MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by cubefox | 2026-02-08 07:28:09+00:00
From his previous blog post:

> Generally, I believe [Rabbit] R1 has the potential to change the world. This is a thought that seldom comes to my mind, as I have seen numerous new technologies and inventions. However, R1 is different; it’s not just another device to please a certain niche. It’s meticulously designed to serve one significant goal for all people: to improve lifestyle in the digital world.
by cthalupa | 2026-02-08 07:28:33+00:00
Janoshik is the primary company people use here, and their business is basically entirely peptides and anabolic steroids, and the GLP-1 stuff exploded their business from gym bros to soccer moms everywhere. https://janoshik.com/

But they basically test the same 12ish compounds day in and day out, with another couple of dozen making up the remainder. They don't have most of the worries that you are referring to - first time for a tech running a specific set of standards, limited experience interpreting them, etc., and when people head to head their results against different labs, they are consistent.
by muzani | 2026-02-08 07:28:53+00:00
I'm not a fan of the things proposed by 80000 Hours or other smartest people. There's a lot of people who said that AI would be the most important thing to work on, and those people ended up using AI for evil in the end.

Plus it assumes that survival or suffering are the highest priority things, but there's a lot more other things like community and civilization.
by zozbot234 | 2026-02-08 07:29:10+00:00
HBF is NAND and integrated in-package like HBM. 3D XPoint or Optane would be extremely valuable today as part of the overall system architecture, but they were power-intensive enough that this particular use probably wouldn't be feasible.

(Though maybe it ends up being better if you're doing lots of random tiny 4k reads. It's hard to tell because the technology is discontinued as you say, whereas NAND has kept progressing.)
by bwb | 2026-02-08 07:30:15+00:00
Hah, I read that as well and made a big "hmmmmmmmmm" sound...

The last time I talked to someone about OpenClaw and how it is helping them, they told me it tells them what their calendar has for them today or auto-tweets for them (i.e., non-human spam). The first is as simple as checking your calendar, and the second is blatant spam.

Anyone found some good use cases beyond a better interface for AI code assistance?
by hxtk | 2026-02-08 07:30:34+00:00
I’ve been experimenting with this today. I still don’t think AI is a very good use of my programming time… but it’s a pretty good use of my non-programming time.

I ran OpenCode with some 30B local models today and it got some useful stuff done while I was doing my budget, folding laundry, etc.

It’s less likely to “one shot” apples to apples compared to the big cloud models; Gemini 3 Pro can one shot reasonably complex coding problems through the chat interface. But through the agent interface where it can run tests, linters, etc. it does a pretty good job for the size of task I find reasonable to outsource to AI.

This is with a high end but not specifically AI-focused desktop that I mostly built with VMs, code compilation tasks, and gaming in mind some three years ago.
by gyomu | 2026-02-08 07:31:20+00:00
> it completely transformed my workflow, whether it’s personal or commercial projects

> This has truly freed up my productivity, letting me pursue so many ideas I couldn’t move forward on before

If you're writing in a blog post that AI has changed your life and let you build so many amazing projects, you should link to the projects. Somehow 90% of these posts don't actually link to the amazing projects that their author is supposedly building with AI.
Show HN: A Prompting Framework for Non-Vibe-Coders
by 3371 | 2026-02-08 07:32:01+00:00
Hi, a little context for this simple project:

I only started this "agentic development" thing this year thanks to the Google AI Pro sale, therefore my most used agent is Antigravity - Gemini 3, which is smart but a loose cannon. So my attempt to "tame" this model turned into this. (Btw I have claude code and cursor)

It could be useful for people who:

- are used to conventional coding and want to try out agentic development

- don't vibe-code or prefer staying in the loop

- using less polished harness or less rigorous models

It's a skill defining a methodology to command LLMs. You reference the workflow files to make LLM plan, execute, review, red-team, etc. — each output a typed markdown document with a defined template and lifecycle.

Documents chain together (Plan → Execute → Audit), are just files in your repo, and double as persistent memory across sessions. Basically a lightweight project management protocol between you and the agent.

I am posting this simply because it's proven useful for me; I wouldn't say this is good or smart way to approach agentic development :)
by Msurrow | 2026-02-08 07:32:13+00:00
No, they are not. Doesn’t matter how many LoC; it only take 1 LoC to introduce a vulnerability.

Wireguard is a protocol. So what implementation is “very intentional about its choice of …”? Are you talking about my own WG client implementation? Or the one made by this other Chinese vendor?

I don’t care what software we are talking about, or who made it. All software has a risk of undiscovered/-disclosed vulnerabilities already existing, or when new ones introduced with an update.

If you really want to make this argument we can talk about the implementing organisations SDLC, including SW supply chain, and compare those.

But back to the OP/point above: its false to state that one piece of software has a “principle risk” of vulnerabilities that another piece does not. At least, not when both are internet exposed and accepting incoming data.

Lasty remember that I never disagreed with you point that a VPN solution is often a better solution, but that was never what I was arguing about. Simply that all code always has a risk of vulnerabilities. No piece of software is excempt from that.
by hackyhacky | 2026-02-08 07:33:59+00:00
> I talk to my cousin who's doing the web hosting and he says he can't host a "Pee Haich Pee" site

I already addressed this exact argument in another comment. In short: hosting is an implementation detail. The LLM can solve this problem just like any coding bug. The user can give his cousin's email to the LLM, which will solve the issue by finding better hosting, rewriting the program in another language, or using Docker.

Hosting is not a hard problem to solve, compared to other issues.
by rfv6723 | 2026-02-08 07:34:12+00:00
The "world model" is a convenient fiction. Whether we’re talking about a carbon-based brain or a silicon-based transformer, there is no miniature, objective map of reality tucked away inside. What we mistake for a "model" is actually just the layered residue of experience.

From the perspective of enactivism and radical empiricism, intelligence doesn't "represent" the world; it simply navigates it. A biological organism doesn't need a 3D CAD file of a tree to survive; it only needs a history of sensory-motor contingencies—the "if I move this way, I see that" patterns. It’s a synthesis of interactions, not a library of blueprints.

AI operates on the same logic, albeit through a different medium. It isn't simulating the physical laws of the universe or "understanding" gravity. Instead, it navigates the high-dimensional geometry of human data. It’s a sophisticated engine of association, performing a high-speed synthesis of the patterns we've left behind.

In this view, "knowing" isn't about matching an internal image to an external truth. It is the seamless flow of past inputs into future predictions. There is no world model—only the habit of being.
by gyomu | 2026-02-08 07:35:35+00:00
I think a sizable proportion of people just want to play "large company exec". Their dream is to have an assistant telling them how busy their day is, all the meetings they have, then to go to those meetings and listen to random fluff people tell them while saying "mmh yeah what a wise observation" or "mmh no not enough synergy here, let's pivot and really leave our mark on this market, crunch the numbers again".

I can't come up with any other explanation for why there seems to be so many people claiming that AI is changing their life and workflow, as if they have a whole team of junior engineers at their disposal, and yet have really not that much to show for it.

They're so white collar-pilled that they're in utter bliss experiencing a simulation of the peak white collar experience, being a mid-level manager in meetings all day telling others what to do, with nothing tangible coming out of it.
by Animats | 2026-02-08 07:35:51+00:00
> The Web of Trust failed for PGP 30 years ago. Why will it work here?

It didn't work for links as reputation for search once "SEO" people started creating link farms. It's worse now. With LLMs, you can create fake identities with plausible backstories.

This idea won't work with anonymity. It's been tried.
by jruz | 2026-02-08 07:35:59+00:00
I admire the people that can live happily in the ignorance of what’s under the hood, in this case not even under the layer of claude code because that was too much aparently so people are now putting openclaw+telegram on top of that.

And me ruining my day fighting with a million hooks, specs and custom linters micromanaging Claude Code in the pursuit of beautiful code.
by rellfy | 2026-02-08 07:36:20+00:00
Yes, I definitely think it's much faster than writing it manually. For a few weeks now, >95% of the code I've authored wasn't written manually.

Sometimes you only care about the high level aspect of it. The requirements and the high-level specification. But writing the implementation code can take hours if you're unfamiliar with a specific library, API or framework.

"review every diff line by line" is maybe not the best way to have described it, I essentially I meant that I review the AI's code as if it were a PR written by a team member, so I'd still care about alignment with the rest of the codebase, overall quality, reasonable performance, etc.
by kstenerud | 2026-02-08 07:36:33+00:00
What I've found is that most people who dislike the chat interface aren't using it in a way that leverages its strengths.

Up until recently, LLMs just plain sucked. You'd set them on a task and then spend hours hand-holding them to output something almost correct.

Nowadays you can have a conversation with the chatbot, hash out a design, rubber duck and discuss what-ifs until you have a solid idea of the thing you're building, codified in a way an agent could understand, and now you have a PLAN.

From there, it's a matter of setting the agent in motion and checking from time to time to make sure it's not getting stuck on something under-specified.

That said, I've found that this kind of workflow works a lot better with claude than with gemini.
by flomo | 2026-02-08 07:36:55+00:00
You are the sysadmin for that machine. Just wait until an update borks or something. Maybe you are a hobbyist who likes fixing computers for free, so fine.

I have done zero technical support for my parent's ipads for like 15 years now. They even got it working with a printer without me. The biggest issue has been bogus emails from "Microsoft Tech Support" and "Norton Antivirus", so the Windows ecosystem still seems grim that way.
by alzee | 2026-02-08 07:37:42+00:00
> most of the examples OP gave are usually available as short options

Yes, but a lot of commands behave differently for -h and --help.

> aliasing ,s to sudo is certainly possible

Sure, but my ,s key sequence doesn’t just expand to sudo. It actually moves the cursor to the start of the current line, prefixes the command with sudo, and then moves the cursor to the end of the line.
The idea is when you type a command which requires root privileges but forget to use sudo, you can just hit ctrl+p ,s to fetch the previous command and prefix it with sudo. This is what it looks like in ~/.inputrc: ",s":"^Asudo ^E"
by ryanrasti | 2026-02-08 07:38:01+00:00
Yeah, those are valid approaches and both have real limitations as you noted.

The third path: fine-grained object-capabilities and attenuation based on data provenance. More simply, the legs narrow based on what the agent has done (e.g., read of sensitive data or untrusted data)

Example: agent reads an email from alice@external.com. After that, it can only send replies to the thread (alice). It still has external communication, but scope is constrained to ensure it doesn't leak sensitive information.

The basic idea is applying systems security principles (object-capabilities and IFC) to agents. There's a lot more to it -- and it doesn't solve every problem -- but it gets us a lot closer.

Happy to share more details if you're interested.
by awaaz | 2026-02-08 07:39:49+00:00
A month ago, I submitted my app "DoNotNotify" to control Android notifications on Show HN [0], and it trended on the front page for a day. I was happy, but the most upvoted comments on the thread were asking for the app to be open sourced, since it dealt with system-wide notifications. My promises weren't good enough, and the community wanted more!

Why didn't I open source it in the first place? Linux has been by primary driver for more than a decade. I genuinely believe in the philosophy, and have always wanted to give back to the community. The primary reason, probably, was because I was ashamed that I had 90% vibe-coded the app. More than 2 decades of writing software, and my first contribution to FOSS would be AI-generated code? Would it withstand even the most minimal of scrutiny? Would by (unknown) name forever be tarnished? I exaggerate, but only slightly :)

So, yesterday, after a fair bit of trepidation, I changed the github repo visibility to public and put up a announcement on the app's website [1]. I have also submitted the app to F-Droid [2]. As before, I welcome the community's feedback and suggestions!

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46499646
[1] https://donotnotify.com/opensource.html
[2] https://gitlab.com/fdroid/rfp/-/issues/3569

--
Anuj Jain
by valenterry | 2026-02-08 07:39:56+00:00
I think so too.

However I think there is a misunderstanding between being "deterministic" and "unambiguous". Even C is an ambiguous programming language" but it is "deterministic" in that it behaves in the same ambiguous/undefined way under the same conditions.

The same can be achieved with LLMs too. They are "more" ambiguous of course and if someone doesn't want that, then they have to resort to exactly what you just described. But that was not the point that I was making.
by Maxion | 2026-02-08 07:40:05+00:00
A lot of more senior coders when they actively try vibe coding a greenfield project find that it does actually work. But only for the first ~10kloc. After that the AI, no matter how well you try to prompt it, will start to destroy existing features accidentally, will add unnecessary convoluted logic to the code, will leave benhind dead code, add random traces "for backwards compatibility", will avoid doing the correct thing as "it is too big of a refactor", doesn't understand that the dev database is not the prod database and avoids migrations. And so forth.

I've got 10+ years of coding experience, I am an AI advocate, but not vibe coding. AI is a great tool to help with the boring bits, using it to initialize files, help figure out various approaches, as a first pass code reviewer, helping with configuring, those things all work well.

But full-on replacing coders? It's not there yet. Will require an order of magnitude more improvement.
by pavlov | 2026-02-08 07:40:53+00:00
This claim has been going around for a while.

I know someone who has been spending $7k / month on Cursor tokens for the past six months, managing such a team of agents… But curiously the results seem to be endless PDF-ware, and every month there’s a new reason why the project is not yet quite ready to be used on real data.

LLMs are very good at making you think they’re giving you what you hoped to get.
Show HN: Solnix – an early-stage experimental programming language
by maheshbhatiya | 2026-02-08 07:41:30+00:00
I’m building Solnix, an experimental programming language as a learning + research project. It’s still early, and many design decisions (syntax, types, tooling) are intentionally not fixed yet.

My goal right now is feedback, not promotion:

What design mistakes should I watch out for?

What usually makes new languages hard to adopt?

What would you avoid if you were starting today?

Repo & docs: https://solnix-lang.org/

I’d really appreciate honest criticism. Thanks for your time.
by wasabi991011 | 2026-02-08 07:41:52+00:00
You are still mainly describing fundamental physics and cosmology, with superconducting tacked on.

But there's been tons of advances in experimental physics, biophysics, quantum sensing, condensed matter, topological materials, computational methods especially tensor networks like DMRG, quantum information, astrophysics, and probably many more I'm forgetting.

There's really not that much need for a sea change except for the areas you mention that get a lot of attention.

I know a lot of current physics are being built on QM, because it is a solid foundation with tons to explore. Just because interpretations of QM is hard to probe doesn't mean there's not a ridiculous amount of applications to progress through.
by jdub | 2026-02-08 07:42:43+00:00
> Netscape didn't attack Microsoft's business software, operating systems or other pieces of their offerings.

That's not how it was interpreted at the time: Netscape threatened to route around the desktop operating system (Win32) to deliver applications via the browser. "Over the top" as they say in television land.

Netscape didn't succeed, but that's precisely what happened (along with the separate incursion of mobile platforms, spearheaded by Apple... followed quickly by Google, who realised they had to follow suit very quickly).

> And neither had the capability to build large software very fast.

Internet Explorer. Android. Gemini.
by cortesoft | 2026-02-08 07:44:38+00:00
English CAN be ambiguous, but it doesn't have to be.

Think about it. Human beings are able to work out ambiguity when it arrises between people with enough time and dedication, and how do they do it? They use English (or another equivalent human language). With enough back and forth, clarifying questions, or enough specificity in the words you choose, you can resolve any ambiguity.

Or, think about it this way. In order for the ambiguity to be a problem, there would have to exist an ambiguity that could not be removed with more English words. Can you think of any example of ambiguous language, where you are unable to describe and eliminate the ambiguity only using English words?
by alpineman | 2026-02-08 07:44:41+00:00
You’re right, but on the other hand once you have a basic understanding security, architecture, etc you can prompt around these issues. You need a couple of years of experience but that’s far less then the 10-15 years of experience you needed in the past.

If you spend a couple of years with an LLM really watching and understanding what it’s doing and learning from mistakes, then you can get up the ladder very quickly.
by simianwords | 2026-02-08 07:46:18+00:00
yeah how else do you want to organise who gets paid what? its nice and virtuous to claim that poor women should get paid more.

but there's simply not that much money to redistribute, unless more companies provide employment and drive labour demand up - exactly what is happening in this article.

so you can gesture all you want about women being poor and deserving more money, but it doesn't mean anything. you can't pay them above market rate, where will the money come from? certainly not taxes - there's simply not enough to go by.
by darkwater | 2026-02-08 07:46:36+00:00
Totally!!
I mean, like everything else in life there are people with more innate skills for it and people with less, but again like everything in life if you put the right amount of effort you can go from zero to "hey you are not bad!".

In my case, I've always had good musical hear but I always struggled with anything passing (I think) B4. Now, 3 years ago I joined a totally amateur choir and our (wonderful) teacher makes us do every week 15 minutes of breathing/belt exercises. Not a lot, and it was pretty hard getting the right coordination in the beginning but eventually stuck. And now I can reach D5 and even E5 when pushing out all the air I can. It's still a bit complicated to control the volume at that pitch but I would never ever imagined I could do it 3 years ago!
by wtcactus | 2026-02-08 07:47:01+00:00
> They're employer _contributions_ to the system.

Nice. Look, I had a great idea for 0% worker taxes in France. You just change all the taxes accounting to make the numbers look like you take them from the employee instead of the worker, and puff, magical 0% taxes! It's great, isn't it?

> Now, there are ways to solve these expenses, they involve cutting all pensions. I'm sure you'll be okay with letting your parents, and mine, die, right ?

Man, I don't know you, I value my morning coffee more than your parents getting their retirement at 61 and receiving more - after taxes - than people that actually work to pay for their fantastic retiree life. But, I thought that all the taxes you paid are supposed to provide for your retirement. Are you actually telling me this is all a Ponzi scheme mandated by the State? I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you.
by SyneRyder | 2026-02-08 07:49:02+00:00
The post mentions discussing projects with Claude via voice, but it isn't clear exactly how. Do they just mean sending voice memos via Whatsapp, the basic integration that you can get with OpenClaw? (That isn't really "discussing".) Or is this a full blown Eleven Labs conversational setup (or Parakeet, Voxtral, or whatever people are using?)

I'm not running OpenClaw, but I've given Claude its own email address and built a polling loop to check email & wake Claude up when I've sent it something. I'm finding a huge improvement from that. Working via email seems to change the Claude dynamic, it feels more like collaborating with a co-worker or freelancer. I can email Claude when I'm out of the house and away from my computer, and it has locked down access to use various tools so it can build some things in reply to my emails.

I've been looking into building out voice memos or an Eleven Labs setup as well, so I can talk to Claude while I'm out exercising, washing dishes etc. Voice memos will be relatively easy but I haven't yet got my head around how to integrate Eleven Labs and work with my local data & tools (I don't want a Claude that's running on Eleven Labs servers).
by novoreorx | 2026-02-08 07:49:44+00:00
Our cognition evolves over time. That article was written when the Rabbit R1 presentation video was first released, I saw it and immediately reflect my thoughts on my blog. At that time, nobody had the actual product, let alone any idea how it actually worked.

Even so, I still believe the Rabbit has its merits. This does not conflict with my view that OpenClaw is what is truly useful to me.
by languid-photic | 2026-02-08 07:50:35+00:00
Good point.

This post measures `1x top-N` (one attempt each from N models), not `Nx top-1` (N attempts from the best-scoring model). We should make that more clear.

Part of why we chose `1x top-N` is that we expect lower error correlation compared to `Nx top-1`, which is also why the iid baseline is likely optimistic.

That said, a direct comparison (`Nx top-1` vs `1x top-N`, with the same review/compute budget) would be useful!