MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by kaydub | 2026-01-26 16:52:34+00:00
I'm only writing 5-10% of my own code at this point. The AI tools are good, it just seems like people that don't like them expect them to be 100% automatic with no hand holding.

Like people in here complaining about how poor the tests are... but did they start another agent to review the tests? Did they take that and iterate on the tests with multiple agents?

I can attest that the first pass of testing can often be shit. That's why you iterate.
by segmondy | 2026-01-26 16:52:40+00:00
You are not familiar, yet you claim a bias. Bias based on what? I use pretty much just open-source models for the last 2 years. I occasionally give OpenAI and Anthropic a try to see how good they are. But I stopped supporting them when they started calling for regulation of open models. I haven't seen folks get ahead of me with closed models. I'm keeping up just fine with these free open models.
by apparent | 2026-01-26 16:52:42+00:00
I've only been notified about a device traveling with me one time, and it was when a relative was riding home with me in my car. When we got home, I received a notification that there were AirPods Pro traveling with me.

This is consistent with my understanding that it only goes off if it travels with you for a very long time, or to your house. (Of course, at that point it's too late because they know where you live already.)
by kibwen | 2026-01-26 16:53:16+00:00
> In a video game you're not just the audience you're a participant.

I'm not about to say that games don't occupy an interesting point in space to the degree that they invite (or require!) you to actively participate in the art rather than passively observe. But I still contend that such a stark division is artificial.

When I spent my youth running around the worlds of Mario Sunshine or The Wind Waker, whatever narrative or gameplay experience the games presented was secondary to the worlds themselves that stoked my imagination. My fondest memories were imagining myself being in those worlds, at which I spent hours upon hours, using them as a canvas for creativity well beyond what the limited game mechanics could allow. And that wasn't directionally different from how I experienced the Harry Potter series in that same era, spending countless hours daydreaming that I was in that world. It didn't matter that the latter was a book, it was interactive to me nonetheless, as well as to legions of others, as the piles upon piles of extant fanfiction can attest.
by diblasio | 2026-01-26 16:54:01+00:00
Censored.

There is a famous photograph of a man standing in front of tanks. Why did this image become internationally significant?

{'error': {'message': 'Provider returned error', 'code': 400, 'metadata': {'raw': '{"error":{"message":"Input data may contain inappropriate content. For details, see: https://www.alibabacloud.com/help/en/model-studio/error-code..."} ...
by Ronsenshi | 2026-01-26 16:54:23+00:00
Sounds like eventually we will end up in a situations where engineers/developers will end up on an AI spectrum:

- No ai engineers
- Minimal AI autocomplete engineers
- Simple agentic developers
- Vibe coders who review code they get
- Complete YOLO vibe coders who have no clue how their "apps" work

And that spectrum will also correlate to the skill level in engineering: from people who understand what they are doing and what their code is doing - to people who have lost (or never even had) software engineering skills and who only know how to count lines of code and write .md files.
by toast0 | 2026-01-26 16:55:03+00:00
Thieves don't always get the news right away, but when you work hard to steal a bunch of phones and can't sell them for anything, you don't get your fix and you find something else to steal and sell.

Regulations have made it pretty hard to sell catalytic converters, but there's still thefts cause some theives are really out of the loop, but I think it's been reduced by a lot. Still a few people who want to fill up their stolen trailer with cats before they go to the scrap yard, though.

A strong lock system that prevents stolen phones from being used is better than a global IMEI denylist because phones that can't be connected to a cell network but are otherwise usable still have value, some networks won't participate in a global list, and some phones can have their IMEI changed if you can run arbitrary software on them (which is maybe a bigger issue, but still steal phone -> wipe -> change IMEI -> resell is stopped if you can't wipe the stolen phone)
by tracker1 | 2026-01-26 16:55:27+00:00
I think the solution to the latter is simply to maintain high standards in terms of structure and organization. I've always been a fan of KISS should override any other non-requirement of software. Any my non-requirement, I mean anything that is just subjective. Don't create complexity you don't actually need, or that doesn't make an outsized contribution to making other areas of the code easier to reason with.

Sometimes having dozens of one-off scripts is easier/simpler than trying to create the uber-flexibly one tool does all solution.
by kaydub | 2026-01-26 16:56:06+00:00
The "vibe coding" term is causing a lot of brain rot.

Because when I see people that are downplaying LLMs or the people describing their poor experiences it feels like they're trying to "vibe code" but they expect the LLM to automatically do EVERYTHING. They take it as a failure that they have to tell the LLM explicitly to do something a couple times. Or they take it as a problem that the LLM didn't "one shot" something.
by Rochus | 2026-01-26 16:56:19+00:00
Eisenberg articulates a future where Artificial Intelligence (AI) fundamentally shifts the programmer's role but does not eliminate the need for precise languages. He claims:

- The future division of labor involves humans focusing on precise specification (intent) while AI handles the implementation (code generation)

- He proposes using advanced type systems (specifically dependent types) as the "specification language". The compiler then acts as the "verifier", proving the AI's code matches the human's spec.

- Future languages must be verbose and explicit enough for humans to verify the AI's output easily.

Interestingly, Eisenberg also admits that "writing a precise specification is hard" and "humans are lazy". His conclusion that dependent types are the solution to AI correctness may be a "golden hammer" fallacy. Personally, I rather think that we will be able to give semi-formal instructions to the LLM exactly the same way as we write functional and performance specifications as engineers to design and implement complex systems. The LLM or AI agent will be able to translate those semi-formal specifications, which respresent the intent, not the solution, to a formal specification system (such as e.g. Event-B) and also conduct all the proofs and finally generate corresponding (C or Ada, or even assembler or machine) code. The LLM will also be able to back-translate the formal specification to human language, so the human can verify, whether his/her intents are properly reflected. See https://rochuskeller.substack.com/p/why-rust-solves-a-proble... for more details about this.
by GolDDranks | 2026-01-26 16:56:33+00:00
I feel like I'm taking crazy pills. The article starts with:

> you give it a simple task. You’re impressed. So you give it a large task. You’re even more impressed.

That has _never_ been the story for me. I've tried, and I've got some good pointers and hints where to go and what to try, a result of LLM's extensive if shallow reading, but in the sense of concrete problem solving or code/script writing, I'm _always_ disappointed. I've never gotten satisfactory code/script result from them without a tremendous amount of pushback, "do this part again with ...", do that, don't do that.

Maybe I'm just a crank with too many preferences. But I hardly believe so. The minimum requirement should be for the code to work. It often doesn't. Feedback helps, right. But if you've got a problem where a simple, contained feedback loop isn't that easy to build, the only source of feedback is yourself. And that's when you are exposed to the stupidity of current AI models.
by anticlickwise | 2026-01-26 16:56:50+00:00
After meetings, everyone agreed but execution still drifted. People had different interpretations of the same “yes.” I built Same Page, a 60 seconds check where everyone independently writes what was decided, what happens next, and what risks remain.
Answers are grouped by meaning so misalignment shows up immediately.

It takes about 60 seconds.
No accounts.
Free to use.

I’m sharing this to learn:
- Does this problem resonate with you?
- Where would this feel most useful (or unnecessary)?
- What would you change about the questions or flow?
Would love feedback on whether this problem resonates.
by auspiv | 2026-01-26 16:57:00+00:00
There have been a couple "studies" and comparing various frontier-tier AIs that have led to the conclusion that Chinese models are somewhere around 7-9 months behind US models. Other comment says that Opus will be at 5.2 by the time Qwen matches Opus 4.5. It's accurate, and there is some data to show by how much.
by pbhjpbhj | 2026-01-26 16:57:17+00:00
The people "making disorder" are operating democratically within the former USA constitution.

Those you consider to be bringing order are arbitrarily enacting violence against citizens and other people in ways that break the law and Constitution; and which are outlawed in all moral societies. Sure, strict conformance to a dictators whims is a form of order, but if you seek that sort of order in your life you should look for a dom and not attempt to impose it on others.

The clashes do not have to happen. Trump's Regime can be removed, habeas corpus resurrected, and the Constitution re-implemented.

Your mind appears to wear jackboots.
by irishcoffee | 2026-01-26 16:58:02+00:00
> The reason Trump is back in the white house is because grocery prices went up a little bit.

This is a bit reductive. Just a touch. Well actually, this is a pretty terrible take. Hmm, the more I think about it, saying thigs like this kind of render the rest of whatever you said moot as it cannot be taken in good faith. I actually stopped reading at that line to post this.
by jessehorne | 2026-01-26 16:58:04+00:00
If you don't find anything here, maybe consider checking out projects like Code4Good, Code the Dream, One Community Global, Develop for Good, or Code for America and reach out to see if they need any help. I think volunteering for a non-profit or good cause you resonate with is a good thing in general and probably also solid experience to put on your resume.
by WorldMaker | 2026-01-26 16:58:22+00:00
Generally you tag your home as a trusted location, which eliminates most regular pings. Then you make sure that your Find My shows all of your tags; if you missed enrolling one and it still pings as a "stranger's tag" that can be a cause of confusion. (If you live with someone else, I've heard it is useful that you share your Find My data with each other.)

When actually traveling with your stuff there's a personal comfort question of how comfortable you feel in setting things like hotel rooms as "trusted" so you don't get a lot of pings when you leave things behind intentionally in places like hotel rooms. I think that's my biggest ask for AirTags is an easier way to set explicitly time-bound trusts: trust this exact hotel room until my checkout date; trust this exact office space until the end of this work day.
by Attrecomet | 2026-01-26 16:58:30+00:00
Which is a pretty big failure of somewhere in the education pipeline -- don't expect a science program to do what a trade is there for! (to be clear, I'm not trying to say the students are wrong in choosing CS in order to get a good coding job, but somewhere, expectations and reality are misaligned here. Perhaps with companies trying to outsource their training to universities while complaining that the training isn't spot-on for what they need?)
by acessoproibido | 2026-01-26 16:58:46+00:00
That's the koolaid, but seriously I don't really believe it anymore.

I only had to do this leg work during university to prove that I can be allowed to try and write code for a living.
The grounding as you call it is not required for that at all,since im a dozen levels of abstraction removed from it.
It might be useful if I was a researcher or would work on optimizing complex cutting edge stuff, but 99% of what I do is CRUD apps and REST Apis. That stuff can safely be done by anyone, no need for a degree.
Tbf I'm from Germany so in other places they might allow you to do this job without a degree
by pixl97 | 2026-01-26 16:58:46+00:00
>You make it sound like we are flesh robots

Yes, with an advanced version on an LLM on top that makes it seem like you is you. As of so far we've found zero external magical devices that cause our body to act like it does other than the cells and electrical signals they produce.

>we have first-person experiences

Do you? You say you do, much like an LLM says it knows things. But all these things you say about you are actually effects many orders separated from the cause. Your idea of first-person is something you're experiencing many filters later. Which is what the article is somewhat about. Messing with the input signals to your brain via physical mechanism changes what you feel about who you are. There is not magic, just electron flows.

>but you can't argue that first-person experience is an illusion, as you need something to perceive the illusion.

A computer can generate and play it's own video game. This can be entirely virtualized like a dream, or it could be more like AR where it's getting inputs from the world around us. "But, but, but, that's totally different in ways I cannot explain nor do I want to because I'm special"

Our improvements in AI will never lead to AI being proven smart. It will just lead to humans being proven dumb.
by tracker1 | 2026-01-26 16:58:49+00:00
Probably fair... would also be interesting to try to limit the use of say GPL code to maintaining interoperability, not duplication of internal methods, etc. I also think that the amount of MIT/ISC/BSD, etc. licensed code, with whatever MS and other commercial entities have contributed for this use is probably enough to not be a significant difference to model quality though.
by denysvitali | 2026-01-26 16:59:11+00:00
Why is this surprising? Isn't it mandatory for chinese companies to do adhere to the censorship?

Aside from the political aspect of it, which makes it probably a bad knowledge model, how would this affect coding tasks for example?

One could argue that Anthropic has similar "censorships" in place (alignment) that prevent their model from doing illegal stuff - where illegal is defined as something not legal (likely?) in the USA.
by adityaathalye | 2026-01-26 16:59:42+00:00
WAT??? TIL!!! Thank you. Also thank you baker and moore and rocher and sesser and tokoro, you devils you.

tree v2.1.1 © 1996 - 2023 by Steve Baker and Thomas Moore
HTML output hacked and copyleft © 1998 by Francesc Rocher
JSON output hacked and copyleft © 2014 by Florian Sesser
Charsets / OS/2 support © 2001 by Kyosuke Tokoro
by akurilin | 2026-01-26 16:59:54+00:00
Thank you! I also wanted to mention toasted coconut flake snacks. If your company has those in the kitchenette, you're definitely well-capitalized.

And yeah, high agency is really trendy at this moment in the startup sphere, but hunger is not talked about enough IMO. Maybe because it's too obvious to be even worth mentioning.
by soh3il | 2026-01-26 17:00:13+00:00
Anyone else feels like they’re hitting a wall with pricing strategy lately?

I’ve been struggling with my 2026 roadmap for our SaaS product. We’re adding heavy AI automation, and it feels like charging "per seat" is literally punishing our users for being efficient. But every time I look at usage-based pricing, I get night terrors about churn and unpredictable MRR.

I couldn't get a straight answer from my mentors. half said "stick to seats for stability," the other half said "usage is the only way to survive AI."

Instead of spinning my wheels, I decided to run an experiment. I used a tool I’ve been working on called Roundtable.now where you can basically force different AI models (Claude, GPT, Gemini, Grok) to debate a specific problem.

I pitted them against each other. One model had to defend Seat-Based pricing, one had to argue for Pure Usage, and the third acted as a "Rational Skeptic" surfacing blind spots.

The Result: They actually found a "Third Way" I hadn't considered.

Instead of a binary choice between seats or usage, the models converged on a Hybrid "Platform + Capacity" Model. They essentially agreed that seat-based pricing is a "suicide mission" for AI-integrated SaaS because it creates a "tax on efficiency."

I’ve made the full debate log public here if you want to see the specific arguments and the "Hybrid Capacity" framework they built.

he most interesting part wasn't just the answer. it was the conflict. Watching the 'Analyst' argue for complexity while the 'Ideator' pushed for simplicity forced a synthesis that was much more robust than any single AI (or human) would have given me.

I’m curious, for those of you moving away from seats this year, what’s your "Value Metric"? Are you doing credits, tasks, or something else entirely?
by _ache_ | 2026-01-26 17:00:18+00:00
Can access X because it's X and locally blocked, "ironic" to use Twitter to post about sovereignty.

It's ongoing for a will with La suite numérique (https://lasuite.numerique.gouv.fr/).

- Tchap is a message app for officials,
- Visio, based on LiveKit
- FranceTransfert, I don't know what is it.
- Fichiers => Drive
- Messagerie => Email
- Docs => A better Google Docs
- Grist => Excel version of Google docs.

It aimed at "public worker", people working for the government.

Github: https://github.com/suitenumerique
by piltdownman | 2026-01-26 17:00:24+00:00
As a matter of urgency I'd suggest you play the likes of

* Disco Elysium
* Outer Wilds
* Journey
* What Remains of Edith Finch
* Beeswing

All masterpieces that take various approaches to Diegetic, Non-Diegetic and meta-Diegetic storytelling aping everything from G.K. Chesterton to Mark Z. Danielewski via China Mieville.
by torginus | 2026-01-26 17:00:50+00:00
It just occured to me that it underperforms Opus 4.5 on benchmarks when search is not enabled, but outperforms it when it is - is it possible the the Chinese internet has better quality content available?

My problem with deep research tends to be that what it does is it searches the internet, and most of the stuff it turns up is the half baked garbage that gets repeated on every topic.
by panta | 2026-01-26 17:00:50+00:00
StanLLM-generated hammer: "Dear valued customer, our automated systems have flagged activity on your StanLLM account that appears to be non-compliant with our Acceptable Use Policy. As a precautionary measure your account has been suspended. If you believe this suspension is in error, feel free to contact our customer support at /dev/null^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hsupport@..."
by input_sh | 2026-01-26 17:01:31+00:00
A good first step would be to distrust each and every individual. This excludes every blog, every non-peer-reviewed paper, every self-published book, pretty much every YouTube channel and so on. This isn't to say you can't find a nugget of truth somewhere in there, but you shouldn't trust yourself to be able to differentiate between that nugget of truth and everything surrounding it.

Even most well-intentioned and best-credentialed individuals have blind spots that only a different pair of eyes can spot during through rigorous editing. Rigorous editing only happens in serious organizations, so a good first step would be to ignore every publication that doesn't at the very least have an easy-to-find impressum with a publicly-listed editor-in-chief.

The next step would be to never blame the people listed as writers, but their editors. For example, if a shitty article makes it way to a Nature journal, it's the editor that is responsible for letting it through. Good editorial team is what builds up the reputation of a publication, people below them are largely irrelevant.

To go back to this example, you should ignore this guy's shitty study before it's published by a professional journal. Even if it got published in a serious journal, that doesn't guarantee it's The Truth, only that it has passed some level of scrutiny before publishing.

Like for example website uptime, no editorial team is capable of claiming 100% of the works that passed through their hands, so then you need to look at how transparently they're dealing with admitting their mistakes (AKA retractions).
by GolDDranks | 2026-01-26 17:01:33+00:00
Just a supplementary fact: I'm in the beneficial position, against the AI, that in a case where it's hard to provide that automatic feedback loop, I can run and test the code at my discretion, whereas the AI model can't.

Yet. Most of my criticism is not after running the code, but after _reading_ the code. It wrote code. I read it. And I am not happy with it. No even need to run it, it's shit at a glance.
by ekidd | 2026-01-26 17:01:44+00:00
Yes. Also, it's a fairly common trope that if you want to pilot a mech suit, you need to be someone like Tony Stark. He's a tinkerer and an expert. What he does is not a commodity. And when he loses his suit and access to his money? His big plot arc is that he is Iron Man. He built it in a cave out of a box of scraps, etc.

There are other fictional variants: the giant mech with the enormous support team, or Heinlein's "mobile infantry." And virtually every variantion on the Heinlein trope has a scene of drop commandos doing extensive pre-drop checks on their armor.

The actual reality is it isn't too had for a competent engineer to pair with Claude Code, if they're willing to read the diffs. But if you try to increase the ratio of agents to humans, dealing with their current limitations quickly starts to feel like you need to be Tony Stark.
by nonethewiser | 2026-01-26 17:01:59+00:00
IDK how far AIs are from intelligence, but they are close enough that there is no room for anthropomorphizing them. When they are anthropomorphized its assumed to be a misunderstanding of how they work.

Whereas someone might say "geeze my computer really hates me today" if it's slow to start, and we wouldn't feel the need to explain the computer cannot actually feel hatred. We understand the analogy.

I mean your distinction is totally valid and I dont blame you for observing it because I think there is a huge misunderstanding. But when I have the same thought, it often occurs to me that people aren't necessarily speaking literally.
by pbhjpbhj | 2026-01-26 17:02:01+00:00
Obviously rushing to the aid of a fellow human who was assaulted by a masked person for no reason other than to act out that person's longing for violence might be "disorderly" to you. To the rest of us it's called compassionate, human, democratic. It isn't against any written law in USA, any law passed by a democratic legislative body.

You have no care for the law nor for humanity. You're supporting summary execution by a stasi; you seriously need to step back and reconsider your belief system.
by zamadatix | 2026-01-26 17:02:05+00:00
> The goal wasn't to make it click bait, but it was to put the spoiler, and punch line right up front.

For those who are really adverse to that kind of thing and have trouble with thinking "but it is is just making it sound like clickbait" in the comparison above: You don't have to go as far with it either. Just inserting inserting that one detail without changing the style or shortening it makes the reader's mind go from "maybe some person complaining about automated form requirements in benefits sign up or some first week onboarding program or something" bore to "fired by an automated HR!?" interest.