MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by dinkleberg | 2025-10-27 17:22:33+00:00
A critical piece of this is to ensure it is just fixing the grammar and not rewriting it in its own AI voice is key. This is why I think tools like grammarly or similar still have a useful edge over just directly using an LLM as the UX let's you pick and choose which suggestions to adopt. And they also provide context on why they are making a given suggestion. It still often kills your "personal voice", so you need to be judicious with its use.
by dminik | 2025-10-27 17:22:39+00:00
If the victim really was coerced/forced, then there is no wordplay going on here. No legal tricks. No abuse of the legal system.

We're talking about sex trafficking, which we know did occur and Epstein was convicted of. Twice.

And possibly rape/sexual assault, even though the "perpetrator" did not know about it.

You're getting awfully close to defending Epstein there.

I also can't help but notice that you ignored everything else in my comment?
by airstrike | 2025-10-27 17:22:52+00:00
Unfortunately it's closed source and we're invite-only at this point so I can't share, but hopefully in a few weeks

I do share screenshots and screen recordings every now and then in the iced Discord but I've so far refrained from posting about it on HN which is a much bigger audience

I suppose the best description of the UI is a mashup of VSCode and Figma
by webdevver | 2025-10-27 17:23:03+00:00
it would be good to analyze which of those .text/data sections are actually visited - i recall someone running the Vivado FPGA toolset, that is notoriously massive (90GB+) over a special FUSE fs that tells you which files were accessed, and then stripping out the ones that weren't, leading ot substantial wins.

to be honest, it is surprising that a toolchain could be 350MB - that is a lot of code, if thats what it is.
by photonthug | 2025-10-27 17:23:17+00:00
> fully AI generated and fully AI review

This reminds me of an awesome bit by Žižek where he describes an ultra-modern approach to dating. She brings the vibrator, he brings the synthetic sleeve, and after all the buzzing begins and the simulacra are getting on well, the humans sigh in relief. Now that this is out of the way they can just have a tea and a chat.

It's clearly ridiculous, yet at the point where papers or PRs are written by robots, reviewed by robots, for eventual usage/consumption/summary by yet more robots, it becomes very relevant. At some point one must ask, what is it all for, and should we maybe just skip some of these steps or revisit some assumptions about what we're trying to accomplish
by tracker1 | 2025-10-27 17:23:43+00:00
I'm there with you... I even pay/paid for a number of them at once for a long time... my SO would usually use their dedicated apps for streaming. Me, I'd sail the high seas just because the final landing point on my NAS was easier to watch through Kodi than dealing with the UI of many of the services themselves.

Amazon Prime used to have each season of each show separated, for example... Hulu and Hulu Live TV mess with each other, and fragment older episodes... Disney+ is a pain to use.. Paramount/CBS breaks with the PiHole... they all kinda suck in so many ways. I actually pay for YouTube ad free, it covers music as well... and I tend to watch from the couch. I've started using Rumble a little more, but the TV UX leaves a lot of room for improvement. Similar for Pepperbox and other alt streaming options.
by weavejester | 2025-10-27 17:23:44+00:00
Posting a question on SO and having it answered is interacting with people. I'm unsure how you could interpret that any other way. And given that podcasts and YouTube were part of the answers, I think it's clear that passively listening to people counts as an interaction as well within the context of the question.

The Python question I'd say is more narrow, as it asks specifically about "new tools and technologies". What if I have a question about an tool I've been using for a while?

In any case, my point is not what market share Clojure actually has, but that there's reasonable doubt in using SO's developer survey as a basis for that answer. If a far smaller percentage of the Clojure community uses SO than is average for a language, then it's going to skew the results.
by ok_dad | 2025-10-27 17:24:18+00:00
> Code review is one of the places where experience is transferred.

Almost nobody uses it for that today, unfortunately, and code reviews in both directions are probably where the vast majority of learning software development comes from. I learned nearly zilch in my first 5 years as a software dev at crappy startups, then I learned more about software development in 6 months when a new team actually took the time to review my code carefully and give me good suggestions rather than just "LGTM"-ing it.
by px43 | 2025-10-27 17:24:24+00:00
> If the AI PR were any good, it wouldn’t need review.

So, your minimum bar for a useful AI is that it must always be perfect and a far better programmer than any human that has ever lived?

Coding agents are basically interns. They make stupid mistakes, but even if they're doing things 95% correctly, then they're still adding a ton of value to the dev process.

Human reviewers can use AI tools to quickly sniff out common mistakes and recommend corrections. This is fine. Good even.
by 91bananas | 2025-10-27 17:25:39+00:00
I have found this while trying to teach my kids how to write anything software related from scratch. They've done some code.org, but it becomes boring quickly. We tried to make tic-tac-toe in js/html/css since they can do they whole thing in the browser. It held their attention slightly longer, but still became boring. It's not something they want to do.

I totally agree with you on learning for a purpose, picking up knowledge is super easy imo when you're in pursuit of a goal bigger than picking up knowledge. You don't even realize all of the things you learn in order to achieve your goal. But you have to want a goal.

I also totally agree sometimes it's fun to just do dumb problems, I found these CAD modeling youtube videos where guys will race each other modeling some part off of a print, spent a week just screwing around with those because it's fun to flex sometimes.
by latexr | 2025-10-27 17:25:42+00:00
> I vehemently disagree with this part

You don’t, we’re on the same page. This is just a case of using different meanings of “review”. I expanded on another sibling comment:

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45723593

> Obviously I don't approve my own PRs.

Exactly. That’s the type of review I meant.
by harrall | 2025-10-27 17:26:23+00:00
You'll notice newspapers use columns and do not extend the text all the way left to right either. It's a typographical consideration, for both function and style.

From a functional standpoint: Having to scan your eyes left to right a far distance to read makes it more uncomfortable. Of course, you could debate this and I'm sure there are user preferences, but this is the idea behind limiting the content width.

From a stylistic standpoint: It just looks “bad” if text goes all the way from the left to right because the paragraph looks "too thin" like "not enough volume" and "too much whitespace." It’s about achieving a ratio of background to text that’s visually pleasurable. With really wide widths, paragraphs can end really early on the left, leaving their last lines really “naked” where you see all this whitespace inconsistently following some paragraphs. I can't really explain why this looks bad any further though. It’s kind of like picking colors combinations, the deciding factor isn't any rule: it's just "does it look pretty?"

In the case of the site in question, the content width is really small. However, if you notice, each paragraph has very few words so it may have been tightened up for style reasons. I would have made the same choice.

That said, if you have to zoom in 170% to read the content and everything else is not also tiny on your screen, it may be bad CSS.
by the_af | 2025-10-27 17:26:25+00:00
It's seldom the case that AI slop requires widsom to ask, or is fact-checked in any depth other than cursory. Cursory checking of AI-slop has effectively zero value.

Or do you remember when Facebook groups or image communities were flooded with funny/meme AI-generated images, "The Godfather, only with Star Wars", etc? Thank you, but I can generate those zero-effort memes myself, I also have access to GenAI.

We truly don't need intermediaries.
by srmatto | 2025-10-27 17:26:29+00:00
I had the same thought but I also wonder if these highly trained illustrators were happy with making corporate renderings or if they had imagined themselves working in a more creative capacity?

I also don't think its gone. We still have great illustrators but someone somewhere has to decide to use illustrations instead of a photo, CGI, or something else and then they have to pay the premium for that service.
by vetrom | 2025-10-27 17:26:51+00:00
We already have the UK intimating they can exercise parliamentary supremacy over American citizens, so we already have this today. (Reference: https://prestonbyrne.com/2025/10/16/the-ofcom-files/)

Without limitations on authority and control, I worry more that the world will devolve into a multilateral legal hellscape, even moreso than exists today. Given how much is dependent on software, you are going to have the governments of pretty much any country with multinational exposure trying this in the next 10 years if recent UK and EU developments are any indicator.
by mrguyorama | 2025-10-27 17:27:17+00:00
>for example because unlike humans the LLMs have read all that literature about human suckage

No they haven't. If you read the cliff notes of a book, you haven't read that book. An LLM is a generalization over their entire training set, that's not what the word "reading" has ever meant.

The LLM does not "know" anything about human suckage or how to get around it, and will not use those "learnings" in it's "thinking", it will only come up if the right nodes in it's model trigger, and then it just generates tokens that match the "shape" of writing that was written with that knowledge.

A bloom filter can be used to test for presence of something in your DB, with configurable probability even (something that LLMs massively lack), but a bloom filter does not Know what is in your DB

When you fit a linear regression to a plot of free falling speed over time, you will have an equation for acceleration of gravity, but you don't "Know" gravity, and that equation will not allow you to recover actual generalizable models of gravity. That limited model will still get you most of the way to the moon though.

Generally the next claim is "same as human brains" but no, that has not been proven and is not a given. "Neural Networks" are named that way as marketing. They've never been an accurate simulation of actual animal neurons and a single animal neuron has far more robust capabilities than even many "Neurons" interconnected. Consider how every animal neuron in an animal brain intrinsically swims in a bath of hormone gradients that can provide positional 3d information, and how the structure of those real neurons is at least partially structured based on a thousand generations of evolution, and involves highly conserved sub-structures. Brains do not learn like neural nets do.
by Cubeo_AI | 2025-10-27 17:27:22+00:00
Cubeo AI is a no-code platform that helps teams automate the work that slows them down. From lead research and CRM enrichment to content creation, analytics and campaign optimization, everything happens in one place.

With Cubeo AI, you can build custom AI Agents that connect to your favorite tools, handle repetitive workflows and adapt to your business goals. No coding. No setup headaches. Just results.

Trusted by marketing, sales, and operations teams, Cubeo AI helps you:

Track competitors and industry news in real time Find and enrich leads automatically Generate blogs, social posts and emails that sound human and on-brand Personalize outreach using live insights Analyze campaigns and recommend next steps …and more

Teams using Cubeo AI report up to 7x faster execution, 50% more qualified leads and double the engagement across their campaigns.

Our AI Agents connect to your favorite tools, adapt to your brand voice and are powered by 30+ AI Models for smarter automation.

We don’t replace your team. We just make them look brilliant and slightly less overworked. No code. No chaos. Just AI that gets sh*t done (politely, of course).
by furyofantares | 2025-10-27 17:27:23+00:00
> To be fair, you are assuming that the input wasn't garbage to begin with.

It's not an assumption. Look at this example: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45591707

The author posted their input to the LLM in the comments after receiving critcism, and that input was much better than their actual post.

In this thread I'm less sure: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45713835 - it DOES look like there was something interesting thrown into the LLM that then put garbage out. It's more of an informed guess than an assumption, you can tell the author did have an experience to share, but you can't really figure out what's what because of all the slop. In this case the author redid their post in response to criticism and it's still pretty bad to me, and then they kept using an LLM to post comments in the thread, I can't really tell how much non-garbage was going in.
by NobodyNada | 2025-10-27 17:27:23+00:00
> Stackful coroutines need more memory, because you need to pre-allocate large enough stack for the entire lifetime. With stackless coroutines, you only need the current state, but with the disadvantage that you need frequent allocations.

This is not quite correct -- a stackful coroutine can start with a small stack and grow it dynamically, whereas stackless coroutines allocate the entire state machine up front.

The reason why stackful coroutines typically use more memory is that the task's stack must be large enough to hold both persistent state (like local variables that are needed across await points) and ephemeral state (like local variables that don't live across await points, and stack frames of leaf functions that never suspend). With a stackless implementation, the per-task storage only holds persistent state, and the OS thread's stack is available as scratch space for the current task's ephemeral state.
by mosura | 2025-10-27 17:28:06+00:00
Look at one of the other comments:

> in case people don't read all the way to the end, the important takeaway is "you simply can't afford to do instant global state distribution"

This is what people saw as the key takeaway. If that takeaway is news to you then I don’t know what you are doing writing distributed systems.

While this message may not be what was intended it was what was broadcast.
by stevenkkim | 2025-10-27 17:28:26+00:00
This happened to me in the U.S. too. Family plan went from $99/yr to $129/yr. I was going to just going to resentfully accept this, when I just got annoyed and said, "you know what? we don't use word and excel enough to justify this and there are definitely alternatives." Only when I went to cancel did I find out that they tried to force me onto the $129 "with AI" plan (who actually thinks AI features are worth anything? I've never used them in office or really any MS product) and that the "without AI" plan is still $99.

I decided to cancel anyway because I was still resentful.

Thing is, either $99 or $129 for the Family plan is actually quite reasonable, our family has 5 users. I just don't like giving money to deceitful or disrespectful companies.

If Microsoft had just kept the pricing the same as they had for many years, I almost certainly would have re-subscribed.
by athrowaway3z | 2025-10-27 17:28:31+00:00
> If you’re using an LLM to spit out text for you, they’re not your thoughts

The thoughts I put into a text are mostly independent of the sentences or _language_ they're written in. Not completely independent, but to claim thoughts are completely dependent on text (thus also the language) is nonsense.

> Might as well just give people your prompt.

What would be the value of seeing a dozen diffs? By the same logic, should we also include every draft?
by CjHuber | 2025-10-27 17:28:44+00:00
I mean I totally get what you are saying about pull requests that are secretly AI generated.

But otherwise, writing code with LLM‘s is more than just the prompt. You have to feed it the right context, maybe discuss things with it first so it gets it and then you iterate with it.

So if someone has done the effort and verified the result like it‘s their own code, and if it actually works like they intended, what’s wrong with sending a PR?

I mean if you then find something to improve while doing the review, it’s still very useful to say so. If someone is using LLMs to code seriously and not just to vibecode a blackbox, this feedback is still as valuable as before, because at least for me, if I knew about the better way of doing something I would have iterated further and implemented it or have it implemented.

So I don‘t see how suddenly the experience transfer is gone. Regardless if it’s an LLM assisted PR or one I coded myself, both are still capped by my skill level not the LLMs
by caconym_ | 2025-10-27 17:28:48+00:00
> It would be more human to handwrite your blog post instead. I don’t see how this is a good argument. The use of tools to help with writing and communication should make it easier to convey your thoughts, and that itself is valuable.

Whether I hand write a blog post or type it into a computer, I'm the one producing the string of characters I intend for you to read. If I use AI to write it, I am not. This is a far, far, far more important distinction than whatever differences we might imagine arise from hand writing vs. typing.

> your thoughts

No, they aren't! Not if you had AI write the post for you. That's the problem!
by LegionMammal978 | 2025-10-27 17:29:03+00:00
It's considered a parse error [0]: it basically says that a parser may reject the document entirely if it occurs, but if it accepts the document, then it must act as if a space is present. In practice, browsers want to ignore all parse errors and accept as many documents as possible.

[0] https://html.spec.whatwg.org/multipage/parsing.html#parse-er...
by noir_lord | 2025-10-27 17:29:10+00:00
I worked at a place that had set the servers to BST not UTC and used cron jobs extensively for reporting, which caused chaos twice a year and twice a year they had to explain to the business again why it caused chaos and ask for the time to fix it.

Company went bust before it got fixed.

Just use UTC folks unless you have a really good idea why you shouldn't.
by supernova87a | 2025-10-27 17:29:46+00:00
It is mind blowing to see the prices of the complex spiral distillation condensers at $5-10 each.

Today these are like $300 at least, and I'm guessing they cannot be made in the USA. (I would be glad to be wrong)

edit: ok with inflation from 1938 it's not so incomparable. But still.
by freedomben | 2025-10-27 17:29:59+00:00
Also a big Sapolsky fan, but I did really like this book. That said though, I have only a read-a-lot-of-books-from-people-like-sapolsky level of knowledge on the subject, so take my opinion with a large grain of salt.

If you can remember, I'd love to know what some of the issues were with the book!
by alphazard | 2025-10-27 17:30:02+00:00
I didn't know this about Ben Franklin until reading it here, but his theory strikes me as the only one (out of the thinkers/theories you referenced) that can be operationalized in a justice system, or by individuals to judge others.

Until "intention" can be measured with a brain scan, it's a good bet that actions come from successfully actualizing intentions more often than not. It is ultimately about actions though, and the assertion with any intention based theory is that intentions better predict future actions than past actions do. If there was a mysterious 3rd thing that predicted future actions better than intentions or previous actions, then we would be interested in that instead of intentions.
by mirzap | 2025-10-27 17:30:27+00:00
This post could easily be generated by AI, no way to tell for sure. I'm more insulted if the title or blog thumbnail is misleading, or if the post is full of obvious nonsense, etc.

If a post contains valuable information that I learn from it, I don't really care if AI wrote it or not. AI is just a tool, like any other tool humans invented.

I'm pretty sure people had the same reaction 50 years ago, when the first PCs started appearing: "It's insulting to see your calculations made by personal electronic devices."
by HarHarVeryFunny | 2025-10-27 17:30:30+00:00
Vision tokens would only be a viable alternative to text if/when the LLM had learnt to read, and was able to control the page scanning - how to segment the page into sections of text and non-text, segment the text sections into lines, scan the lines in language-specific direction (left to right, or right to left), segment into words, etc - basically everything that an OCR program needs to do prior to the actual OCR bit.

Even having learnt to do all of this, or perhaps with a page-of-text sequence-of-word extractor pre-processor, the LLM would then need to learn to generalize over different font faces and sizes, and imperfect speckled and/or distorted scans.

Finally, but surely not least, if the goal is to reduce (inference?) computational load by representing multiple words as a single image token, then it seems that more training epochs may be needed, with variations in word grouping, since the same sequence of words would not always be grouped together, so the LLM would have to learn that an image token representing "the cat sat" may also have been split up as "today the cat" and "sat on the".

A better way to reduce number of tokens being processed might be to have the LLM learn how to combine multiple adjacent tokens into one, perhaps starting with individual letters at the input, although this would of course require a fairly major change to the Transformer architecture.
by latexr | 2025-10-27 17:30:38+00:00
> So, your minimum bar for a useful AI is that it must always be perfect and a far better programmer than any human that has ever lived?

You are transparently engaging in bad faith by purposefully straw manning the argument. No one is arguing for “far better programmer than any human that has ever lived”. That is an exaggeration used to force the other person to reframe their argument within its already obvious context and make it look like they are admitting they were wrong. It’s a dirty argument, and against the HN guidelines (for good reason).

> Coding agents are basically interns.

No, they are not. Interns have the capacity to learn and grow and not make the same mistakes over and over.

> but even if they're doing things 95% correctly

They’re not. 95% is a gross exaggeration.
by dangus | 2025-10-27 17:30:42+00:00
I haven’t been told this, I have witnessed it as a primary source. I watched Trump tell cops that they should rough up suspects. I watched Trump tell the January 6 crowd that they need to fight like hell or they’ll lose this country. I watched Trumpers erect gallows for Mike Pence. I watched Trump tell the Proud Boys to stand back and stand by like they were his personal goon squad. I watched Trump say that second amendment people could help stop his opposition.

This “violence on the left” that you speak of, I haven’t personally seen a whole lot of it.

No Kings was the largest protest in American history and not a single person was arrested for any protest infraction in New York City. The NYPD publicly announced it.

How many people wearing Joe Biden hats breached the capitol? Is there any left-wing violence in the past few decades of America that you would call more extreme than breaking into the capitol building?