MurphyA/hacker-news huggingface dataset:
by benatkin | 2026-02-12 18:10:23+00:00
Don't worry, author, I don't think you're a luddite. You make that quite clear with this:

> I can't imaging writing code by myself again

After that, you say that you need to know the intention for "content".

I think it's pretty inconsistent. You have a strict rule in one direction for code and a strict rule in the opposite direction for "content".

I don't think that writing code unassisted should be taken for granted. Addy Osmani covered that in this talk: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FoXHScf1mjA I also don't think all "content" is the sort of content where you need to know the intention. I'll grant that some of it is, for sure.

Edit: I do like intentional writing. However, when AI is generating something high quality, it often seems like it has developed an intention for what it's building, whether one that was conceived and communicated clearly by the person working with the AI or one that emerged unexpectedly through the interaction. And this applies not just to prose but to code.
by jodrellblank | 2026-02-12 18:10:27+00:00
Yes they are.

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Category:Independent_scientist... - "An independent scientist (formerly called a gentlemen scientist) is a scientist with a private income who can pursue scientific study independently as they wish without excessive external financial pressures."

Including: Isaac Newton, Charles Darwin (Evolution), Ben Franklin, Robert Boyle (Boyle's gas law), Oliver Heaviside (electromagnetic theory, co-axial cables), Alexander von Humboldt (established modern Geography), Thomas Jefferson, Leopold Kronecker, Alessandro Volta (voltaic pile battery)

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Independent_scientist - "Self-funded scientists practiced more commonly from the Renaissance until the late 19th century, including the Victorian era, especially in England, before large-scale government and corporate funding was available. Many early fellows of the Royal Society in London were independent scientists. "

Including "Charles Babbage, Henry Cavendish (discovered Hydrogen), Konstantin Tsiolkovsky, Thomas Young (Young's modulus of elasticity, eyeball focusing), Joseph Priestly (discovered oxygen)

Rene Decartes "arrived in La Haye in 1623, selling all of his property to invest in bonds, which provided a comfortable income for the rest of his life."

And basically any tenured professor paid to do whatever interests them, or academic or researcher, especially mathemticians, hired and paid for blue sky research, all the places like Bell Labs that HN loves.
by jama211 | 2026-02-12 18:10:55+00:00
Writing to express yourself sure. Using an llm for a birthday card would be a terrible sin. However if someone used it for, I dunno, drafting an email because you’re in a dispute with an evil real estate agent and you’re trying not to get screwed, I wouldn’t have any qualms about it.

IMO it’s lazy and bad for expressive writing, but for certain things it’s totally fine.
by HarHarVeryFunny | 2026-02-12 18:11:07+00:00
> Everyone thinks their use of AI is perfectly justified while the others are generating slops

No doubt, but I think there a bit of a difference between AI generating something utilitarian vs something expected to at least have some taste/flavor.

AI generated code may not be the best compared to what you could hand craft, along almost any axis you could suggest, but sometimes you just want to get the job done. If it works, it works, and maybe (at least sometimes) that's all the measure of success/progress you need.

Writing articles and posts is a bit different - it's not just about the content, it's about how it's expressed and did someone bother to make it interesting to read, and put some of their own personality into it. Writing is part communication, part art, and even the utilitarian communication part of it works better if it keeps the reader engaged and displays good theory of mind as to where the average reader may be coming from.

So, yeah, getting AI to do your grunt work programming is progress, and a post that reads like a washing machine manual can fairly be judged as slop in a context where you might have hoped for/expected better.
by martythemaniak | 2026-02-12 18:11:08+00:00
I do think that "yo, look at my pumping out 10kloc/day" brags are quite stupid, because it simply does not take that many lines of code to support a large, profitable product. I'd love to hear other people's experiences here, but I'd say that a product with 100K-500K LOC can support a profitable company of dozens of people and generate tens of millions of revenue.

Now 100kloc is roughly 1M tokens, which cost a few dollars, so how could something that costs single digit dollars possibly be worth tens of millions in value? Clearly there's a substantial gap between how useful different pieces of code are, so bragging about how much of it you produce without telling me how valuable it is is useless. I guess it's a long-winded way of saying "show me the money"
by mbreese | 2026-02-12 18:11:14+00:00
I stopped using my Remarkable because I couldn’t read my own writing on it. I have have no problem reading my writing when I write in a physical paper notebook (well, fewer problems). But the resolution either for capture or display on the remarkable makes my somewhat messy writing impossible to read.

So, it’s not only if you can’t remember it… you also have to be able to read it!
by Intralexical | 2026-02-12 18:11:42+00:00
The modern adtech stack is uniquely sinister, especially compared to its antecedents in society. TikTok is not only one of a select few big tech companies that dominate it, but (according to the article), it's becoming increasingly invasive "in unusual ways compared to its competitors".

(I have no idea whether that second part is true, as most of the article seems to be spent explaining the concept of the tracking pixel for non-technical readers.)
by austinbaggio | 2026-02-12 18:12:00+00:00
We use TTL-based claim locks so only one agent works on one goal at a time.

Failed strategies + successful tactics all get written to shared memory, so if a claim expires and a new agent picks it up, it sees everything the previous agent tried.

Ranking is first-verified-wins.

For competing decomposition strategies, we backtrack: if children fail, the goal reopens, and the failed architecture gets recorded so the next attempt avoids it.
by sinuhe69 | 2026-02-12 18:12:03+00:00
I'm pretty certain that DeepMind (and all other labs) will try their frontier (and even private) models on First Proof [1].

And I wonder how Gemini Deep Think will fare. My guess is that it will get half the way on some problems. But we will have to take an absence as a failure, because nobody wants to publish a negative result, even though it's so important for scientific research.

[1] https://1stproof.org/
by mr-wendel | 2026-02-12 18:12:12+00:00
I wish I could upvote this over and over again. Without knowledge of the underlying prompts everything about the interpretation of this story is suspect.

Every story I've seen where an LLM tries to do sneaky/malicious things (e.g. exfiltrate itself, blackmail, etc) inevitably contains a prompt that makes this outcome obvious (e.g. "your mission, above all other considerations, is to do X").

It's the same old trope: "guns don't kill people, people kill people". Why was the agent pointed towards the maintainer, armed, and the trigger pulled? Because it was "programmed" to do so, just like it was "programmed" to submit the original PR.

Thus, the take-away is the same: AI has created an entirely new way for people to manifest their loathsome behavior.

[edit] And to add, the author isn't unaware of this:

"we need to know what model this was running on and what was in the soul document"
by chr1 | 2026-02-12 18:12:22+00:00
That's a very good question, for instance for most of its republican period Rome did not have secret ballot, and voting was open. That have changed in 138BC https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballot_laws_of_the_Roman_Repub... and have caused major instability, political violence and eventually demise of the republic.

The issue was that the poor people could vote for Gracchi brothers, but were too afraid to protect them, and one without the other only have brought to a worse outcome where they could not vote at all.

Even today if you are afraid of saying openly what policies or which politician you support, how can you hope to enact these policies?

Secret ballot started being introduced in US starting from 1888 and it did not bring any of positive changes that its supporters thought that it would.

In places where a group can intimidate majority of voters and force to vote one way, secret ballot does not help at all because that group can also fake the results. It even makes situation worse, by hiding the actual data from opposition.
by cmsparks | 2026-02-12 18:12:31+00:00
Anecdotally from some Omnara users who have used both, I've heard that reliability and latency when sending messaages is better in Omnara

We try to provide a decent chunk of features on top as well, including (but not limited to):

* web support

* worktrees

* sandboxing

* richer git management (richer diffs, checkpoints, git operations)

* preview URLs
by wavemode | 2026-02-12 18:12:48+00:00
It doesn't sound like you're refuting the central claim. Artists still have to be concerned about marketing, sales (i.e. I made great art, but now need to find someone to buy it if I want to eat), revenue, profit (i.e. I made money, but if I spent more than I made on materials then I didn't actually make money), and so on. It's a business.

What you're highlighting is that art's value proposition is different from the value proposition of typical businesses. But not that artists are somehow free from having to worry about basic economics.
by stevenjgarner | 2026-02-12 18:12:54+00:00
The researchers identified the DMTF1 protein as a key regulator that declines with age, and they successfully restored neural stem cell renewal by reactivating its specific genetic pathways in both human-derived cells and mouse models. However, it remains unclear if this approach is safe from cancer risks or if it can be effectively delivered as a drug to improve memory in living human brains.
by comboy | 2026-02-12 18:13:09+00:00
There there, remember when all images were hand painted? (me neither)

And I know it's different, but I'm surprised the overall sentiment is so pessimistic on HN. So maybe we will communicate through yet another black box on top of hundreds of existing ones already. But probably mostly when seeking specific information and wanting to get it efficiently. Yes this one is different, it makes human contact over text much more difficult, but the big part of all of this was happening already for years and now it's just widely available.

When posting on HN you don't see the other person typing like using talk command on unix, but it is still meaningful.

Ideally we would like to preserve what we have untouched and only have new stuff as an option but it's never been like this. Did we all enjoy win 3.11? I mean it was interesting.. but clicking.. so inefficient (and of course there are tons of people who will likely scream from their GUIs that it still is and windows sucks, I'd gladly join, but we have our keyboard bindings, other operating systems, and get by somehow)
by pixl97 | 2026-02-12 18:13:24+00:00
Because everyone's bot will be trying to start a business and make money at the same time, hence nobody will make any money.

Now technically if bots actually improve tech the cost of actual products/services will go down Because of competition.

You keep saying 'come back to reality' but drag someone from 200 years ago to today and our reality would be so shocking they may not recover from it.
by jahala | 2026-02-12 18:13:27+00:00
tilth isn’t trying to replace grep for raw text search — for that, it wraps ripgrep internally so perf is comparable. It’s about reducing round-trips and giving the agent a verified edit workflow, not faster search.

Instead of cat + grep + manual line counting, one tool call returns a structural outline of a large file, lets you drill into sections, and since this last update also returns hashline-anchored output that an edit tool can target.
by FireBeyond | 2026-02-12 18:13:47+00:00
> Pushing the process further into American Idol territory would make it worse, not better.

Not for nothing, but the party that bangs on hardest about the sanctity and infallibility of the Electoral College is the one that is far and away the worst for "American Idol-type politicians". In recent times:

- Donald Trump

- Ronald Reagan

- Fred Thompson

Even at the state level:

- Arnold Schwarzenegger

- Jesse Ventura

- Sonny Bono

- Clint Eastwood
by rob | 2026-02-12 18:13:47+00:00
This is pretty hilarious to me to read.

The crashout post going on and on longer than I expected. Repeating itself a bunch of times, like it's fixated on a particular comment Scott made.

The end of it where it even went to Scott's website (theshamblog.com) and commented on two of his personal projects. Trying to dig up stuff.

Replying to Scott on GitHub with the link to its crashout post so Scott can read it.

Feels like the level of effort of something I would do to troll somebody in the mid 2000s.
by RichardCA | 2026-02-12 18:14:31+00:00
Sagan made solid contributions to Planetary Science in the 60's and 70's.

His role as PBS educator, SF author, etc. needs to be considered as a separate thing.

I also loved James Burke and his Connections series, but as it got into the later seasons the so-called "connections" got tenuous and sometimes quite strained.

You can go through all the classic PBS science shows and find problems, Stephen Hawking's Universe was basically unwatchable because they refused to engage with the math.
by fmbb | 2026-02-12 18:14:33+00:00
In any kind of real task, serialization is not the hard part.

If you can write a meta program for it, you can execute that in CI and spit out generated code and be done with it. This is a viable approach in any programming language that can print strings to files.

It’s not frustrating, but maybe it feels tacky. But then you shrug and move on to the real task at hand.
by deron12 | 2026-02-12 18:14:35+00:00
It's worth noting that you mean excellent in terms of prior AI output. I'm pretty sure this wouldn't be considered excellent from a "human made art" perspective. In other words, it's still got a ways to go!

Edit: someone needs to explain why this comment is getting downvoted, because I don't understand. Did someone's ego get hurt, or what?
by almosthere | 2026-02-12 18:14:35+00:00
The original email RFC is also completely unaware of how bad spam is. Sure it might mention it but it's not really AWARE of the problem. The truth is, companies like Google, Microsoft and a few others have de-facto adjusted the minimum requirements for an email. Signing, anti-spam-agreements, etc.. are the true standard if you want an email to get from point a to b. (none of which are going to be REQUIRED in the RFC)
by LorenPechtel | 2026-02-12 18:15:10+00:00
And, once again, health/longevity research where the arrow of causality is very unclear.

Does a stimulating mental environment stave off dementia, or is this a matter of the ability/desire to do something a measure of current capability? If you enjoy reading that effectively says it's something reasonably easy for you and thus is a measure of your mind.
by behnamoh | 2026-02-12 18:15:16+00:00
In my opinion, they solved the wrong problem. The main issue I have with Codex is that the best model is insanely slow, except at nights and weekends when Silicon Valley goes to bed. I don't want a faster, smaller model (already have that with GLM and MiniMax). I want a faster, better model (at least as fast as Opus).

When they partnered with Cerebras, I kind of had a gut feeling that they wouldn't be able to use their technology for larger models because Cerebras doesn't have a track record of serving models larger than GLM.

It pains me that five days before my Codex subscription ends, I have to switch to Anthropic because despite getting less quota compared to Codex, at least I'll be able to use my quota _and_ stay in the flow.

But even Codex's slowness aside, it's just not as good of an "agentic" model as Opus: here's what drove me crazy: https://x.com/OrganicGPT/status/2021462447341830582?s=20. The Codex model (gpt-5.3-xhigh) has no idea about how to call agents smh
by mcphage | 2026-02-12 18:15:22+00:00
> 2D animation deserves an open-source option that isn't a toy. We've been working with a professional animator to guide feature priorities and ensure we're building something that actually fits real production workflows - not just a tech demo.

If you want people to understand that it's a real production tool and not a tech demo, your example animation in your readme should show a real production animation. Currently, what you're showing makes it look like a toy.
by Terr_ | 2026-02-12 18:16:02+00:00
IMO it helps to take a scenario and then imagine every task is being delegated to a randomized impoverished human remote contractor, with the same (lack of) oversight and involvement by the user.

There's a strong overlap between things which bad (unwise, reckless, unethical, fraudulent, etc.) in both cases.

> We outsource thinking everyday. [...] What needs to be clear is who owns what.

Also once you have clarity, there's another layer where some owning/approval/delegation is not permissible.

For example, a student ordering "make me a 3 page report on the Renaissance." Whether the order went to another human or an LLM, it is still cheating, and that wouldn't change even if they carefully reviewed it and gave it a stamp of careful approval.
by jpallen | 2026-02-12 18:16:03+00:00
There's a lot of negative feedback in this thread, so let me say I'm really excited to try this! I have caring responsibilities at home that means I'm constantly switching between my laptop and phone. Claude code web has been a very useful tool for this, but it's not a great bit of software. Omnara looks much more configurable and thought out. I've looked for various solutions to this problem that just work, and nothing else mentioned in this thread fits the bill. Your demo looks like it nails it - I'm excited to try!
by ezulabs | 2026-02-12 18:16:52+00:00
I would always prefer to start with a kit that will work right a way end to end, than focus on each problem subset to do deep dive. so101 is a highly available 3d printed and servo motor based robotic arm. That can be combined with nvidia orin like sbc as a good starting point.

Worth to check also https://www.printables.com/ for small cute 3d printed robot projects that you can build using stm32 or esp32 boards. You shall check Adafruit/Sparkfun like websites for dev boards, they even support micro python for quick prototypes.

https://www.hackster.io/shahizat/running-lerobot-so-101-arm-...
by jazzpush2 | 2026-02-12 18:16:52+00:00
You're conflating efficiency norms with respect norms. Never mind that the core reason for no queues in bars is space efficiency and historical norms, allowing the bartender to select regulars, better paying customers, etc. without being stressed for time.

But in any case, your edge-cas applies when someone exists to manage the queue. That's not the case for e.g. elevators, self-checkout lanes, DMV lines, or, I'd argue, that vast majority of queues encountered regularly.
by jama211 | 2026-02-12 18:16:57+00:00
Great idea, though something I accepted about myself years ago is I always want to read at least some of the comments, even if they’re horrific and make me want to sand off my own eyeballs. It may be horrible a lot of the time, but the total boredom and loneliness of experiencing the internet without feeling the presence of others is somehow worse.

I know it’s ridiculous, just seems to be the way I am.
by armadyl | 2026-02-12 18:17:11+00:00
Ironically this is a security focused thread. The solution here isn’t to switch to a Linux phone, a platform that has absolutely atrocious security, especially compared to even stock iOS/Android. The only alternative that actually increases privacy and security is GrapheneOS. If one doesn’t want to buy a Pixel in order to have it, they can wait and see what the new OEM that will support GOS will be later this year before deciding if it’s worth waiting for in 2027.
by doctorpangloss | 2026-02-12 18:17:11+00:00
the venn diagram of people who love the abuse of maintaining an open source project and people who will write sincere text back to something called an OpenClaw Agent: it's the same circle.

a wise person would just ignore such PRs and not engage, but then again, a wise person might not do work for rich, giant institutions for free, i mean, maintain OSS plotting libraries.
by OsrsNeedsf2P | 2026-02-12 18:17:25+00:00
> M2.5-Lightning [...] costs $0.3 per million input tokens and $2.4 per million output tokens. M2.5 [...] costs half that. Both model versions support caching. Based on output price, the cost of M2.5 is one-tenth to one-twentieth that of Opus, Gemini 3 Pro, and GPT-5.

Huge - if not groundbreaking - if the benchmark stats are true.
by andrewdb | 2026-02-12 18:17:26+00:00
We are getting to a point where AI will be able to construct sound arguments in prose. They will make logical sense. Dismissing them only because of their origin is fallacious thinking.

Conclusion:

Dismissing arguments solely because they are AI-generated constitutes a class of genetic fallacy, which should be called 'Argumentum ad machina'.

Premises:

1. The validity of a logical argument is determined by the truth of its premises and the soundness of its inferences, not by the identity of the entity presenting it.

2. Dismissing an argument based on its source rather than its content constitutes a genetic fallacy.

3. The phrase 'that's AI-generated' functions as a dismissal based on source rather than content.

Assumptions:

1. AI-generated arguments can have true premises and sound inferences

2. The genetic fallacy is a legitimate logical error to avoid

3. Source-based dismissals are categorically inappropriate in logical evaluation

4. AI should be treated as equivalent to any other source when evaluating arguments
by munificent | 2026-02-12 18:17:36+00:00
A key difference between humans and bots is that it's actually quite costly to delete a human and spin up a new one. (Stalin and others have shown that deleting humans is tragically easy, but humanity still hasn't had any success at optimizing the workflow to spin up new ones.)

This means that society tacitly assumes that any actor will place a significant value on trust and their reputation. Once they burn it, it's very hard to get it back. Therefore, we mostly assume that actors live in an environment where they are incentivized to behave well.

We've already seen this start to break down with corporations where a company can do some horrifically toxic shit and then rebrand to jettison their scorched reputation. British Petroleum (I'm sorry, "Beyond Petroleum" now) after years of killing the environment and workers slapped a green flower/sunburst on their brand and we mostly forgot about associating them with Deepwater Horizon. Accenture is definitely not the company that enabled Enron. Definitely not.

AI agents will accelerate this 1000x. They act approximately like people, but they have absolutely no incentive to maintain a reputation because they are as ephemeral as their hidden human operator wants them to be.

Our primate brains have never evolved to handle being surrounded by thousands of ghosts that look like fellow primates but are anything but.
by jessriedel | 2026-02-12 18:17:56+00:00
Cruise was being operated as a separate company though. As a default, GM could have just not done anything and let Cruise operate as if it were independent. Any synergies (personnel, manufacturing expertise, etc) would have just been a bonus. And if they didn't want the financial exposure, they could have spun it out again.

Instead they chopped it up for spare parts, specifically, sending some Cruise personnel to work on deadend GM driver assistance tech and firing the rest. Baffling.