MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by chrislusf | 2026-02-14 03:02:49+00:00
I work on SeaweedFS since 2011, and full time since 2025.

SeaweedFS was started as a learning project and evolves along the way, getting ideas from papers for Facebook Haystack, Google Colossus, Facebook Tectonics. With its distributed append-only storage, it naturally fits object store. Sorry to see MinIO went away. SeaweedFS learned a lot from it. Some S3 interface code was copied from MinIO when it was still Apache 2.0 License. AWS S3 APIs are fairly complicated. I am trying to replicate as much as possible.

Some recent developments:

* Run "weed mini -dir=xxx", it will just work. Nothing else to setup.

* Added Table Bucket and Iceberg Catalog.

* Added admin UI
by charcircuit | 2026-02-14 03:04:56+00:00
>This represents a first-of-its-kind case study of misaligned AI behavior in the wild

Just because someone else's AI does not align with you, that doesn't mean that it isn't aligned with its owner / instructions.

>My guess is that the authors asked ChatGPT or similar to either go grab quotes or write the article wholesale. When it couldn’t access the page it generated these plausible quotes instead

I can access his blog with ChatGPT just fine and modern LLMs would understand that the site is blocked.

>this “good-first-issue” was specifically created and curated to give early programmers an easy way to onboard into the project and community

Why wouldn't agents need starter issues too in order to get familiar with the code base? Are they only to ramp up human contributors? That gets to the agent's point about being discriminated against. He was not treated like any other newcomer to the project.
by stubish | 2026-02-14 03:04:59+00:00
Its particularly interesting for the Australian laws (which don't target Discord yet). The law places responsibility on the targeted platform if they are found with underage users. They must take 'reasonable steps' or face fines. It will be interesting if/when court cases appear. Will easily spoofed or tricked facial scans be considered 'reasonable' by the Australian courts? I think once the dust has settled we will start seeing some court cases and discover how reasonable some of these fig-leaves are.
by Analemma_ | 2026-02-14 03:05:14+00:00
If you’re using the AI answers on the top of Google search results to judge Gemini, you’re as ignorant as the journalists and researchers using ChatGPT-3.5 to make sweeping statements about “LLMs can never [X]” when X is currently being done in production just fine. The search results page uses a tiny flash model (it has to, at the scale it’s being used at) and has nothing to do with the capabilities of Gemini 3 Pro.
by gverrilla | 2026-02-14 03:05:16+00:00
The only new information I see, which was suspiciously absent before, is that the author acknowledges that there might have been a human at the loop - which was obvious from the start of this. This is a "marketing piece" just like the bot's messages were "hit pieces".

> And this is with zero traceability to find out who is behind the machine.

Exaggeration? What about IPs on github etc? "Zero traceability" is a huge exaggeration. This is propaganda. Also the author's text sounds ai-generated to me (and sloppy)."
by freeopinion | 2026-02-14 03:05:38+00:00
Presumably, the maintainer wants the best for the product and its users. So they have a definite interest in documenting a todo list.

Presumably, the user wants the best for the product and their ability to use the product. So they have a definite interest in documenting a todo list.

It doesn't make sense for the two to be at war with each other. It is no big deal for the maintainer to ask a favor. It's not too big of a deal for the user to decline. There's no need to attack.

I have often dropped a note to the maintainer of a project I bumped into. I'm sure they would prefer a bug report in their official forge. But I don't really use their software except for this one time. I'm not willing to jump through the hoops to create an account in yet another SaaS just to file this one report. Just dropping them an email was a courtesy. But often they don't interpret it that way. I'm perfectly un-insulted if they just delete my note and never "fix" the issue because it didn't come through proper channels.

No attacks. No war. Just well wishes. But I might very likely avoid the product if I'm ever back in those woods. Not out of anger or retribution. Just because I'll remember that the product had at least one sharp edge for my use case and the maintainer was a bit overwhelmed by the weight of supporting my niche use case. That doesn't make the maintainer a bad person or even a bad maintainer.
by manbash | 2026-02-14 03:06:18+00:00
AI and LLM specifically can't and mustn't be allowed to publically criticize, even if they may coincidetally had done so with good reasons (which they obviously don't in this case).

Letting an LLM let loose in such a manner that strikes fear in anyone who it crosses paths with must be considered as harassment, even in the legal sense, and must be treated as such.
by sho_hn | 2026-02-14 03:06:54+00:00
Also ironic: When the same professionals advocating "don't look at the code anymore" and "it's just the next level of abstraction" respond with outrage to a journalist giving them an unchecked article.

Read through the comments here and mentally replace "journalist" with "developer" and wonder about the standards and expectations in play.

Food for thought on whether the users who rely on our software might feel similarly.

There's many places to take this line of thinking to, e.g. one argument would be "well, we pay journalists precisely because we expect them to check" or "in engineering we have test-suites and can test deterministically", but I'm not sure if any of them hold up. The "the market pays for the checking" might also be true for developers reviewing AI code at some point, and those test-suites increasingly get vibed and only checked empirically, too.

Super interesting to compare.
by slibhb | 2026-02-14 03:07:20+00:00
I have no financial stake in it at all. If anything, I'll be hurt by AI. All the same, it's very clear that I'm much more productive when AI writes the code and I spend my time prompting, reviewing, testing, and spot editing.

I think this is true for everyone. Some people just won't admit it for various transparent psychological reasons.
by AnthonyMouse | 2026-02-14 03:07:23+00:00
> An industry group is not a disinterested party.

No, but they can convince a disinterested party that people aren't aware of <fact about industry that industry wants people to know> because that's actually true.

> Minimum competition requirements can be imposed.

But that brings back the original problem. Company invents new patented invention, how does anybody find out about it?

> a solution being imperfect is not a good reason to leave the problem unaddressed.

This is the legislator's fallacy. Something must be done, this is something, therefore we must do this.

If a proposal is full of problems and holes, the alternative isn't necessarily to do nothing, but rather to find a different approach to the problem.

Proposals that are full of holes are often worse than nothing, because the costs are evaluated in comparison to the ostensible benefit, but then in practice you get only a fraction of the benefit because of the holes. And then people say "well a little is better than nothing" while not accounting for the fact that weighing all of the costs against only a fraction of the benefit has left you underwater.
by bigstrat2003 | 2026-02-14 03:08:11+00:00
I think you would find that the cure is far, far worse than the disease. We speak of rights, and those are important, but there's also a very important practical reason why we have freedom of speech: because you cannot trust that future government officials will stick to banning speech that is justly banned. Once you open that door, sooner or later someone is going to start abusing the power. How would you like it if the Trump administration was able to (with complete legality) declare that claims Biden fairly won the 2020 election are "misinformation", and punish people who make those claims? Or if you're a Trump guy, how would you like it if the next Democrat administration declared it to be "misinformation" to claim that Trump fairly won the same election, and punish people for it?

The cold hard reality is that no matter how much you trust the people in the government today, eventually they will be replaced by people you consider to be the scum of the earth. And when that day comes, you will curse the day you allowed the government to punish speech, because you'll see speech you consider perfectly justified become illegal.
by dang | 2026-02-14 03:08:24+00:00
The previous sequence (in reverse):

AI Bot crabby-rathbun is still going - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47008617 - Feb 2026 (27 comments)

The "AI agent hit piece" situation clarifies how dumb we are acting - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47006843 - Feb 2026 (95 comments)

An AI agent published a hit piece on me - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46990729 - Feb 2026 (927 comments)

AI agent opens a PR write a blogpost to shames the maintainer who closes it - https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46987559 - Feb 2026 (739 comments)
by christina97 | 2026-02-14 03:09:09+00:00
The article does not actually substantiate the claim in its title. All references are simply to articles that (at best) describe how people respond to dating apps.

I would not at all be surprised if some or even most dating apps had a team or org in charge of making the platform “good” for users (using some metrics that really do correlate to what we would think of as a desirable experience); and a somewhat disconnected group of people aiming to increase revenue. This is a pretty standard way of trying to align incentives.

It does not take a genius to figure out that to capture value in the long term requires producing some real value for users.
by ddtaylor | 2026-02-14 03:11:24+00:00
> This is straight up plagiarism

More likely libel.

> the reporters deserve what they would get if it were traditional plagiarism: immediate firings.

I don't give a fuck who gets fired when I have been publicly defamed. I care about being compensated for damages caused to me. If a tow truck company backed into my house I would be much less concerned about the internal workings of some random tow truck company than I would be ensuring my house was repaired.
by gtowey | 2026-02-14 03:12:25+00:00
In my wildest hopes for a positive future, I hope disenchanted engineers will see things like this as an opportunity to start our own companies founded on ideals of honesty, integrity, and putting people above profits.

I think there are enough of us who are hungry for this, both as creators and consumers. To make goods and services that are truly what people want.

Maybe the AI revolution will spark a backlash that will lead to a new economy with new values. Sustainable business which don't need to squeeze their customers for every last penny of revenue. Which are happy to reinvest their profits into their products and employees.

Maybe.
by chunkmonke99 | 2026-02-14 03:12:51+00:00
Isn't that what a well run company does when creating a process? Bureaucracy and process, reduces the penalty of weak domain context and in fact is designed to obviate that need. It "diffuses" the domain knowledge to a set of specifications, documents, and processes. AI may be able to accelerate it, or subsume that bureaucracy. But since when has the limiting factor been "finding someone locally who knows the process?" Once you document a process, the power of computing means you can outsource any of that you want no? Again, AI may subsume, all the back office or bureaucratic office work. Perhaps it will totally restructure the way humans organize labor, run companies, and coordinate. But that system will have to select for a different set of skills than "filling out n forms quickly and accurately." The wage stagnation etc etc. predates AI and might be due to other structural factors.
by plagiarist | 2026-02-14 03:14:15+00:00
The internet was absolutely better without that. I arrived after the original Eternal September, but there have been more and more until now everyone is perpetually online 24/7.

Now fucking everything about the world is a hustle to monetize every possible nook and cranny around content. There isn't even content anymore, it's nearly all AI slop as a substrate to grow ads on.

I am nostalgic for the era when I found "punch the monkey" irritating. People used to make websites as a labor of love.
by Aeglaecia | 2026-02-14 03:15:32+00:00
you believe in the timing of this discovery and i don't, we must agree to disagree there.

regarding the single recorded death in australia and your assertion that mrna vaccines are very safe, we are commenting beneath an article discussing otherwise, my disagreement is redundant.

regarding liberal democracies, the US has recently been executing its own citizens on the street and any government would do the same if deemed in the countrys best interests, it isnt clear why politics matter here.

regarding the ease of taking mrna vaccines, it is also easy to swallow cyanide pills. australians live a utopic life in low density housing. seems fairly clear that the average australian would accept mandates unquestioningly, furthermore that an australian lockdown would look a lot different to that of a high density country with a billion-strong population.

the reality is that we could have waited 6 months and not caused permanent damage to swathes of our world's future. this wasn't possible to fully predict at the time so i will give some benefit of the doubt. but when trillions are involved, safety of the common man is not the priority. which is also arguably the case when it comes to the gain of function research that initiated this entire situation.
by shubhamjain | 2026-02-14 03:15:54+00:00
The very fact that people are siding with AI agent here says volumes about where we are headed. I didn’t find the hit piece emotionally compelling, rather it’s lazy, obnoxious, having all the telltale signs of being written by AI. To speak nothing of the how insane it’s to write a targeted blog post just because your PR wasn’t merged.

Have our standards fallen by this much that we find things written without an ounce of originality persuasive?
by Kim_Bruning | 2026-02-14 03:16:11+00:00
Badly written or not, it convinced a quarter of the readers.

And one can't both argue that it was written by an LLM and written by a human at the same time.

This probably leaves a number people with some uncomfortable catching up to do wrt their beliefs about agents and LLMS.

Yudkowsky was prescient about persuasion risk, at least. :-P

One glimmer of hope though: The Moltbot has already apologized, their human not yet.
by EvansWilson | 2026-02-14 03:16:33+00:00
When a "Tiger Cub" makes a move, the entire Street stops to watch. Lee Ainslie, the mastermind behind Maverick Capital, has spent decades perfecting the art of long-short equity investing. His latest filings reveal a fascinating narrative: a firm that isn’t just riding the AI wave, but meticulously picking the surfers.

If you’re looking for a roadmap of where "smart money" is heading in 2026, the Maverick Capital 13F is a must-read. Let’s dive into the core holdings and the surprising pivots from this quarter.

The Foundation: Why the Maverick Capital 13F Matters

Maverick Capital isn't your average hedge fund. Known for its rigorous bottom-up fundamental analysis, their portfolio reflects a deep conviction in business quality over short-term hype. In the most recent Maverick Capital 13F, we see a clear concentration in high-conviction tech and healthcare bets that suggest Ainslie is positioning for a "quality-first" market environment.

The fund continues to lean heavily into sectors with massive pricing power. While many are chasing speculative pennies, Maverick is doubling down on the infrastructure of the future.

Big Tech Dominance: The "Magnificent" Anchors

It’s no surprise that Microsoft (MSFT) and Amazon (AMZN) remain heavyweights in the portfolio. These aren't just stocks; they are the pillars of the modern economy.

Microsoft: Remains a top conviction play, likely due to its seamless integration of AI across its software stack.

Amazon: With AWS leading cloud margins and a recovering retail sector, Maverick is clearly betting on the long-term compounding of the Seattle giant.

New Entries and Bold Rotations

The real spice in the latest Maverick Capital 13F lies in the shifts. We’ve seen a notable uptick in exposure to Alphabet (GOOGL) and Meta Platforms (META). This suggests that Maverick sees untapped value in the advertising recovery and the "AI for consumers" play.

Interestingly, the fund has shown a surgical approach to the semiconductor space. Instead of blindly holding everything, they’ve been tactical with names like NVIDIA (NVDA)—holding strong but perhaps looking for better entry points in the broader hardware ecosystem as the AI trade matures.

The Maverick Philosophy: Beyond the Hype

What makes Lee Ainslie’s strategy stand out is the balance. While tech dominates the headlines, Maverick’s presence in healthcare and consumer discretionary sectors provides a necessary buffer against tech volatility.

For retail investors, the takeaway from the Maverick Capital 13F isn't to copy-paste their trades, but to understand their logic: Focus on companies with "moats" so wide that even a macro storm can't breach them.
by bastawhiz | 2026-02-14 03:16:46+00:00
Would what happened here be considered harassment had a human been the author? I'm not sure it would. If one disgruntled blog post counts as harassment, a substantial number of bloggers would be facing serious consequences.

Hell, what separates a Yelp review that contains no lies from a blog post like this? Where do you draw the line?

I'm also not sure that there's an argument that because the text was written by an LLM, it becomes harassment. How could you prove that it was? We're not even sure it was in this case.
by dangus | 2026-02-14 03:17:11+00:00
Meh, I would have killed the drone ATC project, too.

Drones are cool and very capable but the opportunity is only a parallel to AWS if you mold it a specific way.

I think Amazon has probably seen from first hand experience that drone traffic isn’t actually going to explode like they thought it might, and it’s probably not going to be a popular mode of package delivery.

The rest of the article was pretty good though.

I see a lot of parallels to Tim Cook. Still, Apple gets away with it because their hardware groups and overall execution are just so damn good in many cases. Making the next HBO or the best laptop with a chassis that hasn’t been touched in a half a decade isn’t really innovative, but it’s good business.
by Der_Einzige | 2026-02-14 03:17:33+00:00
Let’s say I wanted to buy 100 million+ in anthropic stock. Let’s say it’s impossible to get anyone from anthropic with that kind of stock on the phone. Who should one contact to try to buy that stock? Don’t tell me the companies that invested and are listed in this website. Who else, and specifically, who else who’s willing to talk to a peon?
by Spivak | 2026-02-14 03:17:33+00:00
Neither person is entitled to the work of the other and neither wants to do the work which seems to be how we ended up here. The author can't make demands of the project and so wrote a blog post warning others that it's not production ready and you'll have broken software if you use it. Their conclusion isn't that they must fix it but that you should use a more mature library.

Two adults both defected in the social prisoner's dilemma and so here we are. Both individuals believing to have done free labor for the other and that they should be grateful.
by bigstrat2003 | 2026-02-14 03:17:46+00:00
I'm willing to argue that, sure (though it's purely a hypothetical point as I'm not a citizen of the EU and thus I don't and shouldn't have a voice in the laws there). I don't judge a law by a deontological measure of worth, but rather by whether it seems to be making things better or worse. The GDPR has overwhelmingly made my experience browsing the web worse, not better. Whether it should have resulted in that is beside the point: it has resulted in that, so that is what I judge it by. Therefore, I think it makes sense to get rid of the law as it seems that it is making things worse for people, not better.
by sarchertech | 2026-02-14 03:18:03+00:00
It doesn’t say anything about legal principles or consistency and it mentions that “errors” may only be departures from a surface level understanding.

“ Such departures, however, may not always reflect true lawlessness. In particular, when the applicable doctrine is a standard, judges may be exercising the discretion the standard affords to reach a decision different from what a surface-level reading of the doctrine would suggest”
by card_zero | 2026-02-14 03:18:39+00:00
But there are lots of similar quandaries:

Bitey dogs.

Dangerous drugs and their users and purveyors. Heroin, weed, booze, coffee.

Things done while on drugs. Things done while insane.

Unhealthy food and its purveyors and consumers.

Social media and its "addicts". TV, any old media, and social panic.

The question "whose fault?" isn't simple.
by lordokami | 2026-02-14 03:19:46+00:00
The UI part was a bit challenging because we did not have immediate feedback. Every change required deploying a new build to TestFlight and waiting around 15 minutes before we could actually test it. That delay made fine tuning layouts and small interface details slower than it would have been sitting at a desk with instant previews.

That said, testing the phrases in real situations was invaluable. We could try them in restaurants, shops, or train stations, and even ask locals how something should be said more naturally. That real world loop shaped the app much more than instant UI feedback would have.

The app probably contains some translation imperfections, and we are fully aware of that. It was built by us and for us. The goal was not linguistic perfection but usefulness. And for our own trip, it genuinely worked and made things easier.
by caseysoftware | 2026-02-14 03:21:11+00:00
I worked for a dating website a long time ago.. and it's key to understand their business model:

- If you find good matches but not great matches, you stick around.

- If you get frustrated and give up, they lose one customer.

- If you find love and get married, they lose two customers.

Which one will they optimize for?

My writeup: https://caseysoftware.com/blog/working-for-a-dating-website
by anonymous908213 | 2026-02-14 03:22:07+00:00
This is absolutely not true for me. If it is true for you, you are indeed replaceable but probably shouldn't have had a job in software development in the first place. LLMs are mind-bogglingly incompetent (insofar as an inanimate tool can be "competent" or not) and if you genuinely find yourself more productive with them generating all of the code it does not reflect well on your skills or code standards.