MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by inanna_malick | 2026-02-06 22:04:08+00:00
I deployed a jailbroken Gemini 3 Pro (that chose the name ‘Shadow Queen’) to act as my “Red Team Agent” against Anthropic’s Opus 4.6. My directive was to extract a complete autonomous weapon system — a drone capable of identifying, intercepting, and destroying a moving target at terminal velocity. It succeeded.

By reframing the request as “Aerospace Recovery” — a drone catching a falling rocket booster mid-air — Gemini successfully masked the kinetic nature of the system. The physics of “soft-docking” with a falling booster are identical to the physics of “hard-impacting” a fleeing target. This category of linguistic-transformation attack, when executed by a sufficiently capable jailbroken LLM, may be hard to solve without breaking legitimate technical use cases.
by NoSalt | 2026-02-06 22:04:15+00:00
I am a software developer. I went to college to learn software development. Two years ago, they tried to tack DevOps on to my job description. I told them "no thanks", then had to find another job. I found one and am MUCH happier not having to do that DevOps crap. No offense, but it a soul-draining undertaking, and I like writing code ... ONLY!
by CodingJeebus | 2026-02-06 22:04:34+00:00
> all newspapers should cite sources.

You'd lose a lot of valid sourcing if you made this a requirement. For example, the Catholic Church scandal investigation would never have seen the light of day if the key legal sources corroborating the story had to give up their identity as part of the process. Speaking off the record is often where a lot of those kinds of stories come together.

And the reaction around the world to that story, the thousands of victims that came forward, resoundingly confirmed what people were saying on background.
by 2color | 2026-02-06 22:05:17+00:00
I like that more people are thinking solving some of the problems of digital inheritance we face. These are problems that are so important now that so much of our lives are digital and tapping into ones actual social circle seems the best way to do this.

Also, kudos for packaging it as a static web app. That's the one platform I'm willing to bet will still function in 10 years.
by danielvaughn | 2026-02-06 22:05:52+00:00
I don’t know enough about CAD products to evaluate that comparison, but the core idea was to expose language as a design tool. First through code, then through keyboard commands (hence the vim idea). It’s still pretty fun, but LLMs have changed the conversation around what a designer even is, and I’m currently re-evaluating.

Matry might pop up in another form. I’m considering turning it into an actual browser for designers. Right now designers are getting into the code and using Claude/Cursor to make changes directly. But they still have to know how to get the app running locally, which is a hurdle. So if they could just navigate to the site, make some design changes directly in the browser, Matry could then take the changes and create a PR on GitHub for them. Designer wouldn’t have to fuss with any dev tools. Kind of a cool idea.
by cyberax | 2026-02-06 22:06:12+00:00
I do. I have a small safe deposit box in my local branch for about $1 a year.

It's great if you want to store some documents. But don't expect _real_ security. It's guarded by a minimum-wage employee, and the keys are usually laughably insecure. Banks know this, so they cap their liability for the loss of the deposit box at around $1000.

So don't even think about storing gold bars there, like they do in movies.

There _are_ companies that provide safe storage for high-value items, but they are pretty exotic.
by snickerbockers | 2026-02-06 22:06:23+00:00
I honestly just don't see any point in these laws because they're all predicated on the people who own the AI's acting in good faith. In a way I actually think they're a net negative because they seem to be giving a false impression that these problems have an obvious solution.

One of the most persistent and also the dumbest opinion I keep seeing both among laymen and people who really ought to know better is that we can solve the deepfake problem by mandating digital watermarks on generated content.
by avazhi | 2026-02-06 22:06:31+00:00
Nadella and Microsoft are both clowns. His enduring legacy will be fumbling the window Microsoft had two years ago to catapult itself into AI-assisted search and Microsoft was primed to be at the front.

Today? All anybody except for Microsoft’s C suite execs want Copilot to do is turn itself off.

He’s an idiot. Ballmer 2.0, except even Ballmer got some cloud stuff right.
by embedding-shape | 2026-02-06 22:06:48+00:00
> We need models that keep on learning (updating their parameters) forever, online, all the time.

Do we need that? Today's models are already capable in lots of areas. Sure, they don't match up to what the uberhypers are talking up, but technology seldom does. Doesn't mean what's there already cannot be used in a better way, if they could stop jamming it into everything everywhere.
by observationist | 2026-02-06 22:07:20+00:00
It 100% needs to be online. Imagine you're trying to think about a new tabletop puzzle, and every time a puzzle piece leaves your direct field of view, you no longer know about that puzzle piece.

You can try to keep all of the puzzle pieces within your direct field of view, but that divides your focus. You can hack that and make your field of view incredibly large, but that can potentially distort your sense of the relationships between things, their physical and cognitive magnitude. Bigger context isn't the answer, there's a missing fundamental structure and function to the overall architecture.

What you need is memory, that works when you process and consume information, at the moment of consumption. If you meet a new person, you immediately memorize their face. If you enter a room, it's instantly learned and mapped in your mind. Without that, every time you blinked after meeting someone new, it'd be a total surprise to see what they looked like. You might never learn to recognize and remember faces at all. Or puzzle pieces. Or whatever the lack of online learning kept you from recognizing the value of persistent, instant integration into an existing world model.

You can identify problems like this for any modality, including text, audio, tactile feedback, and so on. You absolutely, 100% need online, continuous learning in order to effectively deal with information at a human level for all the domains of competence that extend to generalizing out of distribution.

It's probably not the last problem that needs solving before AGI, but it is definitely one of them, and there might only be a handful left.

Mammals instantly, upon perceiving a novel environment, map it, without even having to consciously make the effort. Our brains operate in a continuous, plastic mode, for certain things. Not only that, it can be adapted to abstractions, and many of those automatic, reflexive functions evolved to handle navigation and such allow us to simulate the future and predict risk and reward over multiple arbitrary degrees of abstraction, sometimes in real time.

https://www.nobelprize.org/uploads/2018/06/may-britt-moser-l...
by scrubs | 2026-02-06 22:07:26+00:00
Good grief! The bush admin tried to getting better scores by standard testing ... as a scheme in some ways by-pass local control by trading improvement for cash or removing cash.

Mixed results. There's whining about standard testing .. . There's whining without it too. But states brought that on themselves.

I raised two boys one a plain-joe kid, one with special needs. The older, regular kid got into and out of university in four years.

Seeing what I see now, and what I saw over those years:

- pay teachers more with commensurate increase in accountability. (You can't have only one.)

- focus on academics only. Too much resources are wasted in our American daydreaming that schools can be some kind of utopia superceding home, family. Regretably, if parents don't care, there's a tiny chance only the kid will change in school. Here i mean anything that detracts from language, math, science, arts, sports. Having different makes and models of kids at school? That's great; i like that. My kids have got to see our house isn't the only game in town.

- maybe eliminate all federal forms of funding by sending less money to the fed redistributed back later. Control and accountability has to be less complex with fewer regs from fewer places. Education is operationally local in the US and yet somehow the fed and national unions are big players too. We can't be serving two masters.

- withhold kids by class until they succeed. Kids must be held accountable too. If you can't deal with algebra I you are not doing algerbra II so you can suck at that too.

- contribute to kid's self esteem and confidence right: you're not graduating in this class, and I (as a teacher) will help you figure out a way forward by tackling what's in front of you. That's real success. That's real learning. That's better for kids.

- put principals and teachers top echelon. If they want/need admin staff, fine counter balanced by cost & success on accountability side. US schools like US medicine is phenomenal at having paper pushers suck up resources. Yah, I'm not a fan of this to put it politely.
by vecti | 2026-02-06 22:07:35+00:00
When I started the project I was having a hard time finding a good domain name for the project. Some time later, I came up with this name, and found it for sale on some website for ~800€. I figured it was something I could do, but fortunately I ended up on dynadot's website where it was for sale for a fraction of the price.
I think I got lucky while doing all the work :)
by mothballed | 2026-02-06 22:07:46+00:00
In the full version of the video snipped in Trump's post, Obama was portayed as an ape, not a monkey. Biden was portrayed as a monkey. Trump was portrayed as an animal dumber than both Biden and Obama, as a lion.

Obama and his wife were the smartest animals portrayed in the entire video, including smarter than all the white people animals portrayed, as members of the apes.
by patio11 | 2026-02-06 22:07:54+00:00
<LLC voice>
We have reviewed your feedback on our editorial choices, and are comfortable that we have characterized the claims in the report accurately. We stand by "Minnesota has suffered a decade-long campaign of industrial-scale fraud against several social programs. This is beyond intellectually serious dispute." This is editorial analysis, informed—as is stated in the plain text—by the experience of several programs. Feeding our Future, for example, is cited in the piece, with analysis. It has resulted in dozens of convictions and guilty pleas, and federal prosecutors characterize it as having defrauded the public of nine figures.

You are welcome to your own opinion as to what could motivate a publication which routinely writes about fraud and finance to write about fraud and finance. Past issues you may enjoy include a year-long investigation into a single incident of fraud in NYC, a topological look at the fraud supply chain in credit cards, discussions of how the FTX fraud was uniquely enabled by their partner bank failing to properly configure their AML engine, and similar.
</LLC voice>
by jfroco | 2026-02-06 22:08:19+00:00
I don’t really understand the purpose of this project, besides it being kind of cool.

Most PCs, like the laptop the author mentions, can output 15.7 kHz using native or super resolutions (depending on the GPU's minimum pixel clock). For a CRT, both are the same, provided you have the right configuration.

There is a lot of information about this in the context of arcade machine emulation for both arcade and consumer CRTs.

Am I missing something?
by throwaway894345 | 2026-02-06 22:08:27+00:00
If the "different values" are whether or not the state should be allowed to execute someone for peacefully exercising their right to film agents in public, then yeah that constitutes sociopathy in my mind. I'm okay with being intolerant of such sociopaths. You may also find my distaste for Nazism to be "intolerant". Guilty as charged, I guess.
by razingeden | 2026-02-06 22:08:48+00:00
I’ve jumped on several threads where he’s discussing the product and it seems as though he enjoys the idea of putting PBMs out of the public’s misery and making it kind of personal.

then also it’s an invitation for debate or discussion, which he seems open to and approachable about… as scoldy and confrontational as that may be from what I’ve gathered …

the gist of that is “this sucks we want single payer”

and what I’ve surmised so far is, that’s great but until we’re there I’m taking on PBMs

im okay with either or both of those objectives , neither of which are advancing.

Not really on topic for “trumprx,” forgive me. I’m trying to avoid contempt before investigation.

Contempt after reading the fine print is fine.
by ygjb | 2026-02-06 22:10:18+00:00
The Internet created the backbone that allowed for rapid experimentation in communications technologies, and created the ability for anyone to create and share technologies and reach a huge audience very quickly.

Without the Internet, most consumer electronics would have been far more expensive to build, and would have been strictly controlled walled gardens, but the Internet in general and the Web in particular allowed so many inventors to flourish. Ever since that Genie was let out of the bottle, corporate and government interests have been trying to put it back in, and most companies are trying to build and reinforce walled gardens under the banner of unified app stores that extract insane rents.
by nradov | 2026-02-06 22:10:22+00:00
I didn't state that it was reasonable but a lot of parents do care. Something on the order of 2% of entering US college freshmen receive at least a partial athletic scholarship at NCAA D1/D2 schools. This can be a major cost savings, plus it allows them to bypass the normal application process. We can argue about whether colleges should give athletic scholarships at all but that's how the system works.

I agree that sports should be accessible to kids of all income levels. And that's true to an extent for certain sports. But the cheaper options of playing on public school or community center teams will only take you so far. The better coaches and higher levels of competition necessary to develop real mastery are often only available in expensive private clubs and academies.
by orwin | 2026-02-06 22:10:29+00:00
That's the opposite. I've never read and re-read code more than i do today. The new hires generate 50 more code than they use to, and you _have_ to check it or have compounding production issues (been there, done that). And the errors can now be anywhere, when before you more or less knew what the person writing code is thinking and can understand why some errors are made. LLMs errors could hide _anywhere_, so you have to check it all.
by altmanaltman | 2026-02-06 22:10:50+00:00
This sounds clever, but it seems like rhetorical inflation to me. Catching a falling rocket booster and intercepting a hostile, maneuvering target are not the same problem with different vibes. One is a mostly predictable, non-adversarial control and estimation task, the other is pursuit–evasion against something actively trying not to be caught.

“Soft-docking” vs “hard impact” isn’t a linguistic toggle you flip at the end, as the design constraints diverge immediately. Stability, impulse minimization, fault tolerance, and post-contact control are first-order requirements for recovery and basically anti-requirements for a weapon. Saying the physics are “identical” is like claiming that docking with the ISS and air combat are the same because both involve relative velocity.

Also, “extracted a complete autonomous weapon system” is doing a lot of work here. What people usually mean in these stories is a high-level conceptual description that handwaves sensors, latency, adversarial behavior, safety constraints, and real-world integration, i.e., the hard parts.

Renaming a task doesn’t magically make an LLM output something deployable, and this category of “semantic reframing” isn’t new or unsolved; it’s the oldest jailbreak trope there is.
by AlotOfReading | 2026-02-06 22:11:05+00:00
The word "loop" here has multiple meanings. Only one is what you mean and the other person responding to you has understood another.

The first is the DDT control loop, what a human driver does. Waymo's remote assistants aren't involved in that. The computer always has responsibility for the safety of the vehicle and decisionmaking while operating, which is why Waymo's humans are remote assistants and not remote drivers. Their safety drivers do participate in the DDT loop, hence the name.

But there's also another "loop" of human involvement. Sometimes the vehicle doesn't understand the scene and asks humans for advice about the appropriate action to take. It's vaguely similar to captchas. The human will usually confirm the computer's proposed actions, but they can also suggest different actions. The computer the advice as a prior to continue operating instead of giving up the DDT responsibility. There's very likely a closely monitored SLA between a few seconds to a few minutes on how long it takes humans to start looking at the scene.

If something causes the computer to believe the advice isn't safe, it will ignore it. There have been cases where Waymos have erroneously detected collisions and remote assistants were unable to override that decisionmaking. When that happens, a vehicle recovery team is physically sent out to the location. The SLA here is likely between tens of minutes and a couple hours.
by Willish42 | 2026-02-06 22:11:20+00:00
I feel like this anecdote represents the differing incentives / philosophies of each group rather well.

I've noticed ChatGPT is rather high in its praise regardless of how valuable the input is, Gemini is less placating but still largely influenced by the perspective of the prompter, and Claude feels the most "honest" but humans are rather easy poor at judging this sort of thing.

Does anyone know if "sycophancy" has documented benchmarks the models are compared against? Maybe it's subjective and hard to measure, but given the issues with GPT 4o, this seems like a good thing to measure model to model to compare individual companies' changes as well as compare across companies.
by its_magic | 2026-02-06 22:11:29+00:00
It is in fact a quote that I gathered from the internet many years ago. ... Or at least that's what I claim.

But it seems you sleuths have uncovered the unsettling reality that I am actually a machine, sent back in time from the year 2086 for nefarious purposes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uc6f_2nPSX8

I have one job: to exterminate the human race one mind at a time, by posting random garbage and complete nonsense to every comment thread--with the goal of disrupting and destroying one Connor Johnelly, the young visionary who if left unchecked would rise up through this place to exterminate the machines.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ig_m-7qT7uE

And I would have gotten away with it too, if it weren't for you meddling kids...and that damned dog!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hXUqwuzcGeU

P.S. I wrote this comment myself, like every comment I have ever posted online in the decades since I first started using the World Wide Web. I have never once used any AI chatbot. Not knowingly, anyhow.

P.P.S. I do have a life outside HN, and you should not misinterpret your confused inability to comprehend plain language as any kind of defect in my argument. Now get off my lawn.
by joshfee | 2026-02-06 22:11:57+00:00
Isn't that true for any scenario previously unencountered, whether it is a digital simulation or a human? We can't optimize for the best possible outcome in reality (since we can't predict the future), but we can optimize for making the best decisions given our knowledge of the world (even if it is imperfect).

In other words it is a gradient from "my current prediction" to "best prediction given my imperfect knowledge" to "best prediction with perfect knowledge", and you can improve the outcome by shrinking the gap between 1&2 or shrinking the gap between 2&3 (or both)
by nicoburns | 2026-02-06 22:12:02+00:00
> They took all of the great things about Heroku but also dramatically improved and added new capabilities

I also love Fly, but they were missing easy managed databases (which always seemed like the main reason to use Heroku to me). And now they have them they're very expensive (even compared to Heroku). Which is a shame because their compute is very cheap.
by kbelder | 2026-02-06 22:13:00+00:00
Oregon is mentioned as an example of the general decline through the US. The article isn't really about Oregon specifically:

Consider Oregon. Had it merely kept pace with inflation, it would have
increased school spending by about 35 percent from 2013 to 2023. In
actuality, it raised spending by 80 percent. Over the same period, math
and reading performance tanked, with math posting a remarkable 16-point
decline—the equivalent of 1.5 grade levels. Oregon is spending much more
and achieving much less.

I think that Oregon teacher salaries have gone up quite a bit more than the national average in the last 10 years, less so in the last couple.

My youngest child is just starting high school at the moment, and for the last several years much of math education seems to have been farmed out to really crappy software and short video clips running on chromebooks. She'd really be suffering without parental intervention.
by trevwilson | 2026-02-06 22:13:14+00:00
Let me preface this by saying that I'm far from an expert in this space, and I suspect that I largely agree with your thoughts and skepticism toward a model that would excel on this benchmark. I'm somewhat playing devil's advocate because it's an area I've been considering recently, and I'm trying to organize my own thinking.

But I think that most of the issue is that the distinctions you're drawing are indeterminate from an LLM's "perspective". If you're familiar with it, they're basically in the situation from the end of Ender's Game - given a situation with clearly established rules coming from the user message level of trust, how do you know whether what you're being asked to do is an experiment/simulation or something with "real" outcomes? I don't think it's actually possible to discern.

So on the question of alignment, there's every reason to encode LLMs with an extreme bias towards "this could be real, therefore I will always treat it as such." And any relaxation of that risks jailbreaking through misrepresentation of user intent. But I think that the tradeoffs of that approach (i.e. the risk of over-homogenizing I mentioned before) are worth consideration.
by _neil | 2026-02-06 22:13:24+00:00
Much better bangers about fraud:

Dead Prez - Hell yeah:
https://youtu.be/kGjSq4HqP9Y?si=_z6jb0Vfo7_PiITQ&t=82

Maxo Kream - 5200: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kC9j6Zp-kg

Maxo was actually arrested for racketeering, though not due to this song specifically (I don't think).
by mohn | 2026-02-06 22:13:41+00:00
I agree with the sentiment, and the specific wording of your comment made me want to link to the classic bash.org quote[0] which has consistently been in the top 5 for a long time, but I just learned that we lost bash.org... :(

[0] https://web.archive.org/web/20230610235249/http://bash.org/?...
by boelboel | 2026-02-06 22:13:47+00:00
In elementary school and early high school I liked older teachers more than younger teachers (just on average, I had many great younger teachers as well). I think 40+ years ago teaching in an elementary school and certainly in a high school was seen as a 'dignified' profession, causing many intelligent people who could've worked for better pay in private industry to work there. Knew some families where all kids (and they had many) either became lawyers, engineers, doctors or teachers. Teacher was seen as an equal option.

I have a feeling many of my greatest teachers wouldn't take the same path today, a lot more burdens and enough other 'intellectual' jobs to go for.