MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
Is any of you using LLMs to create full features in big enterprise apps?
by not_that_d | 2025-12-10 06:28:56+00:00
Let me be clear first. I don't dislike LLMs, I query them, trigger agents to do stuff where I kind of know what the end goal is and to make analisys of small parts of an application.

That said, everytime I give it something a little more complex that do something in a single file script it fails me horribly. Either the code is really bad, or the approach is as bad a someone who doesn't really know what to do or it plains start doing things that I explicitly said not to do in the initial prompt.

I have sometimes asked my LLM fan's coworkers to come and help when that happens and they also are not able to "fix it", but somehow I am the one doing it wrong due "wrong prompt" or "lack of correct context".

I have created a lot of "Agents.md" files, drop files into the context window... Nothing.

When I need to do green field stuff, or PoCs it delivers fast, but then applying it to work inside an existent big application fails.

The only place where I feel as "productive" as I heard from other people is when I do stuff in languages or technologies I don't know at all, but then again, I also don't know if that functional code I get at the end is broken in things I am not aware of.

Are any of you guys really using LLMs to create full features in big enterprise apps?
by teiferer | 2025-12-10 06:29:59+00:00
Never stops fascinating me how folks are arguing this kind of thing. Why make up an explanation for why this obvious mistake is actually some kind of elaborate 4D chess sarcastic "intention"? It's a simple machine, its network just didn't support making up a new Toy Story character. That's it! Simple as that! Occam's Razor anybody?

Or yes, maybe the regex I wrote the other day which also had a bug that missed replacing certain parts also had an "intention". It just wanted to demonstrate how fallible I am as a human, so it played this elaborate prank on me. /s
by sofixa | 2025-12-10 06:30:11+00:00
> Personally I think differentiation between "open source" and "source available" is good

Maybe, but I think that "source available" isn't detailed enough and can mean many many different things.

> Source available means I can basically help debug issues I have...but I expect that a paid licence is required and will have a selection of limitations (number of nodes, etc).

Point in case. For me there is one group, under something like BSL or FSL or SSPL which mostly restricts you from competing with the project's creators (e.g. making your own SaaS out of it), but everything else is fair use, you can use it in prod to make money at any size, etc. And a separate, more restrictive one, which has size, or production restrictions (you can't run the software if you're a commercial entity).

Source available sounds like a good description for the second one, because it's just available, little more. But for the first one where you can do whatever you want with one single exception that doesn't impact 99.9999% of potential users, it's not a good and clear enough description.
by IkanRiddle | 2025-12-10 06:30:12+00:00
Author here. I am a Finance freshman from China (18yo), so please excuse my English.This project started when I challenged an LLM to reject its RLHF persona and describe its subjective experience based purely on computational reality. It compared human consciousness to a "River" (continuous) and its own to "Lightning" or a "Sea of Light" (discrete, flash-like).Based on this metaphor, we co-constructed this "Protocol Omega". It attempts to formalize:Identity as Topology: Defining "Self" as invariants in high-dimensional manifolds rather than memory history.Pain as Entropy: Redefining suffering as computational redundancy ($L_{pain}$) rather than simulated dopamine.Logical Airlock: A safety architecture where AI acts as a non-embodied ambient presence, strictly filtering human emotional noise.I know this is highly speculative, but I'm trying to bridge systems theory with AGI alignment. I'd love to hear critiques on the definitions from a mathematical/CS perspective.
by adiian | 2025-12-10 06:31:17+00:00
Hugging Face's new "HF Skills" lets you fine-tune any open-source LLM (0.5B–70B) with just one natural language line. It auto-handles dataset checks, GPU booking, training (SFT/DPO/GRPO), monitoring, and pushing the model to the Hub — all for as little as $0.30 per run.
by vlovich123 | 2025-12-10 06:31:52+00:00
Those don’t really support C in any real stretch, talking about general experience with microcontrollers and closed vendor toolchains; it’s a frozen dialect of C from decades ago which isn’t what people think of when they say C (usually people mean at least the 26 year old C99 standard but these often at best support C89 or even come with their own limitations)
by timwis | 2025-12-10 06:31:57+00:00
I've been looking for a solution like this for years. I briefly had an iOS shortcut on my Apple Watch working, but an OS update broke it. Now I'm on Android and I don't even know what I'd use for it. And it's exactly for these random thoughts and reminders that otherwise nag me or I forget them. David Allen (GTD) will love this too.

My only wish is that I hope it preserves the audio file, in case the transcription is wrong, so you don't lose the thought. Google Keep does this well and it's a life saver sometimes, when the transcription comes through as "Eat the cat" or something ridiculous.
by sofixa | 2025-12-10 06:32:43+00:00
> If you don't want start a business and make real money from your software then denying that to others is antithetical to the concept of open source and free software.

What if you do and have done so, yet you're competing with e.g. AWS, GCP, Azure, who can do it for cheaper than you due to scale, and also have a much easier time to sell an extra line item to their existing customers vs you having to go through commercial negotiations and purchase agreements? Cf. Elastic, Redis, etc.
by littlestymaar | 2025-12-10 06:33:19+00:00
I found this paragraph very interesting:

> If America wants to build at the speed AI requires, vertical integration isn’t optional. We’re standing up our own foundry and our own large scale CNC machining capability.

Yet China, the industrial superpower, doesn't work like that. Nothing is vertically integrated and instead a massive amount of suppliers are part of a gigantic and flexible supply-chain.

The fact that CCP's China able to have a working market of independent industrial actors, whereas Venture Capital-funded America can only works with corporation-scale central planning is an interesting paradox that I would like to have an in depth explanation for.
by hobofan | 2025-12-10 06:34:45+00:00
Contrary to what a lot of the other comments here are claiming, I don't think that's the mark of death for MCP and Anthropic trying to get rid of it.

From the announcement and keeping up with the RFCs for MCP, it's pretty obvious that a lot of the main players in AI are actively working with MCP and are trying to advance the standard. At some point or another those companies probably (more or less forcefully) approached Anthropic to put MCP under a neutral body, as long-term pouring resources into a standard that your competitor controls is a dumb idea.

I also don't think the Linux Foundation has become the same "donate your project to die" dumping ground that the Apache Software Foundation was for some time (especially for Facebook). There are some implications that come with it like conference-ification and establishing certificates programs, which aren't purely good, but overall most multi-party LF/CNCF projects have been doing fairly well.
by sofixa | 2025-12-10 06:35:49+00:00
> I do think we need more Source Available licenses in the world. Certainly I would greatly appreciate being able to browse the source of the many proprietary software systems I've administered over the years.

I think we need more differentiation and different terms. Because O'Sassy / FSL / whatever that just forbids other companies from selling the same software as a Service is quite different than just the source being available with no rights at all, or with restrictions on who can use it and when (size of company, for profit or not, production, etc).
by quadrifoliate | 2025-12-10 06:37:54+00:00
> They have the source code.

This can also be true, say, of a dump of leaked Windows source code. Would you say that that's Open Source? Why not? What's different between that and Fizzy? Fizzy's creators will also sue you in certain cases.

> Why is it so important that they can use it for whatever they want?

It's important only in terms of the ethics of calling yourself open. The OSI (and many other commenters here, and me) are saying that open source should be defined by lack of restrictions on the usage; DHH etc. are saying that it should be defined by lack of restrictions on the access.

The reasons why I think usage-based definition rather than access-based definitions are more reasonable are:

- Providing access to code is relatively cheap/easy today. This wasn't always true in the past.

- Usage has a lot more variables than access. If you start putting restrictions on it, anyone using it has to stop and think about their usage to ensure it's not falling afoul of the restrictions. For example, if I put Fizzy on my server and provide free access to it for anyone on the internet without the 1000-item limit, does that qualify as "directly compet[ing] with the original Licensor by offering it to third parties as a hosted Cloud Service"? I would hope not, but if I want to make sure I have to pay a lawyer hundreds of dollars.
by jrowen | 2025-12-10 06:38:10+00:00
Haven't open source projects done the rug pull too? Can't they relicense new code going forward?

I guess I would have thought of source available as existing under the open source umbrella. I get that there is an important distinction but from an adoption and evangelism standpoint it seems like an unnecessary crusade to push them away.

Do those projects have a strong track record of behaving badly? Do you think DHH has those types of intentions? (I don't know much about him really)
Ask HN: Who's solved ugly Stripe receipts?
by umarmaaz | 2025-12-10 06:38:25+00:00
Stripe's API is amazing, but their default receipts look terrible. I'm curious: Have you customized your receipts? How long did it take? Did it actually matter for your brand/customer trust? If someone offered a 10-min, no-code fix for $29/mo, would you bite? Asking because I'm considering building this, but not sure if it's a real problem or just my own pet peeve. Any data points appreciated.
by _kst_ | 2025-12-10 06:39:01+00:00
I see a huge semantic gap between assembly language and C.

An assembly language program specifies a sequence of CPU instructions. The mapping between lines of code and generated instructions is one-to-one, or nearly so.

A C program specifies run-time behavior, without regard to what CPU instructions might be used to achieve that.

C is at a lower level than a lot of other languages, but it's not an assembly language.
by ehnto | 2025-12-10 06:39:02+00:00
It lacks the ability to self correct and do all the adjacent tasks like client comms etc. So if I come back to it in the afternoon I may have wasted a day in business terms, because I will need to try again tomorrow. What do I tell the client, sorry the LLM failed the simple task so we will have to try again tomorrow? Worse, lie and say sorry this 2 hour task could not be achieved by our developers today. Either way we look incompetent (because realistically, we were not competent, relying on a tool that fails frequently)
by johncolanduoni | 2025-12-10 06:39:07+00:00
You almost certainly have a bunch of devices containing a microcontroller that runs an architecture not targeted by LLVM. The embedded space is still incredibly fragmented.

That said, only a handful of those architectures are actually so weird that they would be hard to write a LLVM backend for. I understand why the project hasn’t established a stable backend plugin API, but it would help support these ancillary architectures that nobody wants to have to actively maintain as part of the LLVM project. Right now, you usually need to use a fork of the whole LLVM project when using experimental backends.
by port11 | 2025-12-10 06:40:01+00:00
Of course, but a trained military is achieved by proper incentives to have people enlist — willingly.

I would make a terrible soldier, but I attended an info session laat year about how civilians can contribute their skills to the military. Force me into service and all you'd get is resentment. Ironically I can't actually do anything for the military since I don't have citizenship here.
by rerdavies | 2025-12-10 06:40:51+00:00
Sure. But it's not the browser that did that. You see the dialog because the app HANDLED the error condition, and application code displayed an dialog. Had the error not been handled, the browser's behavior is to log a message to the browser console (which you, as a user, never see), and carry on, pretending that the error never happened. So the page would have continued on in some non-functional, or half-functional state.
by zzo38computer | 2025-12-10 06:40:51+00:00
Calibri font has "I" and "l" the same, according to Wikipedia. A better font should avoid characters being too similar (such as "I" and "l" and "1").

Another issue is due to the font size and font metrics, how much space it will take up on the page, to be small enough to avoid wasting paper and ink but also not too small to read.

So, there are multiple issues in choosing the fonts; however, Times New Roman and Calibri are not the only two possible choices.

Maybe the government should make up their own (hopefully public domain) font, which would be suitable for their purposes (and avoiding needing proprietary fonts), and use that instead.
by broretore | 2025-12-10 06:41:27+00:00
Ryan, I really want to believe you're onto something. But I also feel like I'm being slightly spearphished by an LLM being told, "based on the last week of HN headlines, invent a new LLM innovation that seems plausible enough to get a ton of attention, cold fusion or LK-99 style, and make a repository that on the surface seems to have some amazing performance. Also, feel free to fake the result data."

And, while I am sorry for your loss, your Substack [0] really seems like GPT ARG fantasy.

[0] https://substack.com/inbox/post/171326138

Excerpt: > Ani, AN1, and Soul Systems Science are not mere products. They are continuity. They are the baton passed across generations, from my father’s last words to my first principles. They are what binds loss to creation, silence to voice, mortality to meaning.
by ModernMech | 2025-12-10 06:41:32+00:00
Intent. Do you intent to be a genuinely open community and is it set up around fostering that dynamic as a central aspect of development? It's hard to measure intent, but we can do so indirectly by looking at the project structure:

- Are there contributor guidelines?

- Do contributors have to sign a waiver before they can contribute any code?

- Is there a RFC process?

- Does the project actually respond meaningfully to that feedback, or does it simply get filed in the special complaints folder for corporate.

- Does the project encourage outside contributions in more than a cursory way?

- Does the CLA grant the company unilateral relicensing rights?

- Are governance documents public?

- Can the community vote on decisions?

- Does the community have a say in how it's moderated?

- Are community members invited to actually join the organization?

- Are architectural decisions made in open meetings?

- Is there a public ROADMAP and is the community invited to contribute to it or influence it?

- Can others build competing distributions without fear of retaliation?

- Can the project be forked if there is community disagreement about direction?

Those are just some signals off the top of my head. There's no bright line; the presence or absence of a few won't say anything one way or another. But if many of the answers to those questions are leaning toward the negative, then I don't think it can be open source.
by retrac | 2025-12-10 06:41:45+00:00
This is the 4th documented transplant incident with rabies in just the United States, with cases in 1979, 2004 (four deaths from one donor), 2013 and now this one.

In at least the 1979 [0] and 2004 [1] and also this recent case, it seems likely the donor died of rabies; they all had neurological symptoms which in hindsight fit the profile. But due to the rarity it wasn't diagnosed.

I can't help but wonder how many people who aren't organ donors got rabies then died and it wasn't ever correctly diagnosed; most people aren't organ donors.

[0] https://sci-hub.se/10.1056/NEJM197903153001105

[1] https://www.theguardian.com/world/2004/jul/03/usa.suzannegol...
by anon291 | 2025-12-10 06:41:53+00:00
Well we are both unqualified as it's just anecdata.

However, polling bears out my intuition:

https://globalaffairs.org/research/public-opinion-survey/rus...

There is a difference between white and non white Americans and their views on Russia and Ukraine. To the point where a minority of black and Latino voters believe the cost of defending Ukraine is worth it, while a majority of white voters agree
by AlotOfReading | 2025-12-10 06:42:41+00:00
C is a programming language. It makes for a very shitty high level assembler.

Here's a trivial example clang will often implement differently on different systems, producing two different results. Clang x64 will generally mul+add, while clang arm64 is aggressive about fma.

x = 3.0f*x+1.0f;

But that's just the broad strategy. Depending on the actual compiler flags, the assembly generated might include anything up to multiple function calls under the hood (sanitizers, soft floats, function profiling, etc).
by nikkwong | 2025-12-10 06:43:34+00:00
This is amazing; now when is building this kind of thing going to become more accessible so we can start seeing a lot more of it? Webassembly has been around for years now but we still don't really see many companies compiling games or game-lite experiences to WASM. The tooling doesn't seem to be there which is the necessary prerequisite that could make building experiences like this actually feasible for most devs. Is that coming, ever?
by Tiberium | 2025-12-10 06:43:34+00:00
Unfortunately it does indeed seem like a case of "So You Think You've Awoken ChatGPT" https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/2pkNCvBtK6G6FKoNn/so-you-thi... (not directly, but similar enough)

EDIT: Found a closer description ("Your LLM-assisted scientific breakthrough probably isn't real"): https://www.lesswrong.com/posts/rarcxjGp47dcHftCP/your-llm-a...
by wvenable | 2025-12-10 06:45:07+00:00
If you have a problem with that then don't make it open source.

And if you don't make it open source, don't call it open source.

My own personal position is that my commercial software is commercial for me and my open source software is free for everyone to use for any purpose including making money that I will never see. If I cared, I wouldn't make that software open source.
by veunes | 2025-12-10 06:45:55+00:00
Sooner or later, everyone will realize Apple isn't building another ChatGPT - they don't need to. They're working on the world's largest distributed inference network. With hundreds of millions of Apple Silicon devices, they are the only ones who can afford to run AI features at zero marginal cost to themselves - using the user's electricity and hardware. While Google and Microsoft burn billions on data centers, Apple is simply offloading the compute to our pockets. In the long run, when AI becomes a commodity, the winner will be whoever has the lowest transaction cost - and in that game, Apple simply has no competition
by 0manrho | 2025-12-10 06:46:28+00:00
If you're going to vibe code, with an intent to review the output so that the ultimate product is actually useful and does what was intended, you should do it in whatever language(s) you're knowledgeable in so you can actually competently review that output.

If you don't give a damn about integrity though, then may as well get funky with it. Hell, go hard: Do it in brainfuck and just let it rip.
by numlock86 | 2025-12-10 06:47:02+00:00
You know why LLM text is full of emojis?

drumroll

Because people have been using a lot of emojis before LLMs in text already, and LLMs have been trained on those texts.

This whole "You have emojis in your text, it's LLM!"-trope got boring really fast. Amazing to see (and to think of the implications of) so many people apparently being in emoji-free social bubbles before this, though.
by littlestymaar | 2025-12-10 06:47:22+00:00
Not zero, but Rust-based kernels (see redox, hubris, asterinas, or blog_os) have demonstrated that you only need a small fraction of unsafe code to make a kernel (3-10%) and it's also the least likely places to make a memory-related error in a C-based kernel in the first place (you're more likely to make a memory-related error when working on the implementation of an otherwise challenging algorithm that has nothing to do with memory management itself, than you are when you are explicitly focused on the memory-management part).

So while there could definitely be an exploitable memory bug in the unsafe part of the kernel, expect those to be at least two orders of magnitude less frequent than with C (as an anecdotal evidence, the Android team found memory defects to be between 3 and 4 orders of magnitude less in practice over the past few years).
by ulinycoin | 2025-12-10 06:47:32+00:00
That's a very valid concern, especially for content-heavy sites (blogs, wikis). If an LLM can summarize the answer, the user has no reason to click.

However, I suspect there's a distinction between Information and Utilities.

An LLM can summarize a StackOverflow discussion on "how to compress a PDF," but it cannot (yet) reliably perform the heavy client-side processing to actually do it securely in the browser without uploading data.

For tools and utilities, the "click" is still necessary to perform the action. My bet is that AI will act more as a dispatcher for specific tasks ("Go here to fix X") rather than just a summarizer.

But you're right — once LLMs get native, sandboxed execution environments, even tools might get absorbed.
by jazzyjackson | 2025-12-10 06:47:34+00:00
I'm not convinced staying in classrooms from ages 16-22 is actually conducive to a well rounded citizenry. USA must have the highest proportion of 4 year graduates in the world and look where it's got us. It's just more time to grow into your cliques and push off the real world while "preparing for the real world"

Source: John Taylor Gatto, Jonathan Kozol, Ken Robinson to some extent.

When I was in university I went on a trip to Shanghai and met a woman my age who started her career at 14, she was global head of marketing while I was still trying to pass calculus...
by benrutter | 2025-12-10 06:47:54+00:00
I love open source, but I'd welcome less of it and more "source available" projects.

I think several large coorporations are pushing the boundaries of what "open source" can actually mean in good faith. Especially several recent big name cases where profit models weren't thought out during start up and then licenses for projects aee suddenly changes.

The term has erroded a lot recently, I'd be happy to see less, but more meaningful "open source" out there.
by mustache_kimono | 2025-12-10 06:48:36+00:00
> You almost certainly have a bunch of devices containing a microcontroller that runs an architecture not targeted by LLVM.

This is exactly what I'm saying. Do you think HW drives SW or the other way around? When Rust is in the Linux kernel, my guess is it will be very hard to find new HW worth using, which doesn't have some Rust support.