaction was: well, here it is, AI replacing my job. But what hit harder was my second thought: does he even know what he just copied and pasted into that sensitive report?

So yeah, for me AI isn’t a replacement. It’s a power tool, and eventually, maybe a great coding partner. But you still need to know what you’re doing, or at least understand enough to check its work.
by bluefirebrand | 2025-06-04 15:47:39+00:00
The solution to doctors arguing with insurance isn't "have an AI do it" it's universal health care so doctors don't need to worry about insurance in the slightest

I worked on software for electronic medical record note taking and I'm not sure how an LLM can help a doctor speed that up tbh. All of the stats need to be typed into the computer regardless. The LLM can't really speed that up?
by kypro | 2025-06-04 15:47:42+00:00
While robotics are still relatively immature, I would think of AI as something akin to a remote worker.

Anything a human remote worker can do, a super human remote worker will be able to do better, faster and for a fraction of the cost – this includes work that humans currently do in offices but could theoretically done remotely.

We should therefore assume if (when) AI broadly surpasses the capabilities of a human remote worker it will not longer make economic sense to hire humans for these roles.

Should we assume this then what is the human's role in the labour market? It won't be their physical abilities (the industrial revolution replaced the human's role here), it won't be their reasoning abilities (AI will soon replace the human's here), but perhaps jobs which require both physical dexterity and human-level reasoning ability humans might still retain an edge? Perhaps at least for now we can assume jobs like roofing, plumbing, and gardening will continue to exist. While jobs like coding, graphic design and copy writing will almost certainly be replaced.

I think the only long-term question at the moment is how long it will take for robotics to catch up and provide something akin to human-level dexterity with super-human intelligence? At which point I'm not sure why anyone would hire a human except from the novelty of it – perhaps like the novelty of riding a horse into town.

AI is so obviously not like other technologies. Past technologies effectively just found ways to automate low-intelligence tasks and augment human strength via machinery. Advanced robotics and AI is fundamentally different in their ability to cut into human labour, and combined it's hard to see any edge to a human labourer.

But ether way, even if you subscribe to this notion that AI will not take all human jobs it seems very likely that AI will displace many more jobs than the industrial revolution did, and at a much much faster pace. Additionally, it will target those who are most educated, which isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it unlike the working class who are easy to ignore and tell to re-skill, my guess would be that demands will be made for UBI and large reorganisations of our existing economic and political systems. My point is, the likelihood any of this will end well is close to zero, even if you just believe AI will replace a bunch of inefficient jobs like software engineers.
by parineum | 2025-06-04 15:47:44+00:00
I think you're missing a third conglomerate that, I think, is actually the most influential.

It's not unlike the crypto space; you've got your true believers, your skeptics and thirdly, your financially motivated hype men. The CEOs if these publicly traded companies and companies that want to be bought are the latter and they are the ones who are behind stories where "the ai lies so we don't turn it off!!!" hype that gets spun into click bait headlines.
by walterbell | 2025-06-04 15:47:44+00:00
https://www.ifixit.com/News/110039/double-trouble-for-repair...

Come January 1, 2026, manufacturers must also stop using parts pairing to block repairs for these devices. That means no more pop-ups that say “unknown part” when you swap in a working screen. No more downgrading your camera or fingerprint sensor just because you repaired your own phone. SB 5680 goes even further for wheelchair users. It covers power wheelchairs, manual wheelchairs, power-assist devices, and mobility scooters. Manufacturers will have to provide not only parts and tools, but also firmware and embedded software, the stuff that’s often used to digitally lock out independent fixes.
by freedomben | 2025-06-04 15:47:49+00:00
If OpenAI shut theirs down tomorrow and Sam Altman became a travelling monk preaching against the development of AI, do you really believe it would stop the momentum?

I don't. The cat is out of the bag. The only thing that would accomplish is giving Google and others less competition. Personally I don't have much trust in any tech companies, including OpenAI, but I'd much rather there be a field of competition than one dominant and (unchecked) leader.
by plaidfuji | 2025-06-04 15:48:18+00:00
This is generally good advice but not universal. I’ve seen how complaining about other teams within one’s own team stifles collaboration and can kill cross-functional projects before they get started. But also, if there’s a real problem on another team, there needs to be a channel for people to be real with their direct reports about the problems, so they can build a case to fix it. And if there’s a big and obvious problem that you wilfully ignore or talk around as a manager, it can also hurt your credibility with your team. So it’s a fine line, and one that I’ve never really seen walked perfectly. I’ve had C-level bosses who were constantly complaining about other teams. Happened to be one of my favorite managers actually.
by kstrauser | 2025-06-04 15:48:41+00:00
Hard disagree. I made an analogy in another reply to Monet not knowing quantum physics. Lacking that information didn’t deter his famous explorations of light effects.

Humans are great at figuring out how things behave before we have a great model of why they do it. And by Shakespeare’s time, we had a pretty good grasp on practical human psychology, even if we had less understanding of the mechanisms behind it.
by schonfinkel | 2025-06-04 15:49:12+00:00
Learning to work on the BEAM with Erlang/OTP has been one of the best experiences I had in the past year, I used Joe Armstrong's "Programming Erlang: Software for a Concurrent World" book (and highly recommend it to beginners), I also heard good things about "Designing for Scalability with Erlang/OTP" (but didn't start this one yet), but nothing comes close to this in terms of depth.

The BEAM really feels like alien tech left from a highly advanced civilization and this book dropped in a such a great timing! Bought it right away, kudos to Dr. Erik Stenman for keeping it up after two cancellations!
by rkangel | 2025-06-04 15:49:24+00:00
I think the closest in wide use is probably Go.

The BEAM is set up for "Erlang like languages" (or maybe it's the other way around). Writing Elixir, still feels a lot like Erlang because of the underlying semantics of how it operates. Even Gleam is closer to Erlang than anything else once you get past the types.

Go also has goroutines/green threads/Erlang-like processes as a core primitive for its parallelism. it doesn't have the same "opinion" about how to structure a concurrent application that you get from OTP though.
by sleepybrett | 2025-06-04 15:49:34+00:00
This law does not apply to tractors or game consoles. It's neutered as all fuck.

From the article:

Of course, these wins come with carve-outs. HB 1483 exempts:

Video game consoles Medical devices Motor vehicles Agricultural and construction equipment Security systems and alarm equipment Internet and TV equipment from ISPs Off-road recreational vehicles Large-scale energy storage and solar gear Low earth orbit broadband gear (until 2044)
by potato3732842 | 2025-06-04 15:49:47+00:00
Sure, but that doesn't account for the allegedly apocalyptic layoffs from companies that don't fit into the "real taxes on imaginary gains" mold.

I get that this is bad for the VC monopoly bucks scene, but they were already down for the most part. If the changes are as the article alleges than all these big tech companies that are posting huge layoffs should mostly be fine because it's not a serious change from status quo for them.
by diggan | 2025-06-04 15:50:01+00:00
> Like gee I wonder why they want to drink cool delicious clean water from a tap, not dank stagnant water from puddles. What a mystery for the ages!

I mean, it could also not be about taste at all, I'm sure not all animals taste things the same, not even all humans have the same taste it seems, I can't stand fish and I love licorice, many are the opposite :)

Besides, many animals seem to enjoy just "different" things. When I'm out and about with my dogs, they love trying to drink water from puddles, even if I have a portable bowl with fresh water right next to it. Maybe it's more "interesting" or "flavorful"? Who knows...
by kartoffelsaft | 2025-06-04 15:50:13+00:00
The way it is written is to say that this is an important interview question for any software engineering position, and I'm guessing you agree by the way you say it's critical.

But by the same logic, should we be asking for the same knowledge of the language server protocol and algorithms like treesitter? They're integral right now in the same way these new tools are expected to become (and have become for many).

As I see it, knowing the internals of these tools might be the thing that makes the hire, but not something you'd screen every candidate with who comes through the door. It's worth asking, but not "critical." Usage of these tools? sure. But knowing how they're implemented is simply a single indicator to tell if the developer is curious and willing to learn about their tools - an indicator which you need many of to get an accurate assessment.
by QuadmasterXLII | 2025-06-04 15:50:21+00:00
“Aging related” just means we don’t know what causes it, and yes we are much better at treating things when we know their cause. For example, right now parkinsons is aging related and we can’t do a thing about it, but there is increasing evidence that it is caused by some pollutant or toxin. If we find the toxin, then parkinsons will stop being age related. Mesothelioma is a historical case of this: for 100 years it was an untreatable aging related disease, it’s now obviously not an aging related disease, and the treatment is don’t breath asbestos.
by aiboost | 2025-06-04 15:50:44+00:00
Hi, I'm the maintainer of Awesome-A2A.

Why: Google’s Agent2Agent protocol is still new and resources are scattered.

What's inside: 40+ SDKs across Go/Rust/Python/TS, demo apps, validation tools.

Gaps: Looking for production-scale examples and monitoring plugins — PRs very welcome.

Questions: What blocks you from trying A2A right now? Any real-world use cases you’d like us to cover?

Happy to answer anything about the curation process or A2A internals.
by bluera | 2025-06-04 15:50:45+00:00
Simply navigate to any GitHub repository, file or wiki you want to chat with, and replace "github.com" with "githubchat.ai" to get instant answers.

eg.

https://github.com/blueraai/universal-intelligence → https://githubchat.ai/blueraai/universal-intelligence

Demo: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ryKax_WhND8

Hope this helps!

Made with ♥ by a small indie team in New York.

More info: https://bluera.ai
Show HN: I made a synced habit and journaling webapp that feels good to use
by maghfoor | 2025-06-04 15:50:49+00:00
I've been using a bunch of different apps over the years for habits, journaling and todos and I've finally created something that has everything I would need.

I used Convex for my backend because I needed everything to be always synced on my phone and desktop. Convex made that super easy and I didn't have to setup any websockets stuff myself.
by skydhash | 2025-06-04 15:50:50+00:00
I have, and it's not amazing. I'm pretty sure a lot of people have and agree with me. Why ask an LLMs when I can just open an API reference and have all the answers in a dense and succint format that gives me what I need?

Let's say I'm writing and Eloquent query (Laravel's ORM) and I forgot the signature for the where method. It's like 5 seconds to find the page and have the answer (less if I'm using Dash.app). It would take me longer to write a prompt for that. And I have to hope the model got it right.

For bigger use cases, a lot of times I already know the code, the reason I haven't written it yet is I'm thinking how it would impact the whole project architecture. Once I have a good feel, writing the code is a nice break from all of those thinking sessions. Like driving on a scenic route. Yeah you could have an AI drive you there, but not when you're worrying it taking the wrong turn at every intersection.
by potato3732842 | 2025-06-04 15:51:20+00:00
Maybe it sucked too but fuel economy absolutely is a large part of why modern cars all drive like mush.

If you ever have a the opportunity to drive a Nissan from the "hurr durr Nissan CVT bad" era like 2008-12ish it'll feel like a sports car by comparison to just about any modern crossover. "Oh you want revs, let me give you revs"
by linsomniac | 2025-06-04 15:51:21+00:00
My wife is a nurse and is basically unreachable via voice while she is working, but texting she can get back to me when she isn't actively with a patient.

A company was trying to follow up on a contact form. They called me while I was in a meeting, I used my "screen call" feature to tell them to call me back in 2 hours. They called me back in 1.5 hours when I was in another meeting, didn't leave a voice mail or call me back. A simple text of "When are you available to speak" would have been 1000x more productive.

Yes, there are definitely cases where a phone call is faster than text. But the opposite is also true.
by meany | 2025-06-04 15:51:25+00:00
One thing I wonder is that - assuming no extreme personal calamity - I would be just as happy/sad/depressed no matter what life I had led. How much of our inner sense of well being is determined by outward life circumstances. Living in the first world and working in the tech industry, I live better than 99% of the people that ever lived, including all my ancestors. What’s really crazy is that I’m not insanely happy all the time with my incredible good fortune. It seems that no matter what I got from life - I’d calibrate back to where I am now.
by slibhb | 2025-06-04 15:51:28+00:00
But maybe death is necessary for change. It's cerainly necessary for evolution.

It's not so much that I buy this argument...it's that I don't see a simple way to rebut it. To me, it's an empirical question that we can't answer a priori, i.e. "what would human civilization look like if everyone lived forever?"
by bcrosby95 | 2025-06-04 15:51:43+00:00
You need to create your own preamble that you include with every request. I generally have one for each codebase, which includes a style guide, preferred practices & design (lots of 'best practices' are cargo culted and the LLM will push them on you even when it doesn't make sense - this helps eliminate those), and declarations of common utility functions that may need to be used.
by apsurd | 2025-06-04 15:51:58+00:00
The way I understand your position is "we're wired to do/choose X"

The big discussion is why have kids. And your position then is we're wired to, just like taking a dump.

It's not a good argument in my mind because the position voids every decision. There are no decisions. No free will. We can discuss that, i suppose.

edit: saw your update. I don't know I think it tracks. Asking why does someone do something implies a choice, to argue it's not a choice is a different argument. A good one even, but it's different.
by tines | 2025-06-04 15:52:23+00:00
People compare AI to the automation that happened in e.g. car factories. Lots of people were put out of jobs, and that’s just the way things go, they say.

But the difference is that automotive automation does create way more jobs than it destroyed. Programmers, designers, machine maintainers, computer engineers, mechanical engineers, materials scientists, all have a part to play in making those machines. More people are employed by auto manufacturers than ever before, albeit different people.

AI isn’t the same really. It’s not a case of creating more-different jobs. It just substitutes people with a crappier replacement, puts all the power in the hands of the few companies that make it, and the pie is shrinking rather than growing.

We will all pay for the damage done in pure pursuit of profit by shoehorning this tech everywhere.
by ryandrake | 2025-06-04 15:52:46+00:00
I believe that our "success trajectory" is something like 10-20% our own choices and 80-90% pedigree / where we start from. And probably some percentage of "other luck." So I don't really think too hard about doing it over because I don't feel like I've made many really bad decisions. I've gotten about as far as I could have reasonably expected, given being born to a family of school teachers living in a rural middle of nowhere, where success meant getting a decent job at the local mill. No do-over would make my father a rich, well-connected businessman. No do-over would get me into Phillips Exeter Academy as a high schooler and then Harvard or Yale. No do-over would land me in Goldman Sachs post-graduation. So I really don't dwell on what might have been.

If I could go way farther back in time and bend my entire family tree's trajectory such that I started out on 3rd base, that would be a different story.
by tbrownaw | 2025-06-04 15:52:47+00:00
I've seen science (the process, not just the results of that process) denounced as an aspect or tool of Western colonialism / imperialism. And there's that related "indigenous ways of knowing" thing that Canada has going on.

---

Also the flat earth people actually aren't trying to argue against science (the process). They're arguing that everyone except them made either observational errors or reasoning errors.
by zahlman | 2025-06-04 15:52:48+00:00
> and then adults wonder why their kids don't like any of the stuff they like - and the reason is that the adult was really a dick about making them learn the things the adult liked

This can be done with any programming language.

The point of teaching assembly isn't for someone to memorize all the details of any particular instruction set. It's about conceiving of the decomposition of problems on that level. It's about understanding what data is, so that when the student later learns a higher-level programming language, it sets expectations for what happens when you open a file, what kind of processing has to be done, etc. It's the basis for understanding abstractions that are built upon all those 1s and 0s, about the way that a program implicitly assigns semantics to them.

(This is best done with a toy assembly language, not one that comes anywhere near reflecting the complexity of modern CPUs. Anything to do with the practical considerations of modern optimizing compilers is also missing the point by a mile.)
by ninetyninenine | 2025-06-04 15:52:53+00:00
>You can’t project trends out endlessly.

But this is not just an endless projection. In one sense we can't have economic growth and energy consumption go endlessly as that will eat up all the available resources on earth, there is a physical hard line.

However for AI this is not the case. There is literally an example of human level intelligence exiting in the real world. You're it. We know we haven't even scratched the limit.

It can be done because an example of the finished product is humanity itself. The question is do we have the capability to do it? And for this we don't know. Given the trend and the fact that a Finished product Already exists, It is Totally realistic to say AI will replace our jobs.
by marcodiego | 2025-06-04 15:52:55+00:00
> I’d argue the world/humankind is already an immense disaster

Not exactly disagreeing because I really don't know any better. But whenever I hear comments like these, I wonder if isolated peoples or medieval/industrial revolution population have/had a better life then we do. We have conveniences that far surpasses anything a king could have just a few decades ago. Our life expectancy and IDH is (almost) monotonically increasing.

I really expect that efficiency growth will make the world converge to a life style where most people don't have to work to survive, but just to acquire luxury goods. I actually think that maybe we could already be at that point if it wasn't for the "sadists that run the world", but I don't think they can prevent it from happening because that will make them make more money too.

So, I really don't know if people criticizing our current state as "an immense disaster" are overly pessimistic or if the people (like myself) thinking that the world is in a never before achieved good state are realistic or uninformed.

I fear deterioration beyond repair, like irrecoverable climate change, because an event like that would really separate the very rich from rest of the population in a way that only one of these two partitions could survive. But I don't think we'll reach that point my lifetime.
by latexr | 2025-06-04 15:53:07+00:00
> The thing people should rightly dismiss is the idea that human engineering is a minor enough consideration in predictions of the far future that it can be ignored as a sort of rounding error.

Which is not my argument. At all. You’re talking about if we can, I’m talking about if we will. The article—again, rightly—explains what we predict is going to happen according to the information we have. It’s trying to be a scientific-minded article, not a science-fiction article. By your token, anyone could make up any technology to contradict the article, which is not a productive discussion.

> the kind of global agreement you're dismissing as unachievable.

I disagree it’s the same kind of agreement. The difference in magnitude and investment is gargantuan to the point it’s another category altogether. Like a group deciding where they’ll go out to dinner VS deciding which country they’ll all move to. Both require mutual agreement for the same group to advance, but that’s where the similarities end.

> Undoubtedly, if there are still humans after a few hundred million years

Which is a big if. You can’t in good faith flout “just move Earth further from the Sun” as if it was something routine without considering all the very real and very big obstacles which are in our way right now, billions of years before your proposed scenario.

The crux of my point is merely that your criticism of the article is unwarranted. Sure, phantasise about any any possible approaches to the problem you can think of, but acting like the article somehow failed to consider those options is what I’m disagreeing with.