MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by 0x_rs | 2025-07-31 06:52:00+00:00
This. Reinventing the wheel at every opportunity, forgetting about or ignoring the expected way to do something, mixing patterns, you name it. The author may call it "vibe coding", that's fine but it has little to do with LLMs. The tool has the same amount of care anyone rushing to get something done, or that hasn't build the project themselves, or maybe doesn't have enough experience would. I can only assume it's a not-very-subtle complaint about a specific person in their team, "written in a way no developer on the team would" is telling.

I'd be extremely careful about applying this thinking anywhere else. There's enough baseless finger-pointing in academia and arts already.
by danlitt | 2025-07-31 06:52:29+00:00
I think this is quite fair criticism of google. The idea of the account being locked and requiring MFA to verify is something they made up without consulting the user. If they're going to do this "suspicious account" locking, they must make MFA mandatory beforehand. If they haven't got MFA from the user, they must trust the password. If that means my account gets compromised, that's my problem.

Note that there is no question who owns the account. That's what the password is for!
by codemusings | 2025-07-31 06:52:45+00:00
Trust me 1-Star-Drive-By Reviews by "customers" without any merit are just as bad for businesses.

So, congrats. You've basically discovered that online review systems suck. Look at app stores. Look at Amazon product reviews. It's all being gamed and manipulated and abused. Google obviously won't moderate any of this because there's no substantial business value.
by Msurrow | 2025-07-31 06:53:07+00:00
I have worked on such teams. Mostly, even. I would not accept any PRs with code doing any of those things (human or machine made). Small(er) teams on small to medium sized projects.

Critical solutions, but small(er) projects with 2-4 devs, that’s where it’s at. I feel like it’s because then it’s actually possible to build a devteam culture and consensus that has the wanted balance of quality and deliveryspeed.
by rajnathani | 2025-07-31 06:54:56+00:00
> .. the various modifications all point in the direction of a buildup of mitochondrial electron surplus as the fundamental inducer of the need to sleep.

> The hypothesis is that aerobic respiration itself comes with the tradeoff of a required sleep state in order to catch up and restore mitochondrial function in the nervous system ..

These are the key points. Then the explanation for insomnia for people who even engage in physical activity in non-successful attempts to mitigate it is that maybe the physical activity is overly exerting the body in a way which negatively affects the diaphragm muscles (including supporting muscles) and causes lower blood circulation and inhibits passive-physical-activity mitochondrial use in the body due to lower aerobic respiration mostly, and thus the electron surplus isn't then achieved for sleep-induction (as stated in the above quoted statement).
by phplovesong | 2025-07-31 06:56:20+00:00
Did anyone think otherwise? AI generated code is obviously tech debt / legacy / whatever you want to call it. This was the same as 10-15 years ago when we saw that php dev copypasta from stackoverflow.

I expect code quality to be way, way worse in the coming decade. Its not legacy because of age, its legacy feom day one. Pure nightmare fuel.
by cess11 | 2025-07-31 06:56:28+00:00
It's a weird nitpick about 'blotting out the memory' of another society being much nicer and not at all genocidal compared to the 'spare no one' of 1 Samuel, and Rosenberg spends a lot of words to avoid describing how Netanyahu's speech was perceived by his constituents.

At the time half of jewish israelis said outright in polls that they supported genocidal actions by the israeli state (p. 5 https://en.idi.org.il/media/21835/war-in-gaza-public-opinion...).
by Karliss | 2025-07-31 06:56:59+00:00
Is there a way to read lean proofs noninteractively.

After playing with the natural number a game a bit, proofs quickly ended up being opaque sequences of "rw [x]" commands which felt unreadable. It's nice that the editor allows interactively viewing the state at different points, but having to click on each line ruins the flow of reading. Imagine if you had to read python code which has no indentation, braces or anything similar and only way to know where if statement ends or an else block starts is by clicking on each line. My impression might be influenced by the limited vocabulary that the early levels of natural number game provides. Does the richer toolset provided by full lean make it easier to make proofs readable without requiring you to click on each line to get the necessary context?
by ttiurani | 2025-07-31 06:57:18+00:00
As a bonus, you can can get completely stuck if you made the mistake of creating a MS family when signing into Minecraft. In the forums there are hundreds of problems like mine where the family becomes completely uneditable and Minecraft offline-only.

But I should've never attempted anything that complicated with MS. They can barely manage simple cases, groups of users is way too hard.
by dlcarrier | 2025-07-31 06:57:24+00:00
It's pretty common for a single person to form a trust or LLC to buy an airplane, but it's mostly only worth the cost when the airplane is very expensive or when it's going to be used for commercial activity. I used the only example I could think of, off hand, that applies to non-commercial activity, because it's more relatable.

Also, I think it's worth mentioning that the advisory circulars, legal interpretations, and other letters the FAA writes aren't regulations, and it takes a ruling going to a federal court, not an FAA panel or tribunal, to set a precedent for what is and isn't legal. As far as I understand, this has never happened with FAR 61.113, which is a bit self contradictory and the FAA's overly broad definition of compensation where "the building up of flight time may be compensatory in nature if the pilot does not have to pay the costs of operating the aircraft" (https://www.faa.gov/media/15611) is extremely unlikely to ever hold up to a jury.
Has AI coding gone too far? I feel like I'm losing control of my own projects
by Shaun0 | 2025-07-31 06:58:12+00:00
I wanted to share some thoughts on AI coding assistants that have been bothering me for a while, and I think the analogy of "a kid with a credit card" perfectly captures the danger of what some call "vibecoding." At least until we have true AGI, this feels like a serious issue.

After using Cursor intensively for the better part of a year, I'm stunned by how fast it is. It can scaffold entire features, wire up components, and write complex logic in seconds. The feeling is like the difference between driving a car with a manual versus an automatic transmission. Or maybe, more accurately, like the difference between reading detailed documentation versus just watching a summary video.

It's brought me back to when I first started using GitHub Copilot in 2023. Back then, it was mostly for autocompleting methods and providing in-context suggestions. That level of assistance felt just right. For more complex problems, I'd consciously switch contexts and ask a web-based AI like ChatGPT. I was still the one driving.

But tools like Cursor have changed the dynamic entirely. They are so proactive that they're stripping me of the habit of thinking deeply about the business logic. It's not that I've lost the ability to think, but I'm losing the ingrained, subconscious behavior of doing it. I'm no longer forced to hold the entire architecture in my head.

This is leading to a progressively weaker sense of ownership over the project. The workflow becomes:

Tell the AI to write a function.

Debug and test it.

Tell the AI to write the next function that connects to it.

Rinse and repeat. While fast, I end up with a series of black boxes I've prompted into existence. My role shifts from "I know what I'm building" to "I know what I want." There's a subtle but crucial difference. I'm becoming a project manager directing an AI intern, not an engineer crafting a solution.

This is detrimental for both the individual developer and the long-term health of a project. If everyone on the team adopts this workflow, who truly understands the full picture?

Here’s a concrete example that illustrates my point perfectly: writing git commit messages.

Every time I commit, I have a personal rule to review all changed files and write the commit message myself, in my own words. This forces me to synthesize the changes and solidifies my understanding of the project's state at that specific point in time. It keeps my sense of control strong.

If I were to let an AI auto-generate the commit message from the diff, I might save a few minutes. But a month later, looking back, I’d have no real memory or context for that commit. It would just be a technically accurate but soulless log entry.

I worry that by optimizing for short-term speed, we're sacrificing long-term understanding and control.

Is anyone else feeling this tension? How are you balancing the incredible power of these tools with the need to remain the master of your own codebase?
by theshrike79 | 2025-07-31 06:59:18+00:00
We are specifically using Ollama, because our stuff CANNOT leave the company internal net.

Any whiff of a cloud service and the lawyers will freak out.

That's why we run models via Ollama on our laptops (M-series is crazy powerful) and a few servers on the intranet for more oomph.

LM Studio changed their license to allow commercial use without "call me" pricing, so we might look into that more too.
by II2II | 2025-07-31 06:59:48+00:00
I can't speak for Microsoft since I've never dealt with them directly, but descriptions of the level of support offered to consumers in the eighties and early nineties would be beyond belief to those who didn't live through it. You would dial a toll-free number, talk to a real person who would diagnose the problem and fix it. If it was a known fixed bug, they would mail you a software update. If the bug didn't have a fix, there was still a chance it would be fixed in the current version. At least my experience with Corel, IBM, and, WordPerfect were all like that. How the companies could afford that level of support is beyond me.
by frizlab | 2025-07-31 07:00:51+00:00
> If the agent has a clean, relevant context explaining what global functions are available it tends to use them properly.

STOP! The agent does not exist. There are no agents; only mathematical functions that have an input and produce an output.

Stop anthropomorphizing LLMs, they are not human, they don’t do anything.

It might seem like it does not matter; my take is it’s primordial. Humans are not machines and vice-versa.
by Ekaros | 2025-07-31 07:01:03+00:00
The big issue I see is how effective the customs can be in handling the new volume they need to handle.

EU has shown that no De Minimis on VAT is not big problem. Chinese ecommerce can pay those costs just fine if the systems are in place. And price is still competitive for customer.

Considering retail margins, even 100% tariff still probably means at least 30% cheaper product.
by bayindirh | 2025-07-31 07:01:39+00:00
I think so? There are some small changes here and there, new integrations are added as they go.

They are not getting investments anymore AFAIK, but they're profitable because of the paying users.

I don't think you have to add X features every hour to stay relevant. The software is pretty powerful at this state already, and I might be discovered 15% of its capabilities probably, despite using it relatively heavily.
by jillesvangurp | 2025-07-31 07:01:58+00:00
Agreed. There are a lot of people complaining about how things used to be better. But not a lot of them succeeding in building better stuff that others actually want to use out of the handful that actually lift a finger to do anything at all (most don't). And in the end that's the only thing that makes a difference.

There is no "way the web was supposed to be used". It was all just improvised and messy and open ended. Just some browser developers going "Sure, let's add a blink tag. Why the fuck not. Enjoy!". The only intention for that was to make stuff blink obnoxiously. Javascript was just a thing that they bolted on around the same time.

The default state of the web in the nineties was unstyled, fugly, and obnoxious. Just as it is today. You give people any kind of tools and they'll abuse them. Nothing has actually changed that much. The web people pine for, never really existed. It's just their lost youth that they are pining for.
by saubeidl | 2025-07-31 07:02:35+00:00
Have we as a species considered that the very last thing we need given our climate crisis and already near-apocalyptic state (fires, floods, storms - it's biblical!), is some risky tech bro vanity project gamble eating up the rest of our resources and accelerating the death of our species?

That maybe the attempt of capital to finally replace pesky labor with cheap machines isn't worth risking it all?

No? Guess it's time to scream into the void some more.
by pointyfence | 2025-07-31 07:03:16+00:00
I'm with you. For some reason, the hardware / tech crowd insist that evil finance people or evil MBAs killed Intel. It's such lazy thinking.

But if you look at the past CEOs, Intel had Krzanich (fab guy), Swan (CFO guy who didn't even want the job but they couldn't find anyone else), and Gelsinger (design guy and Grove disciple) in 11 years. I'll even throw in Jim Keller, not a CEO but still The Chip God, who left in frustration after two years.

What's the one common problem that all of them had despite all their different backgrounds? Getting relevant nodes to market and scaling them up. Their foundry efforts (v1 and v2) have been disastrous. The CEOs or MBAs perhaps were a friction, but they aren't the root cause. Technology Development has been the center of power that the fabs and products revolved around for decades.
by BobDaHacker | 2025-07-31 07:03:27+00:00
Hi HN, I'm the researcher who found these vulnerabilities. Happy to answer questions.

A few clarifications on the technical side:

The XMPP issue wasn't just about JIDs containing emails - it was that their roster sync actively linked internal IDs to real email JIDs. Even their "v2" endpoints that tried to hide emails were useless because the XMPP layer still exposed everything.

Regarding the "14 months to fix" claim - they actually had the fix ready (they admitted they could do it in 1 month) but chose not to deploy it for "legacy support." The fix they implemented after public pressure was exactly what I suggested months ago: just use the internal IDs they already had.

The most frustrating part was discovering other researchers reported these exact bugs in 2022 and 2023. Lovense told them it was "fixed" while paying them peanuts ($350 vs the $3000 they paid me for the same bugs).

Also, to address the over-engineering comment by chmod775 - you're spot on. They had internal user IDs (ofId) the whole time but maintained this complex dual system. The "architectural complexity" was self-inflicted.
by imiric | 2025-07-31 07:04:04+00:00
> I want people to care about quality, I want them to care about consistency, I want them to care about the long-term effects of their work.

Yeah, that's not happening.

LLMs enable masses of non-technical people to create and publish software. They enable scammers and grifters who previously would've used a web site builder to also publish native and mobile apps, all in a fraction of the time and effort previously required. They enable experienced software developers to cut corners and automate parts of the job they never enjoyed to begin with. It's remarkable to me that many people who have been working in this industry for years don't enjoy the process of creating software, and find many tasks to be a "chore".

A small part of this group can't identify quality even if they cared about it. The rest simply doesn't care, and never will. Their priorities are to produce something that works on the surface with the least amount of effort, or, in the case of scammers, to produce whatever can bring them the most revenue as quickly and cheaply as possible. LLMs are a perfect fit for both use cases.

Software developers who care about quality are now even a smaller minority than before. They can also find LLMs to be useful, but not the magical productivity booster that everyone else is so excited about. If anything their work has become more difficult, since they now need to review the mountains of code thrown at them. Producing thousands of lines of code is easy. Ensuring it's high quality is much more difficult.
by BobDaHacker | 2025-07-31 07:04:28+00:00
You absolutely nailed it. As the researcher who found these vulns, I can confirm the over-engineering is real.

They literally had internal user IDs (ofId) already implemented and working, but kept the email-based JIDs for "legacy support." The entire XMPP system could have used these internal IDs from day one.

The "14 months to fix" claim was even more ridiculous when you realize the fix was just... using the IDs they already had. No architectural changes needed. They even admitted they had a 1-month fix ready but chose not to deploy it.

Your microservice translation layer guess is scary accurate - that's essentially what their "v2" endpoints were trying to do. They created new HTTP endpoints that used internal JIDs instead of email-based ones, but the XMPP layer still exposed everything, making the whole effort pointless.

The best part? After going public, they implemented the "impossible" fix in 48 hours. Turns out you don't need 14 months when the Internet is watching.
by MathMonkeyMan | 2025-07-31 07:04:35+00:00
I don't have kids, so I really can't comment, but I'll describe my setup.

Ublock origin and Sponserblock on Firefox. I also have an extension (forget the name) that blocks recommendations after a video. Disable autoplay.

There are also extensions that replace the home page with the subscriptions page.

But really, if BS exists on the internet, either your kids will find it or it will be shown to them. There's nothing you can do.
by marcyb5st | 2025-07-31 07:04:45+00:00
Even if it pops, I think the cat is already out of the bag.

About LLMs: Maybe there won't be much training going around as model we might starting to hit diminishing returns with the current model architectures/approaches, but I believe inference is here to stay. Scaffolding code, trivial functions, ... are things that LLMs excel at doing and once you get used to offload those to the LLM it is really hard to get back to doing it manually.

About Image/Video generations: Here I believe there is even more to explore and I consider this separate from LLMs in the context of AI winters/bubbles. Especially regarding the video generation part.

I am not in the field, but I believe the appeal of being able to create movies without needing xM$ for actors' salaries is huge. And if you can even replace the VFX also with Video Generation then it is a 3 birds with one stone scenario (You pay for AI compute and you replace actors, VFX specialists, and compute costs for render farms).

So, I believe that there is not a scenario in which electricity prices plummet as you describe. Maybe locally around datacenters that were primarily built for LLMs training, but not globally.
by numpad0 | 2025-07-31 07:04:58+00:00
Maybe solar and wind aren't viable as they might seem, and/or, Norway isn't as populous as people would think. Total population is just 5.5m, which is the scale of an average US state or a major city in Asia. Workload would be smaller than typical mental image of "a gigantic AI datacenter that serves everyone in a country".
by self_awareness | 2025-07-31 07:05:34+00:00
> Supporting multiple backends is HARD. Originally, we thought we'd just add multiple backends to Ollama - MLX, ROCm, TRT-LLM, etc. It sounds really good on paper. In practice, you get into the lowest common denominator effect. What happens when you want to release Model A together with the model creator, and backend B doesn't support it? Do you ship partial support? If you do, then you start breaking your own product experience.

You conceptually divide your product to "universal experience" and "conditional experience". You add platform-specific things to the conditional experience, while keeping universal experience unified. I mean, do you even have a choice? The backend limits you, the only alternative you have is to change the backend upstream, which often times is the same as no alternative.

The only case where this is a real problem is when the backends are so different that the universal experience is not the main experience. But I don't think this is the case here?
by js8 | 2025-07-31 07:07:44+00:00
> The Jewish minority in that case would not accept living in a muslim arab state since they consider Israel to be the sole refuge for jews in the world, the only place in the world where they don't have to be a minority.

In the modern world, if you accept universal human rights, every minority in the world has to accept that it's a minority, and every majority in the world has to learn to accept the minority. In addition, everyone is a minority is some sense and somewhere - depends on your worldview.

What you're saying is a very condescending (and frankly antisemitic) claim - that Israelis (or Jews) are somehow "special" in being so stupid to never accept this. Of course they can accept it, just like everybody else in the world learns to accept there are other ethnicities and races. Americans, for example, learned to accept it. Likewise, all Jews outside Israel have accepted being a minority. It's not really a problem that racists make it out to be (at the end of the day, people individual differences and conflicts trump most group differences).

> When Israel was "a single biethnic country" this was the norm

That's why modern biethnic countries have laws and other systems that prevent that - see my comment above. A good example is Belgium. The point is, you can change the perception from 2-states to functioning 1-state without having to give up anything related to each ethnicity's cultural heritage. Has been done many times in history.
by flohofwoe | 2025-07-31 07:07:45+00:00
Daniel Lemire did some measuring ~~recently~~ (oops, in 2012):

https://lemire.me/blog/2012/05/31/data-alignment-for-speed-m...

TL;DR: 10% difference on what in 2012 was a low-end CPU, no difference on "new in 2012" CPUs. So my guess is that by now it really doesn't matter anymore :)
by CRConrad | 2025-07-31 07:07:47+00:00
As a useer I can say that the truth is that customers expect things to stay put and keep working, and if you futz around with that just because you think "the aesthetic" is "stale", that sure as fuck begins driving away existing users who don't want to "try out shiny new things" but just want their shit to work. (And whaddoIknow, perhaps also potential new users who also want just that, but have caught wind of your software having unneccesary UI design changes all the time.)

Nice hallucination though, thinking that re-designs for no other purpose than re-designing are and should universally be acknowledged as the bee's knees.

Maybe the world really just doesn't need as many designers as you seem to think it does.
by antilisp | 2025-07-31 07:07:58+00:00
I only "finished" 2 projects yet.

Before that, i only started them and lost motivation after ~2 weeks. The projects a wanted to do were cyclic though, so i often came back to restart things i had left unfinished.

It took me time to change that, but the main thing i did was starting with extremely limited projects, that i knew i could finish in 2 weeks. I did very basic things at the beginning, like hosting a pure html website (but it was by first website i hosted, with nginx and certbot). Sometimes i would get back to it and improve something, like styling, text, SEO,...

I say "finished" because the bottleneck is finding users, not the code. So i still work on these projects, but not at the same speed.