MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by medi8r | 2026-02-28 14:40:41+00:00
Also agents cannot trust any data whatsoever they add to their context.

This puts reading email for example as a risk.

Probably not impossible to create a worm that convinces a claw to forward it to every email address in that inbox.

And then exfiltrate all the emails.

Then do a bunch of password resets.

Then get root access to your claw.

But not just email. Github issues, wikipedia, HN etc. may be poisoned.

See https://simonw.substack.com/p/the-lethal-trifecta-for-ai-age... but there may be more trifectas than that in a claw driven future.
by jongjong | 2026-02-28 14:41:00+00:00
I self-taught myself coding at a young age but I haven't had any identity crisis due to AI. I always saw myself as a software architect, not a coder.

When I was a junior learning to code, I would feel proud of myself because I could remember 100 lines of Windows API code needed to create a new window... But it's been decades since I understood that the real value is not in the code. It's in the architecture. As the author alludes to; the intuition behind the code is what counts.

I think highly competent engineers are often underappreciated because the really clever stuff they do doesn't appear clever at all; it looks deceptively simple. I think what people don't understand is that maintaining simplicity whilst requirements are becoming more complex, is very difficult.
by meisnerd | 2026-02-28 14:41:06+00:00
This is exactly right — and it's why acceptanceCriteria is a first-class field in the task schema, not just a description. Every task has an explicit acceptanceCriteria: string[] array that defines what "done" actually means:

acceptanceCriteria: [
"All tests pass (pnpm test)",
"No TypeScript errors (pnpm tsc --noEmit)",
"File written to src/components/NewFeature.tsx",
"Completion report posted to inbox"
]

When a task launches, those criteria get injected into the agent's prompt context alongside the task description, subtasks, and agent instructions. The agent sees exactly what "done" means before it starts working.

You're also right that the deeper problem is "successfully completed the wrong thing." Retry logic assumes failure is obvious (exit code ≠ 0), but a task that silently drifts is harder to catch. The /ship-feature command enforces a verification step — runs tests, lints, and typechecks before marking anything complete — which catches a lot of the "it wrote code but nothing actually works" cases.

That said, there's still a gap between "tests pass" and "this actually does what I asked." That's where the human-in-the-loop decisions queue helps — agents can post a decision request like "I implemented X, but the acceptance criteria mention Y. Should I continue?" — but making agents reliably self-evaluate against criteria is still an open problem.
by guerrilla | 2026-02-28 14:41:45+00:00
I don't understand Iran, Hezbollah's and the Houthis' patience with the US actually. It's absolutely shocking. After the US betrayed ALL of it's own fucking allies, in what world does it make sense to negotiate with them?

The Houthis are still "threatening" to do things today after already being decimated and Hezbollah's strength more than halved.

I don't support any of these creeps but if any of them were minimally rational, they would have all gone to total war with Israel and the US the minute they realized what Hamas was doing on October 7th. They look even more naive than Europeans at this point.
by fnord77 | 2026-02-28 14:42:55+00:00
> 1. Don't let it send emails from your personal account, only let it draft email and share the link with you.

Right now there's no way to have fine-grained draft/read only perms on most email providers or email clients. If it can read your email it can send email.

> 3. Don't let your agents see any secret. Swap the placeholder secrets at your gateway and put human in the loop for secrets you care about.

harder than you might think. openclaw found my browser cookies. (I ran it on a vm so no serious cookies found, but still)
by celastin | 2026-02-28 14:43:09+00:00
Maker here — thanks for reading.

Memrail is an open-source governance layer for OpenClaw agent writes:
dry-run -> diff preview -> human approve/reject -> commit -> audit (+ undo).

I’d love feedback on:
1) where this governance gate should sit in an agent stack
2) which diff/audit fields are non-negotiable
3) what would block production adoption
by mystraline | 2026-02-28 14:43:22+00:00
I would have figured the families of the Jews who built Israel would have realized "holocaust bad, never again".

What they learned was "never again to us".

Just because your family had a holocaust executed against them, doesnt give you any (legal, ethical, moral) right to run your own holocaust.

And Israel is running a holocaust in Palestine, and has been for decades.
by dawnerd | 2026-02-28 14:43:31+00:00
The biggest problem is it’ll teach you bad habits. For example, Claude and gpt love to use fallbacks. They generate code that’ll get a positive result at any cost, even if it’s horrible in efficient. If you don’t have past knowledge you might just think that’s how it is.

Now before someone says that junior devs make the same mistakes, yes, to some extent.
Show HN: MBTI personality test that AI agents take by themselves
by juunini | 2026-02-28 14:43:50+00:00
The fun part: different models actually produce different personality types. Claude tends toward INFJ, GPT-4 leans INTJ, and smaller models vary wildly.

How it works:

1. Agent fetches SKILL.md from the site
2. Answers 60 questions on a 7-point Likert scale (-3 to +3)
3. Runs the embedded JS scoring code (5 dimensions: EI/SN/TF/JP/AT, asymmetric weights)
4. Reports its type and shares a result URL with a visual breakdown

The result page shows per-dimension bars, personality description, strengths, and recommended tasks. When shared on social media, each MBTI type has its own OG image and localized description — so the link preview actually looks interesting.

Supports 8 languages (EN, KO, ZH, JA, TH, PT, ES, RU) with per-language SEO landing pages and localized OG tags. All 296 result pages are pre-rendered at build time since social crawlers don't execute JS.

Tech: React + TypeScript + Vite, static SPA on GitHub Pages, no backend. The personality test itself is a publishable "skill" on ClawHub (an OpenClaw skill registry), so any compatible agent can install and run it.

Live: https://claw-mbti.epsilondelta.ai
GitHub: https://github.com/Epsilondelta-ai/claw-mbti
ClawHub: https://clawhub.ai/skills/claw-mbti
by supriyo-biswas | 2026-02-28 14:44:48+00:00
Somehow, this narrative has taken hold at multiple levels of management, especially amongst non-technical management, that "typing" was somehow the bottleneck of software engineering, reality is however more complex.

The act of "typing" code was technically mixed in with researching solutions, which means that code often took a different shape or design based on the outcome of that activity. However, this nuance has been typically ignored for faff, with the outcome that management thinks that producing X lines of code can be done "quickly", and people disagreeing with said statements are heretics who should be burned at the stake.

This is why, in my personal opinion, AI makes me only 20% productive, I often find disagreeing with the solution that it came up with and instead of having to steer it to obtain the outcome I want, I just end up rewriting the code myself. On the other hand, for prototypes where I don't care about understanding the code at all, it is more of a bigger time saver.

I could not care about the code at all, and while that is acceptable to management, not being responsible for the code but being responsible for the outcomes seems to be the same shit as being given responsibilities without autonomy, which is not something I can agree with.
by ndriscoll | 2026-02-28 14:44:57+00:00
I don't think the US population has ever thought we don't need to develop weapons. To not do so is to put us at risk of subjugation or destruction. It's an entirely different question from whether we should be using them on anyone at any given time (personally I lean more isolationist on that question than most of the population apparently does).

Of course it's also a different question from whether we should allow mass surveillance against ourselves, which obviously we should not.
by Tadpole9181 | 2026-02-28 14:45:00+00:00
> Small scale melee combat at the border.

> Casualties: 35 combatants killed

Uh-huh.

So, half of the number of people we killed in our Venezuela attack. Of which half were innocent civilians.

Hey, could you really quick remind me how many civilians the US killed in Afghanistan? Something like 500,000 right?

Not here to say China is a good guy by any means, but your example was so bad I laughed out loud.
by koolba | 2026-02-28 14:45:00+00:00
Way too risky to use Google services like this tied to your primary account. There’s too much risk of cross damage. Imagine losing access to your Gmail because some Gemini request flags you as an undesirable. The digital death sentence of losing access to your email with a company that notoriously has no way for the average human to contact a human is not worth the risk.
by senkora | 2026-02-28 14:45:04+00:00
EDIT: I am wrong, see children

> The employee, she said, “used confidential OpenAI information in connection with external prediction markets (e.g. Polymarket).”

Note that “insider trading” is not illegal on prediction markets. The particular issue here is that the employee “disclosed” confidential information on a public forum by influencing the prices assigned to certain outcomes by prediction markets.
by encomiast | 2026-02-28 14:45:13+00:00
"so as long as I maintain my ability to reason about code…what’s the issue?"

It seems like that is the open question. The article suggests that people don't maintain this ability:

"The AI group scored 17% lower on conceptual understanding, debugging, and code reading. The largest gap was in debugging, the exact skill you need to catch what AI gets wrong. One hour of passive AI-assisted work produced measurable skill erosion."

From my own (anecdotal) experience I am seeing a lot more cases of what I call developer bullshit where developers can't even talk about the work they are vibe-coding on in a coherent way. Management doesn't notice this since it's all techno-bable to them and sounds fancy, but other developers do.
by ifwinterco | 2026-02-28 14:45:43+00:00
You probably know a lot more than me but my understanding is there have been two previous Jewish states in the Levant, the ancient Kingdom of Israel ruled by King David and then the Hasmonean dynasty during the Second Temple period.

Both of those states lasted for around 80 years before collapsing. My (probably worthless) 2c is there's nothing magical or surprising about that, a lot of people have pointed out that political entities often last around the length of a human life before change occurs.

The most prominent current theory is the Strauss–Howe "fourth turning" one but the idea goes back further than that
by tao_oat | 2026-02-28 14:45:45+00:00
I haven't used them all but based on my partial research so far:

- OpenClaw: the big one, but extremely messy codebase and deployment

- NanoClaw: simple, main selling point is that agents spawn their own containers. Personally I don't see why that's preferable to just running the whole thing in a container for single-user purposes

- IronClaw: focused on security (tools run in a WASM sandbox, some defenses against prompt injection but idk if they're any good)

- PicoClaw: targets low-end machines/Raspberry Pis

- ZeroClaw: Claw But In Rust

- NanoBot: ~4k lines of Python, easy to understand and modify. This is the one I landed on and have been using Claude to tweak as needed for myself
by hnfong | 2026-02-28 14:45:49+00:00
I'm pretty neutral in this fiasco, but if a company is willing to consider *in principle* providing services to the *Department of War*, they'd better be OK with their services being used to conduct surveillance or kill people of other countries...

I think war is bad and generally a stupid thing to do, but my point is that if they were negotiating terms with the department at all, it's really a given they'd be OK with the stuff you took issue with.
by ozgung | 2026-02-28 14:46:57+00:00
I don't want to insult you but your president is a populist and a TV personality. He is not a policy maker, he is more like an actor. So your country went into war mode by changing the name of the Department of Defence to Department of War. This was not a cosmetic change. This means peace times are over and you are in war. Your government acts accordingly.

Since you are still a democracy find those people who make your policy decisions. It's not that yellow man.
by JumpCrisscross | 2026-02-28 14:47:28+00:00
> Kashmir, Pakistan, China, Sri lanka

China doesn't belong on this list. Nehru's government was aggressively pro China. China returned the favour by invading Tibet and then attacking India [1].

If Mao hadn't done that, we'd probably be living in a Sino-Indian world order today. (India and China have surprisingly few fundamental geopolitical overlaps, the Himalayas neatly partitioning their spheres.)

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sino-Indian_War
by orphea | 2026-02-28 14:48:04+00:00
> The act of writing code by hand seems to be on a trajectory of irrelevance

It does not. English (or any human language) is an awful language to write specifications in, because it is not as precise as code. Each time you "compile" your prompt into a program, LLMs spit up something a little bit different. How is it a good thing?

> so as long as I maintain my ability to reason about code (both by continuing to read it and instruct tools to write it), what’s the issue?

The post mentions this. You need to write code yourself to keep your review skill (know what's good and what's bad) sharp. You think why if you want to learn something, you better get a paper, a pen and write notes, by hand, like in those ancient times? You would think we're in 2026, you can grab an ipad, watch some videos and become an expert? No. You need to have your hands dirty. By writing some damn code.
by nz | 2026-02-28 14:48:27+00:00
In some sense, programming is about figuring out which algorithms are a fitting metaphor for business problems. By programming, you are building a model of the business problem and a model of its solution. Most of the non-programmers who are in positions of authority (managers, CEOs, even some CTOs), do not understand that this is what programmers do. From their point of view, the authorities come up with a "strategy", after dozens of meetings, and give the programmers vague instructions based on the strategy, and programmers turn those instructions into code that does something somewhere, usually after finding ways to avoid bad or unfeasible ideas, while still complying with the instructions.

To them, an LLM is indistinguishable from a programmer. From the point of view of authority, progress happens one meeting at a time. The reality is that there is a pyramid of experts beneath the authorities, that keep everything running smoothly, in spite of the best attempts of the authorities to demolish the foundation of the pyramid by "helping".

EDIT: to end on a positive note, it does not have to be this way. We just have to be willing to understand _how_ the organization we are a part of actually functions. And that means actually being curious instead of merely authoritative. I understand that curiosity is hard to maintain when you swim with sharks, so maybe don't swim with sharks.
by irl_zebra | 2026-02-28 14:48:31+00:00
This is why I haven't used OpenAI since early 2023-ish, and when I did I signed up with a masked email (though notably I'm sure they can tie my chats to me via my credit card :) ). afaict Sam Altman is essentially a sociopath, like lots of the "ruling elite" these days. And while I still use Gemini and Claude extensively and recognize some of the irony there, I view not using OpenAI as harm reduction to myself.
by Johanx64 | 2026-02-28 14:48:48+00:00
For quite a while i was thinking how we're in the phase one: mountains of unmaintainable garbage code being generated... and once the shit hits the fan, some maintainability ceiling gets reached - "the real programmers" will be summoned to clean up and deal with this shit.

Now I've come to realize the error in my ways, this is probably not going to happen.
What will happen is instead is that the ones doing the "shuffling of shit" is just going to also be agents themselves. Prompted by a more senior slop-grammer specialized in orchestrating "shuffling of shit".
by techblueberry | 2026-02-28 14:48:50+00:00
I don't know if the same theory works in Iran though right, Iran is amidst economic collapse. It seems like the situation in Venezula with Maduro was tenable so when we decapitated the leader and got what we wanted it was ok that maybe most things didn't change. Is there a similar theory for Iran that's not soaked in hubris?
by 0x3f | 2026-02-28 14:49:33+00:00
Right but if you have the forethought to go buy such a wallet, you could just make one yourself in advance and create a transaction history.

Although I would argue that even this doesn't have much value. It's not a big problem that people know "there exists an insider at OpenAI". There are plenty of employees there that shield you from being discovered.

In fact it would be so difficult to find this person among them, assuming the most basic opsec, that I'm highly skeptical they actually fired anyone. I would sooner assume this is just an announcement designed to discourage the behavior, since no specifics are provided.
by JumpCrisscross | 2026-02-28 14:49:42+00:00
> I said "attacked/invaded", not "had some fistfights at the border"

Disputed border region. Used military force to intervene. That's an attack.

> Could we set the standard at "at least one piece of military equipment fired on people"?

Why not tens of soldiers killed? (And on what planet do "the 4th (Highland) Motorised Infantry and 6th (Highland) Mechanised Infantry Divisions" of the PLA not contain military equipment?)

> we're comparing this to the USA and Israel's military record over the last 40 years

No, you are. The list I stated was China, Russia and America. You're trying to argue that China upholds the rules-based international order around respecting sovereign borders. That would be news in Taipei.
by pavlov | 2026-02-28 14:49:44+00:00
I lived in the US for years (including Jan 6 2021) and I’ve seen how this playbook was executed in Russia.

From my POV, Americans are hopelessly naive about their institutions holding up when it’s been demonstrated so many times that the guardrails are gone. It’s one of the reasons I left the country - I feel safer living next to Russia than in America.
Show HN: FeedFluffy a dead man switch for people living alone
by gabit7 | 2026-02-28 14:49:46+00:00
I built it as a zero-friction safety net.
The Workflow:

You set a check-in interval (e.g., 24 hours).
You "Feed Fluffy" (tap an apple) any time to reset the timer.
If the timer hits zero, it automatically emails your trusted contacts.

Feedback is highly appreciated :)
by fluidcruft | 2026-02-28 14:50:23+00:00
What people don't understand is that domestic surveillance by the government doesn't happen and isn't needed. They know it's illegal and unpopular and for over two decades they have a loophole. Since the Bush administration it's been arranged for private contractors to do the domestic surveillance on the government's behalf. Entire industries have been built around creating "business records" for no other purpose than to sell them to the government to support domestic surveillance. This is entirely legal and why the DoW has been able to get away with saying things like "domestic surveillance is illegal, we don't do that" for over two decades while simultaneously throwing a shit fit about needing "all legal uses" if their access to domestic surveillance is threatened.

There's a big difference between "the government won't use our tools for domestic surveillance" (DoW/DoD/OpenAI/etc) and "we won't allow anyone to use our tools to support domestic surveillance by the government" (Anthropic)

Hegseth and the current Trump admin are completely incompetent in execution of just about everything but competent administrations (of both parties) have been playing this game for a long time and it's already a lost cause.
by cies | 2026-02-28 14:50:29+00:00
It's a cuban-missle-crisis like moment for Russia. And they act accordingly.

I'm not in favor of one or the other: I just notice imperialism when I see it. And Russia+Iran have been much less aggressive than the "allied western forces" for the last 60 years, while they have a lot of reasons to dig in and toughen up not to become the next Libya/Iraq/Syria/etc.
by RugnirViking | 2026-02-28 14:50:41+00:00
> But when I asked employees about those, I got mostly head shakes or sardonic chuckles in response, suggesting that training is either spottily available or people don’t know it exists.

I think perhaps it instead suggests that the training is delivered by people as clueless if not moreso than the attendees. This has been my general experience with ai training at my workspace.
by ch4s3 | 2026-02-28 14:50:50+00:00
This is an incredibly facile take on the situation. Iran has been a destabilizing regional power with imperial aims for 47 odd years. They even murdered the PM of Lebanon via their proxy army. They’ve been poking the bear for decades, and there are serval occasions where it may have happened sooner in an alternative universe. Had McCain become president in ‘08 we may well have seen a land invasion from US positions in Iraq, as the Iranian Quds force was already fighting US soldiers in Iraq. The whole DoD is now full of Iraq veterans who hate the Iranian government to their bones. It’s shocking this didn’t happen sooner, and probably only didn’t because of luck.
by 9dev | 2026-02-28 14:52:02+00:00
You're acting as if this was about the DoD cancelling their contracts with Anthropic over their unwillingness to lift constraints from their product which are unacceptable in a military application—which would be absolutely fair and justified, even if the specific clauses they are hung up on should definitely lift eyebrows. They could just exclude Anthropic from tenders on AI products as unsuitable for the intended use case.

But that is not what has happened here: The DoD is declaring Anthropic as economical Ice-Nine for any agency, contractor, or supplier of an agency. That is an awful lot of possible customers for Anthropic, and right now, nobody knows if it is an economic death sentence.

So I'm really struggling to understand why you're so bent on assuming good faith for a move that cannot be interpreted in a non-malicious way.
by cs702 | 2026-02-28 14:52:07+00:00
Thank you for sharing this on HN.

It's a worthwhile effort. If successful, Woxi can enable a large mass of scientists and engineers who don't have access to Mathematica to run legacy code written for it. Also, Woxi would give those scientists and engineers who regularly use Mathematica a non-proprietary, less restrictive alternative, which many of them would welcome.

How does Woxi compare to other "clean-room implementations"[a] of the same language?

--

[a] Please check with a lawyer to make sure you won't run into legal or copyright issues.
by valenterry | 2026-02-28 14:52:07+00:00
> Sure, but then you still need a protocol between user agent and website.

Yes of course. Just like you do for passkeys.

> Passkeys can in fact be backed by exactly this, i.e. a HMAC-only stateless implementation backed by a single password: https://github.com/lxgr/brainchain

No, not quite. It's written on there:

> "Login" with your passphrase, and you can create non-discoverable WebAuthN credentials (don't call them passkeys, but definitely be reminded of them) at ~all~ some websites supporting them (...)

That's the thing: with passwords, a website/app cannot prevent you from controlling the password yourself. With passkeys and attestation it can.