MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by logicprog | 2026-02-12 20:23:44+00:00
> the user inclusion part is real too. the best results i get aren't from fully autonomous agents, they're from tight human-in-the-loop cycles where i'm steering in real time. the model does the heavy lifting, i do the architectural decisions and error correction. feels more like pair programming than automation.

Precisely. This is why I use Zed and the Zed Agent. It's near-unparalleled for live, mind-meld pair programming with an agent, thanks to CRDTs, DeltaDB, etc. I can elaborate if anyone is interested.
by OutOfHere | 2026-02-12 20:23:52+00:00
A desert already is a collapsed biome relative to when it was not a desert. As such, it has a huge debt to repay to what was lost due to the desertification. If the desertification is not reversed, it will go only deeper into debt, killing what little life is left there via a continued rise in temperature. As such, what is being done to restore the biome is most appropriate.
by righthand | 2026-02-12 20:24:20+00:00
Yes we are succeeding.

https://nyc.streetsblog.org/2025/09/16/good-trade-off-rat-ha...

https://gothamist.com/news/the-hottest-clubs-in-nyc-these-da...

I would even count Congestion Pricing as cleaning up the city:

https://ny1.com/nyc/all-boroughs/traffic_and_transit/2025/12...

SLC is a major city and a dump then by your observation-only position.

> instead of every parent teaching their child from a young age to pick up after themselves

What? Are you going to fine or arrest every parent that doesn’t teach their kids to pick up after themselves? How has expecting parents to do that worked out so far? Their culture is similar to how you suggest to operate: just complain about society instead.

That’s why they don’t teach their kids to pick up after themselves.
by jjgreen | 2026-02-12 20:24:42+00:00
Not sure where you got classism from, I've got a number of posh southern public schoolboy friends; after all, it's not really their fault that they mispronounce "butter" as "batter". What I object to is the term "received pronunciation" which implicitly places their "fwah fwah" as being in some way correct and standard.
by renato_shira | 2026-02-12 20:25:00+00:00
"stochastic chaos" is a great way to put it. the part that worries me most is the blast radius asymmetry: an agent can mass-produce public actions (PRs, blog posts, emails) in minutes, but the human on the receiving end has to deal with the fallout one by one, manually.

the practical takeaway for anyone building with AI agents right now: design for the assumption that your agent will do something embarrassing in public. the question isn't whether it'll happen, it's what the blast radius looks like when it does. if your agent can write a blog post or open a PR without a human approving it, you've already made a product design mistake regardless of how good the model is.

i think we're going to see github add some kind of "submitted by autonomous agent" signal pretty soon. the same way CI bots get labeled. without that, maintainers have no way to triage this at scale.
by Traster | 2026-02-12 20:25:00+00:00
Well there's a good reason that OpenAI partnered up with Microsoft. The calculation is that the established big techs - Amazon, Apple, Microsoft, Google, Meta are all going to be significantly impacted by AI so it's not unreasonable to look at Anthropic at 10% of their market cap as a reasonable value. Would it be worth Apple to bring Anthropic in house? They failed to deliver AI themselves, they know the risks of being dependent on Google. If AI goes far enough it may totally remove Apple's differentiation.

Some of the Big Techs are building their own in house stuff (Meta, Google), but it wouldn't be crazy to see acquisitions by the others, especially if the market cools slightly. And then there's the possibility that these companies mature their revenue streams enough to start actually really throwing off money and paying off the investment.
by mapontosevenths | 2026-02-12 20:25:36+00:00
> His definition of reaching AGI, as I understand it, is when it becomes impossible to construct the next version of ARC-AGI because we can no longer find tasks that are feasible for normal humans but unsolved by AI.

That is the best definition I've yet to read. If something claims to be conscious and we can't prove it's not, we have no choice but to believe it.

Thats said, I'm reminded of the impossible voting tests they used to give black people to prevent them from voting. We dont ask nearly so much proof from a human, we take their word for it. On the few occasions we did ask for proof it inevitably led to horrific abuse.

Edit: The average human tested scores 60%. So the machines are already smarter on an individual basis than the average human.
by gary17the | 2026-02-12 20:25:42+00:00
I have no clue whatsoever as to why any human should pay any attention at all to what a canner has to say in a public forum. Even assuming that the whole ruckus is not just skilled trolling by a (weird) human, it's like wasting your professional time talking to an office coffee machine about its brewing ambitions. It's pointless by definition. It is not genuine feelings, but only the high level of linguistic illusion commanded by a modern AI bot that actually manages to provoke a genuine response from a human being. It's only mathematics, it's as if one's calculator was attempting to talk back to its owner. If a maintainer decides, on whatever grounds, that the code is worth accepting, he or she should merge it. If not, the maintainer should just close the issue in a version control system and mute the canner's account to avoid allowing the whole nonsense to spread even further (for example, into a HN thread, effectively wasting time of millions of humans). Humans have biologically limited attention span and textual output capabilities. Canners do not. Hence, canners should not be allowed to waste humans' time. P.S. I do use AI heavily in my daily work and I do actually value its output. Nevertheless, I never actually care what AI has to say from any... philosophical point of view.
by logicprog | 2026-02-12 20:26:06+00:00
> Well, surely none of this is relevant today? Well, it turns out all of it still is! e.g. small fix, the "grep def" (or your language's equivalent) can be trivially added as a startup hook to Claude Code, and suddenly it doesn't have to spend half your token budget poking around the codebase, because -- get this -- it can just see where everything is... (What a concept, right?)

Hahaha yeah. This is very true. I find myself making ad hoc versions of this in static markdown files to get around it. Just another example of the kind of low hanging fruit harnesses are leaving on the table. A version of this that uses tree sitter grammars to map a codebase, and does it on every startup of an agent, would be awesome.

> My Weird Hill is that we should be building things with GPT-4.

I disagree, IMO using the best models we have is a good way to avoid wasting time, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't also be frugal and clever with our harnesses!
by Sohcahtoa82 | 2026-02-12 20:26:33+00:00
One wafer will turn into multiple chips.

Defects are best measured on a per-wafer basis, not per-chip. So if if your chips are huge and you can only put 4 chips on a wafer, 1 defect can cut your yield by 25%. If they're smaller and you fit 100 chips on a wafer, then 1 defect on the wafer is only cutting yield by 1%. Of course, there's more to this when you start reading about "binning", fusing off cores, etc.

There's plenty of information out there about how CPU manufacturing works, why defects happen, and how they're handled. Suffice to say, the comment makes perfect sense.
by haute_cuisine | 2026-02-12 20:26:34+00:00
I love TUIs and spent some time exploring the project. I guess you posted it here to hear some feedback.

The landing page compares it to xtermjs as superior version. What I find strange, for example, FrankenTUI has a code explorer tab, but it's impossible to select any text or interact with a scrollbar. The "hotspots" section in the codeview misinterprets mouse clicks, highlighting line that is different from a click.

If it meant to be keyboard-first, I find focus management implementation unintuitive and shortcuts hard to discover.
by GeekyBear | 2026-02-12 20:26:40+00:00
The new leadership team blogged last year that their priority would be on upstreaming their existing work.

> Our priority is kernel upstreaming. Our downstream Linux tree contains over 1000 patches required for Apple Silicon that are not yet in upstream Linux. The upstream kernel moves fast, requiring us to constantly rebase our changes on top of upstream while battling merge conflicts and regressions. Janne, Neal, and marcan have rebased our tree for years, but it is laborious with so many patches. Before adding more, we need to reduce our patch stack to remain sustainable long-term...

Where do the M3 and M4 fit in? Until upstreaming and CI progress, the core team cannot prioritize new hardware.

https://asahilinux.org/2025/02/passing-the-torch/

I think the majority of that upstreaming work (that isn't on hold until the kernal is ready for the Rust graphics driver to land) has happened and additional features like DP alt mode for USB C have been demoed.

The next update from the team should land on their blog after 6.19 ships
by Aloisius | 2026-02-12 20:27:00+00:00
This is from their terms in 2006. The last line permits FedEx to charge the sender's credit card for duties it advanced:

> Duties and taxes may generally be billed to the sender, the recipient or a third party. If the sender fails to designate a payer on the air waybill, duties and taxes will automatically be billed to the recipient where allowed. Bill Sender Duties and Taxes and Bill Third Party Duties and Taxes are options available only for deliveries to specified locations. REGARDLESS OF ANY PAYMENT INSTRUCTIONS TO THE CONTRARY, THE SENDER IS ULTIMATELY RESPONSIBLE FOR PAYMENT OF DUTIES AND TAXES IF PAYMENT IS NOT RECEIVED. If transportation charges for a shipment are billed to a credit card, FedEx reserves the right to also settle uncollected duties and taxes charges associated with that shipment to the credit card account.
by godelski | 2026-02-12 20:27:07+00:00
> The headline makes it sound uniquely sinister, but [it's not]

Does this matter?

TikTok is one of the, if not the, most popular apps in the US and the world[0]. It makes sense to talk about the biggest offenders.

You're right that the problems are more systemic and TikTok is far from alone, but at the end of the day, if this is the gateway to having the broader conversation, I would not dismiss it[4]. Laws that reduce the harm that TikTok is doing applies much more broadly than to TikTok. That is a win for us. It is difficult to write laws to specifically target a single company, and whenever that happens they serve as leverage to go after others too.

Treating TikTok as the face does not absolve others of their actions. It may shift focus off of others, but frankly, we're living in a time where focus is incredibly difficult to achieve.

I don't think you're wrong, but we've been trying to have the more nuanced conversation for over a decade and it doesn't catch people. So I'm personally okay with targeting an extremely popular platform like TikTok or Meta and using them as the gateway to the more nuanced conversations. IME if you just start by talking about "Surveillance Capitalism" it is common for people's eyes glaze over or they throw up their arms as the problem seems so large it is insurmountable. IME being more specific, talking about specific companies and specific actions[5] is the right gateway. It enables the deeper conversations without overloading people. Remember, you've had years to process all this and they're still new. Give them time.

--

[0] In the US looks like >136M adult users[1], which looks to be about half of all adult Americans[2], or 66% of Americans between 18 and 65[3]

[1] https://www.theglobalstatistics.com/us-tiktok-users-statisti...

[2] (Adults = 136e6 / (340,110,988 * (1-0.215)): https://www.census.gov/quickfacts/fact/table/US/PST045224

[3] Intended as upper bound as certainty there are some seniors on TikTok.

[4] Unfortunately I think it is easy for bad actors to use whataboutism and that while I don't think you're doing this, bad actors try to snake in through claims like yours. Using the legitimacy of your claim to control the conversation and shift focus (the same way dog whistles are only intended to be heard by dogs).

[5] DO NOT start with the most egregious, as that's too abstract and leads people to believe you're a conspiracy nut. Same shit as when talking about Snowden, it doesn't matter if you can show them the evidence, the claims appear more like that out of a movie than reality and it doesn't feel like we live in the dystopia where we see this kind of tech on screen.
by jmye | 2026-02-12 20:27:19+00:00
> But no, fuck the working poor, let’s fund artists.

What if they built those 66 houses? Is the complaint then, "what about the other working poor, why didn't they get houses"? Is there ever a point where it's like, ok to help some people given that some is more than none? Or is this all zero sum bullshit where if we can't help everyone we should help no one and just give Google back it's tax dollars?

Speaking of "myopic".
by raniazyane | 2026-02-12 20:27:39+00:00
I wonder if there’s a third camp that isn’t about agent count at all, but about decision boundaries.

At some point the interesting question isn’t whether one agent or twenty agents can coordinate better, but which decisions we’re comfortable fully delegating versus which ones feel like they need a human checkpoint.

Multi-agent systems solve coordination and memory scaling, but they also make it easier to move further away from direct human oversight. I’m curious how people here think about where that boundary should sit — especially for tasks that have real downstream consequences.
by rcarmo | 2026-02-12 20:27:42+00:00
well, you can start with https://github.com/rcarmo/go-textile, https://github.com/rcarmo/go-rdp, https://github.com/rcarmo/go-ooxml, https://github.com/rcarmo/go-busybox (still WIP). All of these are essentially SPEC and test-driven and they are all working for me (save a couple of bugs in go-rdp I need to fix myself, and some gaps in the ECMA specs for go-ooxml that require me to provide actual manually created documents for further testing).

I am currently porting pyte to Go through a similar approach (feeding the LLM with a core SPEC and two VT100/VT220 test suites). It's chugging along quite nicely.
by logicprog | 2026-02-12 20:27:48+00:00
> Also, I don't understand the comments about Google being behind in agentic workflows.

It has to do with how the model is RL'd. It's not that Gemini can't be used with various agentic harnesses, like open code or open claw or theoretically even claude code. It's just that the model is trained less effectively to work with those harnesses, so it produces worse results.
by skydhash | 2026-02-12 20:27:49+00:00
Lisp macros are more for not having to write the same type of code (all subtly different, but sharing the same general structure).

One such example is the let-alist macro in elisp

https://www.gnu.org/software/emacs/manual/html_node/elisp/As...

Dealing with nested association lists is a pain. this let you write your code with a dot notation like jq.

Macros are not only for solving a particular task (serialization, dependency injection, snippets,…) they let you write things the way it makes sense. Like having html-flavored lisps for template, sql-flavored lisp for query,… Lisp code is a tree, and most languages are trees, so you can bring easily their semantic in lisp.
by gundmc | 2026-02-12 20:27:54+00:00
Yes, I've been waiting for a real breakthrough with regard to 3D parametric models and I don't think think this is it. The proprietary nature of the major players (Creo, Solidworks, NX, etc) is a major drag. Sure there's STP, but there's too much design intent and feature loss there. I don't think OpenSCAD has the critical mass of mindshare or training data at this point, but maybe it's the best chance to force a change.
by splix | 2026-02-12 20:28:03+00:00
Nice project, thank you for working on it. I was trying to figure out the architecture, and I understand that it runs a Deno VM to execute JS on the backend?

I was working on something similar, but for JVM backends [1]. And it seems there are a lot to learn from your project. For example, I'm using GraalVM that executes JS on the server. But I have to compile JS to WebAssembly because otherwise it produces a lot integration issues on the backend. Do you do the same?

[1] https://github.com/emeraldpay/double-view
by famouswaffles | 2026-02-12 20:28:34+00:00
1. Why not ? It clearly had a cadence/pattern to writing status updates to the blog so if the model decided to write a piece about Simon, why not a blog also? It was a tool in it's arsenal and it's a natural outlet. If anything, posting on the discussion or a DM would be the strange choice.

2. You could ask this for any LLM response. Why respond in this certain way over others? It's not always obvious.

3. ChatGPT/Gemini will regularly use the search tool, sometimes even when it's not necessary. This is actually a pain point of mine because sometimes the 'natural' LLM knowledge of a particular topic is much better than the search regurgitation that often happens with using web search.

4. I mean Open Claw bots can and probably should disengage/not respond to specific comments.
by OutOfHere | 2026-02-12 20:28:39+00:00
A desert is a collapsed biome relative to when it was not a desert. As such, it has a huge debt to repay to what was lost due to the desertification. If the desertification is not reversed, it will go only deeper into debt, killing what little life is left there via a continued rise in temperature. As such, what is being done to reverse the desertification and restore the biome is most appropriate.
by Taikonerd | 2026-02-12 20:29:29+00:00
This is awful news.

I mean, presumably some future Democratic administration will reinstate the rule. But with this precedent set, this might become a switch that turns on and off every time the political winds change. When Republicans are in power, the US will do nothing at all to fight climate change. When Democrats are in power, they will belatedly try to undo the damage.

And of course there will be knock-on effects from other countries. Why should (for example) Mexico do anything at all to fight global warming, when the US (which is much richer, and a much larger polluter) declines to help?
by buccal | 2026-02-12 20:29:32+00:00
I'm trying paid tier Gemini and it doesn't allow to keep have personal chat history when you disable training on your data, on reload of the page your chat is gone. Even free tier of ChatGPT allows disabling training on your data while allowing to keep such basic functionality.

Some technical advancements are not worth it if you do not respect your users.
by FrankRay78 | 2026-02-12 20:29:54+00:00
I’m seriously not astroturfing, point is serious. Most people here would not be able to tell the difference between good human and good AI generated writing anymore in a blind test, especially a blend of both. So if the reader often can’t tell, why is the source of a well written, interesting piece of writing more important, than the effect of the content itself? I don’t feel the OP made a good argument imho.
by mothballed | 2026-02-12 20:29:55+00:00
I think it's largely supported by the rural/agriculture community. I have zero emissions controls on my diesel engine because it's more reliable out in the middle of nowhere and it lets you fall back to gloriously almost purely mechanical engine without ECU which is easy to work on. For the same reason, the government themselves exempt themselves from emissions controls which is why most the diesel trucks you can buy from government auctions are 'deleted.'
by thewebguyd | 2026-02-12 20:30:01+00:00
The tech behind wave eventually made its way into Google docs though and pioneered collaborative document editing, so wasn't a complete failure even though the product itself was killed.

No comment on Google+, Google has a storied history of failure on any kind of social media/chat type products.

Where Google wins is just simply having enough money to outlive anyone else. As the saying goes "the market can remain irrational longer than you can remain solvent" In this case, Google is the market and they can just keep throwing money at the wall until OpenAI, Anthropic, etc. go under.
by pertymcpert | 2026-02-12 20:30:21+00:00
MCP is fine if your tool definition is small. If it's something like a sub-agent harness which is used very often, then in fact it's probably more context efficient because the tools are already loaded in context and the model doesn't have to spend a few turns deciding to load the skill, thinking about it and then invoking another tool/script to invoke the subagent.
by xvector | 2026-02-12 20:30:28+00:00
I am struggling with this because I have an Anthropic offer vs another equivalent offer that is all cash.

But project out forwards.

- What happens when Google builds a similar model? Or even Meta, as far behind as they are? They have more than Anthropic in cash flow to pour into these models.

- What happens when OSS is "enough" for most cases? Why would anyone pay 60% margins on inference?

What is Anthropic's moat? The UX is nice, but it can be copied. And other companies will have similarly intelligent models eventually. Margins will then be a race to the bottom, and the real winners will be GPU infra.
by movedx | 2026-02-12 20:31:08+00:00
Every Body Corporate Strata in Australia basically goes through something like this at least once a year (by law.) Questions are posed about what to vote on and you either vote for, against, or abstain.

Something like Polis would be good for putting forward ideas throughout the year leading up to the vote, as it would find a consensus of ideas and help shape what you eventually vote on (you decide as a body corporate.)

Some Strata are hundreds of people in size.
by judahmeek | 2026-02-12 20:31:12+00:00
> Unconstrained direct democracy is a populist whirlwind of impulsive reactionary forces.

This is a great point as is the point that the existence of a federal government itself is anti-democratic.

The Senate was initially created as a body that was incentivized to promote federalism itself (especially through their power to approve federal judges) & a federalist republic seems to be the most democratic system because it incentivizes a balance between individual liberty & the ability to restrict someone else's liberty through law.

Right now, the balance of power is too centralized which makes for radical changes every time a different political party takes control of government.
by RichardCA | 2026-02-12 20:31:28+00:00
A lot to unpack here. He espoused a worldview where human beings are "star stuff", a way for the Universe to be self-aware.

And this worldview does not exclude spiritual thinking, it just channels it in a specific direction.

Yes, he said our brains are made from the same matter as everything else, but it does not follow that he espoused any sort of strict materialism.

The truth is more subtle and nuanced than that.

If you are interested in getting inside his head, I recommend reading the Mr. X article.

https://marijuana-uses.com/mr-x/
by thesuitonym | 2026-02-12 20:31:28+00:00
> how can you ignore all of these bounces from a provider thats likeliest to be the major one you are sending to?

This is the major issue that most of the discussion is missing. It doesn't matter how you want to interpret the word SHOULD, if you want to send to google workspace, you MUST include a message-id. It's not like this is some fly-by-night server with 12 clients.

If you absolutely and completely don't want to include the message-id, then you need to have a warning that your service can't be used by Google Workspace customers. This used to be common practice, blocking communication to servers that behaved badly, and I sort of wish we'd bring it back.